Cause Title - Judgement-Entry

2/22/24, 11:30 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP

C-1 Vikrant Khand 1 (Near Shaheed Path), Gomti Nagar Lucknow-226010
Complaint Case No. CC/21/2022

( Date of Filing : 24 Feb 2022 )
1. Meenu Khare And Another

D/o Suman Srivastava R/o 201 Mahaveer Apartment 36 Cantt
Road Lucknow ...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. I.C.I.C.I Bank & Others
Shalimar Tower 31/54 Mahatma Gandhi Marg Sushanpura
Nagar Nigam Market Hajratganj Lucknow ............Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR PRESIDENT
HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena JUDICIAL MEMBER
PRESENT:
Dated : 06 Jul 2023

Final Order / Judgement
RESERVED
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW
COMPLAINT NO. 21 OF 2022
1. Meenu Khare, D/o Suman Srivastava
R/o 201, Mahaveer Apartment
36, Cantt Road, Lucknow.
2. Suman Srivastava, W/o Late N B Khare
R/o 201, Mahaveer Apartment
36, Cantt Road, Lucknow.
...Complainants
Vs.
1. ICICI Bank Limited

about:blank 1/22
Shalimar Tower
31/54 Mahatma Gandhi Marg
Sushantpura, Nagar Nigam Market
Hazratganj, Lucknow.
Through its Branch Manager
2. ICICI Bank Limited
ICICI Bank Tower
Bandra – Kurla Complex
Mumbai-400051
Through its Managing Director.
3. Investigating Officer
FIR No. 0125/2021
P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow.
...Opposite Parties
BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT
HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Sri Muzeeb Effendi, Advocate.
Meenu Khare, complainant in person.
For the Opposite Party/Bank : Smt. Suchita Singh, Advocate.
For the Opposite Party No.03 : None appeared.
Dated : 25-07-2023
JUDGMENT
MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

about:blank 2/22
The instant complaint has been filed under Section-47(i) & (ii) of the Consumer
Protection Act 2019 by Meenu Khare and Smt. Suman Srivastava against the opposite
parties ICICI Bank Limited and another with the following prayers:-
:2:
1. That this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be gracious to direct the ICICI Bank to reverse
the banking loan of Rs.7,00,000/- as deposited illegally by the ICICI Bank in the banking
account of complainants without permission and knowledge.
2. That this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to order the ICICI Bank to reverse
all the charges, instalments and other fee as charged by the ICICI Bank from the
complainants. Further this Hon’ble Commission also be pleased to declare contract of
loan as illegal and Unfair Contract which puts the complainants to disadvantage and to
unreasonable charge, obligations or conditions.
3. That the ICICI Bank may kindly be directed to recover the illegally withdrawn money from
the imposter to whom the bank officials transferred funds without the knowledge of
complainant.
4. That this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to order the opposite parties to pay
to the complainants a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension
and agony as inflicted by the negligent act of opposite parties and also on account of
Unfair Contract.
5. That this Hon’ble Commission may kindly be pleased to direct the opposite parties to pay
to the complainants a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of cost of suit and other
miscellaneous expenses.
6. That any other relief deemed fit and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the
case may also be awarded to the complainants against the opposite parties.”
Facts of the case stated in brief are that the complainant No.01 hold a saving bank
account No. SB-628101501043 at Hazratganj Branch of ICICI Bank, Lucknow and it
was linked to Mobile No. 9415390900 which was used by the complainant and her 80
years old mother. The complainant No.2 is the mother of complainant No.01. The said
account is in joint name of both the complainants. The mode
of operation of the said account is “either or survivor”.
1.
On 21-06-2021 some imposter ranged up on complainant’s mobile and requested to

provide OTP for updation of KYC in the bank account. The complainant No.1
inadvertently left her mobile at home and her old mother picked up the mobile call of
imposter and provided the OTP which she received through the message. As soon as
the OTP was provided to imposter the complainant received SMS on mobile alerting
deduction of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/- from the bank account of the
complainants. Before this illegal withdrawal of money the complainants had in their
account balance of Rs.1,02,551/-. The complainants were shocked to receive message
of withdrawal of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/- which amount stand more than the
available balance in the account. The complainant no.1 immediately called up the
customer care of bank on 21-06-2021 and besides this the complainants also sent SMS
to ICICI bankrequesting the bank for blocking of account and payment.
about:blank 3/22
It has been stated by the complainants in their complaint that in response to the SMS
the complainants duly got acknowledgement of bank.The complainant was informed
by bank officials that before illegal transfer of money, the bank had sanctioned and
disbursed a personal loan of Rs.7,00,000/- in the saving bank account of complainants
and out of the said bank loan a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- stood illegally transferred. The
complainants expressed their deep anguish on unauthorized disbursal of loan and
further illegal withdrawal of money by imposter in connivance with bank employee.
The complainant never sought personal loan from the opposite parties at any point of
time nor applied for personal loan or signed any loan document. Besides this the
complainant never gave any document to the bank for processing loan.
It has been further alleged by the complainants in their complaint that the complainant
through SMS blocked her account at 5.37 p.m. on 21-06-2021 and received the
acknowledgement at 5.38 PM but regretfully despite that the bank transferred a sum of
Rs.1,98,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- at 6:01:44 PM on the same day i.e. money transferred
even after blocking of bank account. Upon enquiry from the bank the employees of the
bank furnished to the complainants
1.
the documents of personal loan agreement and on perusal of which following shocking
facts came to light which process prima facie connivance of the bank employees with
the imposter.
It has been stated by the complainants in their complaint that the opposite parties no. 1
and 2 in utter disregard to their own conditions without acceptance of provisional
approval and without submission and verification of income proof, KYC and other
required documents the opposite parties with ulterior motive sanctioned and disbursed
personal loan forcefully.
In the complaint the complainants have stated that under the heading ‘Disclaimer’ in
the email dated 21-06-2021 it is mentioned that “the customer is eligible for the above
mentioned loan amount and tenure if the customer does not have any other existing
housing loan with ICICI bank or any other banker financial institution.” In this respect
the complainant at that time had already running a housing loan with the ICICI Bank
and EMI for said loan used to get cleared through ECS from the same banking
account.
The complainant after knowing all the details duly lodged an FIR at P.S. Kaiserbagh
Lucknow regarding illegal sanction of loan and illegal withdrawal of amount from her
banking account. Till date the investigating officer did nothing and the matter is lying
in cold storage. The complainant also lodged written representations to the opposite
parties but without conducting any enquiry the opposite parties closed the matter.
The complainant also alleged in her complaint that as per the prevalent norms under
internet banking, funds cannot be transferred to third party unless and until third party
is registered or added in the banking account of complainant for the transfer of funds.
Besides this funds can be transferred only after 6 hours after the registration. The
entire sequence of events show deep connivance of employees of opposite parties with
about:blank 4/22
the imposter. The entire money is illegally transferred from the banking account of
complainant to the banking account of third party through IMPS and NEFT. The
opposite parties despite knowing fraudulent transfer of money from the banking
1.
account of complainant had miserably failed to take up the matter with bank in which
the funds were transferred in the banking account of imposter. The deafening silence
of banking officials of opposite parties in this respect speaks volume about the
connivance of banking officials of ICICI Bank. Now the employees of opposite parties
are threatening the complainant to either pay the entire loan else recovery proceedings
be initiated against the complainant.
It has been further stated by the complainant in her complaint that on 25-08-2021 the
opposite parties in pursuance of recovery of loan had deducted, without permission
from the banking account of complainant, a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on account of
recovery of loan.
The complainants have filed the affidavit in support of the complaint alongwith the
following annexures.
1. Annexure-1 – Copy of the printout of alert message of online payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.

2. Annexure-2 – Copy of the printout of alert message of online payment of Rs.1,98,000/-.
3. Annexure-3 – Copy of the printout of SMS message requesting the bank for blocking of
account and payment.
4. Annexure-4 – Copy of the printout of SMS acknowledging initiation of blocking of
account.
5. Annexue-5 – Copy of the printout of SMS message as received from ICICI Bank.
6. Annexure-6 – Copy of the documents of personal loan agreement as furnished by the bank.
7. Annexure-7 – Copy of the email dated 21-06-2021 received from ICICI Bank.
8. Annexure-8 & 9 – Copy of the housing loan letter alongwith ECS deduction as depicted in
pass book.
9. Annexure-10 – Copy of an FIR.
10. Annexure-11 – Copy of reply of ICICI Bank regarding closure of enquiry.
11. Annexure-12 – Copy of SMS received from the ICICI Bank.
12. Annexure-13 – Copy of mail as written by the complainant.
:6:
The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited has filed the written statement against the
complaint and denied the allegations made by the complainants in their complaint.
It has been stated by the opposite party in its written statement that the complainants
seems to be defrauded by unknown person by sharing their confidential information on
the phone call. The complainants have admitted in the complaint that they had received a
phone call on the pretext of KYC updation in her account and believing the call to be
genuine, complainant no.2 who is also a joint account holder in the saving account,
revealed confidential credentials of the account, resulting in the alleged fraud. As such
about:blank 5/22
complainants are responsible for their own mistakes and misusing the process of law to
cover up their alleged loss.
It has been further stated by the opposite party in its written statement that as per records
available with Bank the complainants have availed personal loan vide Loan Number
LPLUC for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opposite parties through the mode of
Internet banking. The said transaction was also duly verified through an OTP sent to the
registered mobile umber of the complainant. On verification of aforesaid credentials, the
loan got disbursed in the complainant’s savings account and also Email alert regarding
the disbursement of loan of Rs.7,00,000/- in the saving account of the complainant was
also sent to the complainant on 21-06-2021 at 5.21 PM at their registered email id.
Thereafter on the same day at 5.23 PM an online payment of Rs.2,00,000/- and at 5.25
PM another online payment of Rs.1,98,000/- was done from the account of the
complainant. The aforesaid two transactions were done through NEFT and IMPS.
For online transactions through aforesaid methods, login ID, password and One-Time
Password (OTP) are mandatory requirements. The complainants had already admitted in
the complaint that OTP was provided by the complainant to an imposter and during
interaction with bank’s investigation officials, complainant no.2 had confirmed to have
received a call on the pretext of KYC update in her account, who is a joint account holder
she had shared her PAN Card number, USER ID, OTP alongwith grid value from debit
card, to the fraudster, post which
:7:
debit transactions happened from her account and a loan was also obtained in her account
using Internet banking and GCA.
There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

parties and in fact the opposite parties have provided most efficient and diligent services
to the complainants although the said services are not involved in the matter in dispute.
Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as against the opposite parties. The
complaint case is not maintainable before this Commission as the value of services
involved in the matter is of Rs.7,00,000/- which is beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of
this Hon’ble Commission and liable to be dismissed on this ground only.
It has further been stated in the written statement that the complaint case is
also not maintainable before this Commission for unfair contract with complainant as
none of the elements of unfair contract as defined under Section 2(46) of The Consumer
Protection Act, 2019 are either present nor the same has been established in the complaint
case. The complaint is misconceived and baseless and is devoid of merits, consequently
is liable to be rejected with costs and the complainants are not entitled for any of the
relief.
In support of the written statement the opposite parties have filed the
following documents as annexures.
1. Annexure No.01 – Photocopy of print out details of all the alert messages sent by the bank
on the registered mobile number of complainant no.1.
about:blank 6/22
2. Annexure No.02 – Photocopy of account statement of complainants.

3. Annexure No.03 – RBI circular dated 06-12-2019 on NEFT transactions.
4. Annexure No. 04 – Photocopy of RBI Guidelines.
The complainants have filed the evidence on affidavit and we have also perused the
evidence.
We have heard Sri Muzeeb Effendi, learned Counsel for the complainants and Smt.
Suchita Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party ICICI Bank as well as complainant
Meenu Khare, who is present in person and perused the entire records very carefully.
:8:
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant no.1 that some imposter in
collusion with the employees of the bank called up between 5 PM to 5.30 PM on
complainant’s mobile and requested to provide OTP for updation of KYV in the bank
account. On that day the complainant no.1 inadvertently left her mobile at home. The
mother of the complainant, who is 80 years of age picked up the mobile call of imposter
and provided the OTP which was received through message. The complainant received
SMS on mobile alerting deductions of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/- from her account
just after providing the OTP to imposter. A sum of Rs.1,02,551/- was the balance amount
in her account just before the illegal withdrawal of the aforesaid two transactions. The
texts of the two alter messages received by the complainant are as under :-
“customercare@iciciba.... 5:23 PM
Dear Customer
You have made an online payment of INR 200000.0 towards SRIVASTAVA from your
Account XX043 on Jan, 21 2021 at 17:23 hours. The Transaction ID is 117217853562.
In case you have not done the transaction, to report it please call on 18002662 or SMS
BLOCK 043 to 9215676766 from your registered mobile number................ICICI Bank
Privilege Banking.”
“customercare@iciciba.... 5:25 PM
Dear Customer
You have made an online payment of INR 198000.0 towards SUMAN from your Account
XX043 on Jan, 21 2021 at 17:25 hours. The Transaction ID is 0141675240.
In case you have not done the transaction, to report it please call on 18002662 or SMS
BLOCK 043 to 9215676766 from your registered mobile number................ICICI Bank
Privilege Banking.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the complainants that as soon as the
complainants got the knowledge of illegal withdrawal, the complainant no.1 immediately
about:blank 7/22
called up the customer care of the ICICI Bank at sharp 5:30 PM on 21-06-2021 and also
sent SMS to ICICI Bank at sharp 5:37 PM on 21-06-2021 requesting
:9:
the bank for blocking of account and payment. The Text message for blocking the account
is as follows:-
“Text Message
Mon, 21 Jun, 5:37 PM
Block 043
043
Block 043”
Learned Counsel for the complainants has submitted that in response to the SMS for
blocking the banking account, the complainants duly got acknowledgement of bank at
5.38 PM on 21-06-2021 by SMS. The text of the SMS received from the bank is as
follows:-
“Mon, 21 Jun, 5:38 PM
Dear Customer, Your request for Blocking the account has been initiated. We will call you
back from 040-71404300 within 30 minutes.”
Even after sending the SMS message for blocking of the account by the complainant at
5:37 PM and the acknowledge has been sent by the bank to the complainant at 5:38 PM,
the bank employee in collusion with the imposter has illegally transferred Rs.2,00,000/-
and Rs.1,98,000/- at 06:01:44 PM.
Thereafter the complainant contacted on Customer Care Number and it was informed by
bank officials that before illegal transfer of money, the bank had sanctioned and disbursed
a personal loan of Rs.7,00,000/- in the saving bank account of complainants and out of
said bank loan a sum of Rs.3,98,000/- stood illegally transferred.
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the complainant has
never sought personal loan from the opposite parties at any point of time. The
complainant has neither enquired about personal loan nor applied for loan or signed any
loan document. Besides this the complainant has never given any document to the bank
for processing personal loan.
It has been stated by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the bank employees in
collusion with the imposter illegally withdrawn the money from the account of the
complainant.
about:blank 8/22
:10:
The complainant upon further enquiry from the bank the employees of the bank furnished
the documents of ‘Personal Loan Agreement’ to the complainant and on perusal of which
following facts came to light which proves prima facie connivance of bank employees
with the imposter.
1. The entire personal loan application form and credit facility application form and other
documents contained no signature of the complainants.
2. Most of the columns and fields of loan application form and credit facility application form
are left blank whereas at the top of the application form it is clearly mentioned ‘all fields
are mandatory’.
3. The loan application form and credit facility application form is attached with ‘Smart
Banking’ 9 tips, under which the opposite parties have warned customer not to sign on any
blank loan document/form but in utter disregard to this fact the employees of opposite
parties approved, sanctioned and disbursed personal loan on the basis of 80% blank and
unfilled loan application.
4. In an email dated 21-06-2021 vide which the bank has provided loan details and it has been
mentioned under ‘Disclaimer’ heading as follows:-
“DISCLAIMER” Please note that this is provisional approval only and should
not be construed as loan sanction. This approval is solely based on income and
personal details declared by you in the application form and is subject to
submission and verification of our income proof, know you customer (KYC)
and other required documents followed by your acceptance of the final terms
and conditions as prescribed by ICICI Bank.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the opposite parties/bank that the
opposite parties in utter disregard to their own conditions without acceptance of
provisional approval and without submission and verification of income proof,
KYC and other required documents the opposite parties
:11:
with ulterior motive sanctioned and disbursed personal loan forcefully.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the complainants that under
the heading ‘Disclaimer’ in the email dated 21-06-2021 it is also mentioned as
follows:-
“the customer is eligible for the above mentioned loan amount and tenure if the
customer does not have any other existing housing loan with ICICI bank or any
other banker financial institution.”
In this respect the complainant at that time had already running a housing loan with
the ICICI bank and EMI for said loan used to get cleared through ECS from the
same banking account.
Thereafter the complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow regarding

illegal sanction of loan and illegal withdrawal of amount from her banking account.
about:blank 9/22
Till date the investigating officer did nothing and the matter is lying in the cold
storage.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainants that the
complainant has also lodged written representations to the opposite parties for
conducting enquiry against the officials of the bank but the opposite parties without
conducting any enquiry just closed the matter on following ground:-
“We were unable to connect with you for additional details. Call 18002662 to re-
register this dispute.”
Learned Counsel for the complainants has further contended that as per the
prevalent norms under internet banking, funds cannot be transferred to third party
unless and until third party is registered or added in the banking account of
complainant for the transfer of funds. Besides this funds can be transferred only
after 6 hours after the registration. In this respect how some third party gained
access to the banking account of the complainant for the transfer of funds. The
entire sequence of events show deep connivance of employees of opposite party
with the imposter.
:12:
It has been argued by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the entire
money is illegally transferred from the banking account of the complainant to the
banking account of third party through IMPS and NEFT. The opposite parties
despite knowing fraudulent transfer of money from the banking account of
complainant had miserably failed to take up the matter with the bank in which the
funds were transferred in the banking account of imposter. The deafening silence of
banking officials of opposite parties in this respect speaks volume about the
connivance of banking officials of ICICI Bank. The employees of the opposite
parties are threatening the complainant to either pay the entire loan else recovery
proceedings be initiated against the complainant. Besides this the opposite parties
are also threatening to ruin the CIBIL record of complainant forever in which
eventuality the complainant shall never be entitled to any credit from any bank in
future.
It has been contended by the learned Counsel for the complainants that on 25-08-
2021 the opposite parties in pursuance of recovery of loan had deducted without
permission from the banking account of complainant a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- on
account of recovery of loan. In this respect the complainant on 03-10-2021 had
written a mail but that mail too failed to elicit any response from the opposite
parties.
It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the complainant that the
opposite parties have entered in unfair contract with the complainant thereby
imposing on the consumer unreasonable charge, obligation and conditions which
puts consumer to disadvantage. The opposite parties have entered into unfair
agreement which causes significant change in the right of consumer. The approval,
sanction and disbursal of loan without the knowledge, consent and permission of
complainants has put the complainants to unreasonable charge, obligation and
about:blank 10/22
conditions. It seems the employees of the opposite parties in connivance with

imposter have weaved entire sequence of illegal withdrawal and sanction of loan
with which the complainants has
:13:
nothing to do with. It is the duty of the ICICI Bank to keep the privacy and safety
of account data but leakage of details of account to some imposter and third party,
clearly show the negligence attitude of opposite parties bank against its customers.
Learned Counsel for the opposite party ICICI Bank has argued that the
complainants seems to be defrauded by unknown person by sharing their
confidential information on the phone call. As such the complainants are
responsible for their own mistakes and misusing the process of law to cover up
their alleged loss.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that
as per the records available with Bank the complainants have availed personal loan
for an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- from the opposite party through the mode of
internet banking.
We are not convinced with this argument of the learned Counsel for the
opposite party bank. The complainant has never sought personal loan from the
opposite party bank at any point of time. Neither the complainants ever enquired
about personal loan nor applied for loan nor signed any loan documents. The
complainants have never given any documents to the bank for processing loan. The
documents furnished by the bank prima facie proves that the personal loan has
been processed by the bank employees in collusion with the imposter without
knowledge of the complainants. The personal loan application form and credit
facility application form shows that there is no signature of the complainants.
The E-mail message dated 21-06-2021 sent by the bank to the complainant
clearly indicates that the Customer is eligible for the above mentioned loan amount
and tenure only if the Customer does not have any other existing housing loan with
ICICI Bank, or any other bank or financial institution. In this regard the
complainant has confirmed that she had already availed housing loan from the
opposite party and still she is paying the EMI of housing loan then why the bank
has ignored this very important
:14:
fact and sanctioned the personal loan to the complainant ignoring the housing loan
is running in the name of the complainant.
It is argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that after receipt of
complaint by the complainant on 21-06-2022 and on 22-06-2022 detail
investigation was done by the opposite party and as per the investigation done by
the bank, internet banking user ID was revealed by customer with imposter and
internet banking password was generated. Debit transaction of Rs.2,00,000/- was
about:blank 11/22
made at 5.23 PM and another debit transaction of Rs.1,98,000/- was made at 5.25
PM.
We are not convinced with this argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite
party that the complainant has made the above two transaction by using internet
banking.
On perusal of the documents available on record Annexure-1 we find that

Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred in the account of SRIVASTAVA ON 21-06-2021
at 17.23 hours. Further the documents available on record Annexure-2 shows that
Rs.1,98,000/- has been transferred in the account of SUMAN on 21-06-2021 at
17.25 hours.
The name of the complainant no.2 is SUMAN SRIVASTAVA and the money has
been deposited in the account of SRIVASTAVA AND SUMAN. It can be well
established that the bank employees in collusion with the imposer had fraudulently
opened two accounts in the bank in the name of SRIVASTAVA and SUMAN using
documents of Suman Srivastava, complainant no.2. It cannot be ignored that the
employees of the bank in collusion with the imposter manage to create the
Beneficiary account in the name of SRIVASTAVA and SUMAN with the account
of complainants and generated fake OTP to transfer the money from the account of
the complainants to the accounts of SRIVASTAVA and SUMAN.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party that after
lodging of complaint by the complainant with the bank, detailed investigation was
done by the opposite party and after thorough investigation the opposite party
:15:
concluded that admittedly the complainant shared the user id, password and OTP
alters which are confidential details and in such situation bank is not liable to
compensate the customer.
We are not convinced with this argument of the learned Counsel for the opposite
party. Annexure No. A-1 submitted by the opposite party is reproduced below for
scrutiny.
SMS Date
Mobile No. MSG TEXT
time
Dear Customer, XXXXXX is the OTP to
complete fund transfer of Rs.1,95,000/-. 6/21/2021
919415390900
OTPs are SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to 5:29:37 PM
anyone. ICICI Bank NEVER asks for OTP.
919415390900
919415390900 Dear Customer, XXXXXX is the OTP to 6/21/2021
complete fund transfer of Rs.1,98,000/-. 5:24:02 PM
about:blank 12/22
OTPs are SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to

919415390900
Dear Customer, XXXXXX is the OTP for
your request initiated through ICICI Bank
6/21/2021
919415390900 Internet Banking. OTPs are SECRET. DO
17:18
NOT disclose it to anyone. ICICI Bank
NEVER asks for OTP.
Dear Customer, 761942 is the OTP to
register SUMAN as a Payee. OTPs are 6/21/2021
919415390900
SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to anyone. 5:16:09 PM
ICICI Bank NEVER asks for OTP.
:16:

register SRIVASTAVA AS A Payee. OTPs 6/21/2021
919415390900
are SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to 5:14:06 PM
register SUMAN as a Payee. OTPs are 6/21/2021
919415390900
SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to anyone. 5:11:20 PM
ICICI Bank NEVER asks for OTP.
generate ICICI Bank Internet Banking
6/21/2021
919415390900 Password. OTPs are SECRET. DO NOT
5:02:55 PM
disclose it to anyone. ICICI Bank NEVER
asks for OTP.
The above mentioned details show that from 05.02 PM till 05.29 PM i.e. just in 27
minutes 09 times saving bank account through internet banking has been used for
generating OTPs to generate ICICI Bank Internet Banking Password, to register
SUMAN as a Payee, to register SRIVASTAVA as a Payee, again to register
SUMAN as a Payee, to complete fund transfer of Rs.2,00,000/-, to complete fund
transfer of Rs.1,98,000/-, to complete fund transfer of Rs.1,95,000/- and again to
complete fund transfer of Rs.1,95,000/-. It cannot be believed that a saving bank
account holder like the complainant can operate her account through internet
banking by generating ICICI Bank Internet Banking Password at 5.02 PM and
thereafter operating internet banking nine times till 5.29 PM. i.e in 27 minutes. A
normal account holder who is not an expert in the field of using internet banking
and normally using the internet banking very frequently can operate internet
banking nine time just in 27 minutes. A person who is not using the internet
banking regularly may takes 5 to 6 minutes to complete his single transaction in
internet right from opening the internet banking account till completing the
about:blank 13/22
transaction. In making all these transactions the bank employees must have been
involved with the imposter.
:17:
The record further shows that Rs.7,00,000/- has been transferred by the opposite
party bank in the saving account of the complainant on 21-06-2021 at 5.21 PM.
Annexure No.1 of complaint and thereafter just within two minutes i.e. at 5.23 PM
Rs.2,00,000/- as per transferred and again two minutes i.e.at 5.25 PM another
payment of Rs.1,98,000/-has been transferred. It cannot be believed that these two
transactions have been made by the complainant as the complainant does not have
the knowledge at that time that the opposite party bank has sanctioned any personal
loan in her name and has been credited Rs.7,00,000/- in her saving bank account.
The complainant got the knowledge of these two withdrawal transactions when she
received message of transaction alert at 5.23 PM on 21-06-2021.
It has been further argued by the learned Counsel for the opposite party Bank that
the system of opposite party bank is foolproof and there is no possibility of
connivance of staff of bank in such online transactions.
We are not convinced with this argument of learned Counsel for the opposite party
as it is crystal clear that some bank employees are definitely involved in
committing fraud with the complainant and there is every possibility of connivance
of staff of bank with the imposter in opening the two fake accounts in the name of
SUMAN and SRIVASTAVA by using or tempering the documents such as Aadhar
Card, PAN Card etc. of complainant no.2, whose name is SUMAN SRIVASTAVA
i.e. the mother of complainant no.01 available with the opposite party bank and
further transferring the huge amount of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/-on line just
within four minutes in collusion with the imposter.
Before coming to any conclusion it is necessary for us to make a mentioned about

the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India regarding Customer Protection
– Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking
Transactions.
:18:
RBI/2017-18/15
DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18
July 6, 2017
All Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs)

All Small Finance Banks and Payments Banks
Dear Sir/ Madam,
about:blank 14/22
Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised

Electronic Banking Transactions
Please refer to our circular DBOD.Leg.BC.86/09.07.007/2001-02

dated April 8, 2002 regarding reversal of erroneous debits arising from fraudulent or
other transactions.
2. With the increased thrust on financial inclusion and customer

protection and considering the recent surge in customer grievances
relating to unauthorised transactions resulting in debits to their accounts/ cards, the
criteria for determining the customer liability in these circumstances have been
reviewed. The revised directions in this regard are set out below.
Strengthening of systems and procedures
3. Broadly, the electronic banking transactions can be divided into two

categories:
(i) Remote/ online payment transactions (transactions that do not

require physical payment instruments to be presented at the point of transactions
e.g. internet banking, mobile banking, card not present (CNP) transactions), Pre-paid
Payment Instruments (PPI), and
(ii) Face-to-face/ proximity payment transactions (transactions

which require the physical payment instrument such as a card or mobile phone to be
present at the point of transaction e.g. ATM, POS, etc.)
4. The systems and procedures in banks must be designed to make

customers feel safe about carrying out electronic banking transactions. To achieve this,
banks must put in place:
(i)appropriate systems and procedures to ensure safety and

security of electronic banking transactions carried out by customers;
(ii)robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism;
:19:
(iii)mechanism to assess the risks (for example, gaps in the bank’s

existing systems) resulting from unauthorised transactions and measure the liabilities
arising out of such events;
(iv)appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and protect

themselves against the liabilities arising therefrom; and
(v)a system of continually and repeatedly advising customers on how

to protect themselves from electronic banking and payments related fraud.
Reporting of unauthorised transactions by customers to banks
about:blank 15/22
5. Banks must ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS

alerts and wherever available register for e-mail alerts, for electronic
banking transactions. The SMS alerts shall mandatorily be sent to the customers,
while email alerts may be sent, wherever registered. The customers must be
advised to notify their bank of any unauthorised electronic banking transaction at
the earliest after the occurrence of such transaction, and informed that
the longer the time taken to notify the bank, the higher will be the risk of loss to the
bank/ customer. To facilitate this, banks must provide customers with 24x7 access
through multiple channels (at a minimum, via website, phone banking, SMS, e-mail,
IVR, a dedicated toll-free helpline, reporting to home branch, etc.) for
reporting unauthorised transactions that have taken place and/ or
loss or theft of payment instrument such as card, etc. Banks shall also enable
customers to instantly respond by "Reply" to the SMS and e-mail alerts and the
customers should not be required to search for a web page or an e-mail address to
notify the objection, if any. Further, a direct link for lodging the complaints, with
specific option to report unauthorised electronic transactions shall be provided
by banks on home page of their website. The loss/ fraud reporting system shall also
ensure that immediate response (including auto response) is sent to the
customers acknowledging the complaint along with the registered complaint
number. The communication systems used by banks to send alerts and receive
their responses thereto must record the time and date of delivery of the
message and receipt of customer’s response, if any, to them. This shall be important
in determining the extent of a customer’s liability. The banks may not offer
facility of electronic transactions, other than ATM cash withdrawals, to customers
who do not provide mobile numbers to the bank. On receipt of report of
an unauthorised transaction from the customer, banks must take immediate steps to
prevent further unauthorised transactions in the account.
:20:
Limited Liability of a Customer
(a) Zero Liability of a Customer
6. A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the

unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:
(i)Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the

bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).
(ii)Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the
bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer
notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication
from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction.
(b) Limited Liability of a Customer
7. A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to

unauthorised transactions in the following cases:
about:blank 16/22
(i)In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such

as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear
the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss
occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the
bank.
(ii)In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised electronic

banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but
lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of four to seven working
days after receiving the communication from the bank) on the part of the
customer in notifying the bank of such a transaction, the per transaction liability
of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount
mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower.
Table 1
Maximum Liability of a Customer under paragraph 7 (ii)
Maximum
Type of Account liability
(₹)
• BSBD Accounts 5,000
• All other SB accounts
• Pre-paid Payment Instruments and Gift Cards
• Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of MSMEs
• Current Accounts/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts of 10,000
Individuals with annual average balance (during 365 days
preceding the incidence of fraud)/ limit up to Rs.25 lakh
• Credit cards with limit up to Rs.5 lakh
• All other Current/ Cash Credit/ Overdraft Accounts
25,000
• Credit cards with limit above Rs.5 lakh
Further, if the delay in reporting is beyond seven working days, the

customer liability shall be determined as per the bank’s Board approved policy. Banks
shall provide the details of their policy in regard to customers’ liability formulated in
pursuance of these directions at the time of opening the accounts. Banks shall also
dissemination. The existing customers must also be individually
informed about the bank’s policy.
8. Overall liability of the customer in third party breaches, as

detailed in paragraph 6 (ii) and paragraph 7 (ii) above, where the deficiency lies
neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, is
summarised in the Table 2:
Table 2
Summary of Customer’s Liability
Time taken to report the
fraudulent transaction from
Customer’s liability (₹)
the date of receiving the
communication
Within 3 working days Zero liability
The transaction value or the amount
Within 4 to 7 working days
mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower
about:blank 17/22
Beyond 7 working days As per bank’s Board approved policy
The number of working days mentioned in Table 2 shall be

counted as per the working schedule of the home branch of the customer
excluding the date of receiving the communication.
Reversal Timeline for Zero Liability/ Limited Liability of

customer
9. On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit

(shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic
transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such
notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if
any). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in
case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in
cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the
date of the unauthorised transaction.
10. Further, banks shall ensure that:
:22:
(i)a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any,

established within such time, as may be specified in the bank’s Board
approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the
complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of paragraphs 6 to
9 above;
(ii)where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the

customer liability, if any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed
in paragraphs 6 to 9 is paid to the customer; and
(iii)in case of debit card/ bank account, the customer does not
suffer loss of interest, and in case of credit card, the customer does not bear any
additional burden of interest.
Board Approved Policy for Customer Protection
11. Taking into account the risks arising out of unauthorised debits to
customer accounts owing to customer negligence/ bank negligence/banking
system frauds/ third party breaches, banks need to clearly define the rights and
obligations of customers in case of unauthorised transactions in specified
scenarios. Banks shall formulate/ revise their customer relations policy, with
approval of their Boards, to cover aspects of customer protection,
including the mechanism of creating customer awareness on the risks
and responsibilities involved in electronic banking transactions and
customer liability in such cases of unauthorised electronic banking transactions.
The policy must be transparent, non-discriminatory and should stipulate the
mechanism of compensating the customers for the unauthorised electronic
banking transactions and also prescribe the timelines for
about:blank 18/22
effecting such compensation keeping in view the instructions contained in paragraph

10 above. The policy shall be displayed on the bank’s website along with the details
of grievance handling/ escalation procedure. The instructions contained in
this circular shall be incorporated in the policy.
Burden of Proof
12. The burden of proving customer liability in case of

unauthorised electronic banking transactions shall lie on the bank.
Reporting and Monitoring Requirements
13. The banks shall put in place a suitable mechanism and structure for the reporting of the
customer liability cases to the Board or one of its Committees. The reporting shall,
inter alia, include volume/ number of cases and the aggregate value Involved and
distribution across various categories of cases viz.,card present transactions, card not
present transactions, internet
1.
banking, mobile banking, ATM transactions, etc. The Standing Committee on

Customer Service in each bank shall periodically review the unauthorised
electronic banking transactions reported by customers or otherwise, as also the
action taken thereon, the functioning of the grievance redress mechanism and take
appropriate measures to improve the systems and procedures. All such
transactions shall be reviewed by the bank’s internal auditors.
14. The instructions contained in this circular supersede some of the

instructions contained in our Master Circular
DBR.No.FSD.BC.18/24.01.009/2015-16 dated July 1, 2015 on Credit Card, Debit
Card and Rupee Denominated Co-branded Pre-paid Card Operations of Banks and
Credit card issuing NBFCs as detailed in the Annex.
Yours faithfully,
(PrakashBaliarsingh)
Chief General Manager
We have perused the circular issued by the RBI with regard to Customer Protection
– Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking
Transactions.
The RBI Circular on the point of Zero Liability of a Customer says that a
customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised
transaction occurs due to contributory fraud/negligence/deficiency on the part of
the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the
customer).
about:blank 19/22
Further the RBI Circular on the point of Zero Liability of a Customer says that the
Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the
customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank
within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding
the unauthorised transaction.
Further the burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic

banking transactions shall lie on the bank.
In the instant case as soon as the complainant received SMS on mobile alerting
deduction of Rs.2,00,000/- and Rs.1,98,000/- from her account, she immediately
called up the customer case of ICICI Bank at sharp 5.30 PM on 21-06-2021 and
besides this the
:24:
complainant also sent SMS to ICICI Bank at sharp 5.37 PM on 21-06-2021 for
block of account and payment and she got acknowledgement of bank at 5.38 PM
on 21-06-2021 in the form of SMS. As such the complainant’s case is fully covered
with the Zero Liability as per the RBI Circular.
The documents show that on 21-06-2021 OTP for creating the beneficiary as
SUMAN has been generated at 5.11 PM and further OTP for creating the
beneficiary as SRIVASTAVA has been generated on the same day at 5.14 PM and
further OTP for creating the beneficiary as SUMAN has been generated at 5.16 PM
and thereafter Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred in the account of SRIVASTAVA at
5.23 PM by generating OTP at 5.22 PM and immediately thereafter Rs.1,98,000/-
has been transferred in the account of SUMAN at 5.25 PM by generating OTP at
5.24 PM.
It is very much surprising to note that as to on what circumstances these two

transactions have been allowed by the opposite party ICICI bank within 09 minutes
of making beneficiary as SRIVASTAVA AND SUMAN, as the Banks generally
takes 30 minutes to 4 hours for authenticating beneficiary details. During this
cooling period in the bank, the funds will not be transferred resulting in payment
delays. Once the beneficiary is activated, the funds are transferred to the specified
account. The customer can transfer funds to the payee only after a 30 minutes
cooling period. This shows that these two transactions have been done by the
employees of the bank in connivance with the imposter and the bank is fully
responsible for these transactions.
It cannot be ruled out that the employees of the bank in connivance with the
imposter must have hacked the registered mobile number of the complainant as
well as the account of the complainant for few minutes i.e. from 05.02 PM till 5.29
PM for filling up the Personal Loan Application Form online on 21-06-2021 at
17:20:20 hours, Credit Facility Application Form on 21-06-2021 at 17:20:29 hours
and Key Fact Statement and Most Important Information form on 21-06-2021 at
17:20:29 hours, transferring Rs.7,00,000/- in the account of the complainant on
:25:
about:blank 20/22
21-06-2021 at 5.21 PM. Before filling up online these application forms the bank
employees in connivance with the imposter created the beneficiary as
SRIVASTAVA in the account of the complainant on 21-06-2021 by generating OTP
at 5.14 PM and thereafter created the beneficiary as SUMAN in the account of the
complainant on 21-06-2021 by generating OTP at 5.16 PM, transferred
Rs.7,00,000/- in the account of the complainant on 21-06-2021 at 5.21 PM and
thereafter Rs.2,00,000/- has been transferred in the account of SRIVASTAVA at
5.23 PM by generating OTP at 5.22 PM and immediately thereafter Rs.1,98,000/-
has been transferred in the account of SUMAN at 5.25 PM by generating OTP at
5.24 PM. It cannot be believed that a person who is using internet banking very
frequently can do all these transactions within 23 minutes. All these transactions
shows that it has been done fraudulently by the employees of the opposite party
bank in connivance with the imposter without the knowledge and consent of the
complainant.
Having heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the complainants as well as
learned Counsel for the opposite party ICICI Bank and after considering the facts
and circumstances of the case as well as material available on record we are of the
considered opinion that the opposite party bank has committed deficiency in
service and the submission of learned Counsel for the complainants appears to be
justified and the complainants are entitled to get the reliefs claimed in the
complaint as well as cost of the case. We are also in agreement that the contract of
personal loan is illegal and it is an unfair contract as there is no signature in any of
the personal loan documents of the complainant and most of the columns and fields
of loan application form as well as credit facility application form are left blank.
In view of the aforesaid, we are of the positive opinion that the argument of the
learned Counsel for the complainants has force and the complaint of the
complainants is liable to be allowed with cost.
:26:
We must observe that the Investigating Officer has also failed to discharge his burden and
even not bothered to comply the orders passed by this Court time to time. His act is also
not fair or cooperative with the complainant.
ORDER
The complaint is allowed with the following directions:-
01. The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is directed to reverse the banking loan of
Rs.7,00,000/- as deposited/credited illegally by the ICICI Bank in the account of the
complainants without permission and knowledge forthwith.
02. The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is further directed to reverse all the charges,
instalments and other fee as charged by the opposite party/Bank from the complainants.
03. The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is directed to recover the money from the
account of SRIVASTAVA and also from the account of SUMAN to whom the bank
officials transferred the funds without the knowledge of complainants.
about:blank 21/22
04. The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is further directed to pay to the complainants
a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs Only) as compensation on account of mental
tension, agony and harassment caused to the complainants.
05.The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is directed to also pay to the complainants a
sum of Rs.25,000/- as cost of the case.
06.The opposite party ICICI Bank Limited is further directed to comply these directions
within a period of one month from the date of judgment otherwise 10% interest shall also
be paid by the opposite party ICICI Bank Limited on the aforesaid amounts from the date
of the institution of the complaint till the actual payment.
Let copy of this order be made available to the parties as per rules.
The Stenographer is requested to upload this order on the website of this Commission at
the earliest.
( JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR ) ( VIKAS SAXENA )
PRESIDENT MEMBER
[HON'ABLE MR. JUSTICE PRESIDENT]

PRESIDENT
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR]

PRESIDENT
[HON'BLE MR. Vikas Saxena]

JUDICIAL MEMBER
about:blank 22/22

Cause Title - Judgement-Entry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cause Title - Judgement-Entry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/22/24, 11:30 PM Cause Title/Judgement-Entry

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UP

Complaint Case No. CC/21/2022

1. Meenu Khare And Another

Dated : 06 Jul 2023

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UTTAR PRADESH, LUCKNOW

COMPLAINT NO. 21 OF 2022

1. Meenu Khare, D/o Suman Srivastava

R/o 201, Mahaveer Apartment

36, Cantt Road, Lucknow.

2. Suman Srivastava, W/o Late N B Khare

R/o 201, Mahaveer Apartment

36, Cantt Road, Lucknow.

1. ICICI Bank Limited

31/54 Mahatma Gandhi Marg

Sushantpura, Nagar Nigam Market

Through its Branch Manager

2. ICICI Bank Limited

ICICI Bank Tower

Bandra – Kurla Complex

Through its Managing Director.

FIR No. 0125/2021

P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MR. VIKAS SAXENA, MEMBER

For the Complainant : Sri Muzeeb Effendi, Advocate.

Meenu Khare, complainant in person.

For the Opposite Party/Bank : Smt. Suchita Singh, Advocate.

For the Opposite Party No.03 : None appeared.

MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR, PRESIDENT

of operation of the said account is “either or survivor”.

On 21-06-2021 some imposter ranged up on complainant’s mobile and requested to

1. Annexure-1 – Copy of the printout of alert message of online payment of Rs.2,00,000/-.

There is absolutely no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite

2. Annexure No.02 – Photocopy of account statement of complainants.

Mon, 21 Jun, 5:37 PM

“Mon, 21 Jun, 5:38 PM

with ulterior motive sanctioned and disbursed personal loan forcefully.

Thereafter the complainant lodged an FIR at P.S. Kaiserbagh, Lucknow regarding

conditions. It seems the employees of the opposite parties in connivance with

On perusal of the documents available on record Annexure-1 we find that

OTPs are SECRET. DO NOT disclose it to

Dear Customer, 149075 is the OTP to

Before coming to any conclusion it is necessary for us to make a mentioned about

All Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs)

Dear Sir/ Madam,

Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised

Please refer to our circular DBOD.Leg.BC.86/09.07.007/2001-02

2. With the increased thrust on financial inclusion and customer

Strengthening of systems and procedures

3. Broadly, the electronic banking transactions can be divided into two

(i) Remote/ online payment transactions (transactions that do not

(ii) Face-to-face/ proximity payment transactions (transactions

4. The systems and procedures in banks must be designed to make

(i)appropriate systems and procedures to ensure safety and

(ii)robust and dynamic fraud detection and prevention mechanism;

(iii)mechanism to assess the risks (for example, gaps in the bank’s

(iv)appropriate measures to mitigate the risks and protect

(v)a system of continually and repeatedly advising customers on how

Reporting of unauthorised transactions by customers to banks

5. Banks must ask their customers to mandatorily register for SMS

Limited Liability of a Customer