Online fraud: Consumer panel dismisses plaint against bank

Panaji: A North Goa consumer disputes redressal commission dismissed a complaint against HDFC Bank Ltd filed by a consumer seeking reimbursement of money he lost in an online fraud.Two members of the consumer commission, president Bela Naik and member Auroliano de Oliveria, observed that payment was made through a vendor and completed after the mandatory procedure of 2-factor authentication.

Dismissing the complaint of Kenneth D’Souza from Mapusa, the consumer commission observed that the complainant voluntarily entered his customer ID and password to proceed with the transaction. It also pointed out that the complainant, being a former banker, ought to have knowledge of netbanking.D’Souza, with a savings account with HDFC Bank, said in his complaint that he lost Rs 89,902 after he clicked on the link allegedly received from the bank through a phishing SMS, offering him reward redemption.

Believing the link to be genuine, he entered his netbanking credentials and OTP. Shortly, Rs 89,902 was fraudulently debited from his account.He rushed to the bank and filed a complaint within 20 minutes of the fraud. He also filed a complaint with the cybercrime unit and RBI ombudsman but was not satisfied with their assistance.D’Souza also told the consumer commission that HDFC Bank did not acknowledge his complaint.

The bank, however, told the consumer commission court that D’Souza transferred the money to a vendor through an aggregator. Both the vendor and aggregator must be added as parties in the matter.The bank also cited a judgment of the state consumer court that states that where netbanking/credit card fraud is alleged, the beneficiary is a necessary party to take the matter forward.A third member of the consumer commission, Rejitha Rajan, however, did not agree with her two fellow members.

Rajan noted the bank failed to provide immediate help to D’Souza.“Non-acknowledgement of the complaint underscores the deficiency in handling crucial security breaches,” observed Rajan.The bank neither provided a copy of internal investigations nor explained bypassing security measures. Rajan observed that the bank’s documents confirmed internal doubts and failed to prove customer negligence, making the liability absolute, and that the bank was liable for deficiency in service.