Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Dr Nandkishore
In the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Revision Petition 66/2013
Before Mr K.S. Chaudhari, Presiding Member
Decided on December 4, 2015

Relevancy of the case: Liability of bank in disputes related to its internet banking facilities

Statutes and Provisions Involved

• The Information Technology Act, 2000 (Section 66)

Relevant Facts of the Case

• The respondent was informed by his bank that someone made online transactions and ₹ 37,500 were withdrawn from his account. The bank manager assured him that his money will be recovered and transferred back to his account but later refused the same. 
• The bank, however, gave information about the name and account number of the person to whom the money was transferred.
• The respondent alleged deficiency on part of the internet banking facility provided by the bank and filed a complaint in the District Forum. The petitioners refuted these allegations, claiming that they have a secure internet banking system as per international standards and the respondent was responsible for keeping their ID and password safe. It was alleged that the transactions could have been done by the customer himself or by the person to whom he provided password.
• The District Forum directed the petitioner to pay ₹ 37,500 along with the cost of ₹ 5,000.
• The petitioners appealed to the State Commission which dismissed the appeal with the cost of ₹ 10,000.

Prominent Arguments by the Advocates

• The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the District Forum erred in delivering a verdict backing the respondents since there was no proof of deficiency and their internet banking facility was as per international standards. The complainant hadn’t placed any evidence on record to substantiate the claim that there was a fault in the banking or security system. It was also submitted that until the ID and password are shared by the complainant to a third person, any person would not be able to operate his account by internet banking.

Opinion of the Bench

• The State Commission observed that a transaction effected through hacking amounts to cyber crime, and thought that to be the case here. However, hacking requires a person to have destroyed or diminished information, it’s value or utility, or to have affected it injuriously. There was nothing on record to suggest this.
• Further, the State Commission wrongly observed that the bank had not taken any steps to find the culprits. The bank had supplied information to the complainant about the name and account number of the person to whom the money was transferred.
• The Court also noted that complainant didn’t lodge an F.I.R against the person to whom the money was transferred, nor impleaded them as a party to the complaint.

Final Decision

• Revision petition allowed. The orders passed by the State Commission and District Forum set aside.
• Complaint dismissed. No order as to costs.

This case summary has been prepared by Akshita Rohatgi, an undergraduate student at University School of Law and Legal Studies, GGSIPU, during her internship with The Cyber Blog India in January/February 2021.