Skip to main content

Freezing of account not deficiency in service: Consumer court


A consumer court has ruled that if a bank freezes account of a costumer in case of internet hacking or economic fraud, it cannot be treated as deficiency in service.

With this observation, the Gujarat State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has quashed the order passed by Anand's consumer court, by which the Axis Bank was ordered to pay Rs 5,000 towards mental harassment and Rs 2,000 towards cost of litigation to Vijay Sonvani after the bank froze his savings account.

Sonvani's savings account was blocked after somebody extracted Rs 18,000 from his account in Pune through internet hacking. Sonvani had no clue about this. When he went to withdraw money from an ATM in Ahmedabad, he found the debit facility on his debit card as blocked. On inquiry, it was revealed that the amount was siphoned off from his account on December 11, 2008.

After entering some communication with the bank, Sonvani filed a complaint with a consumer forum at Anand for causing hardship by freezing his account. He demanded of Rs 60,000 towards damages, but the forum in 2010 asked the bank to pay Rs 7,000 and 6% interest till the date he moved the consumer court.

The forum, however, accepted the bank's claims that the debit facility was stopped as precautionary measure and it was done in good faith. It was to prevent further fraud because a third person happened to know the password from Sonvani and withdrew the amount. The action was taken in the interest of the consumer.

Aggrieved with the forum's order to pay damages, the bank moved the commission, which arrived at the conclusion that the bank's gesture of freezing the account was in Sonvani's interest.

The commission also noticed that money cannot be withdrawn without card and password, and even the bank also does not know password. The person who withdrew money seemed to know it in Pune, and this could be negligence on part of Sonvani.

The bank immediately lodged complaint and when the money was recovered, the amount was immediately deposited in the savings account. This was no deficiency in the bank's service.

Our opinion
Unfortunately as the original order of the commission being in Gujarati, we have to make do with the newspaper report and base our opinion on the same.
This  is one of those cases where you can clearly see merits and demerits on both sides. The bank was clearly trying to protect the customer by freezing the account but what is not clear is how the Bank came to know of the security breach when the customer has not complained ?
There are big gaps in the story. Even going with the case as presented in the newpaper, the bank should definitely have informed the customer of the freezing of his account. A Bank simply cannot freeze operations a customer's account arbitrarily as that can have serious ripple effect. What if he had given a cheque for some important payment? There is a deficiency of service.
But to us the most serious issue here is the growing net based transactions and their legal implications. The Bank is offering the passwords to the client and the client is supposed to keep it secret. After that if a breach happens, it is impossible for the customer to defend himself from the accusation that he must have been careless and therefore at fault. Unless, the customer can convince the court otherwise, it will be very difficult to force the Bank to check in their own house for the same breach. And it should be remembered, that often it is at the Bank's end the lack of stringent measures to protect customer data has been noticed.
The average person these days have started embracing the net and are not at all serious or very casual about transacting on the net. Net transactions are growing rapidly but unfortunately not the legal protections or clarity available to both the buyer and seller.
Article referred to
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-02-01/ahmedabad/36683589_1_consumer-court-consumer-forum-debit

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more