SC asks bank to pay school that lost Rs30 lakh in net-banking fraud
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, December 21
The Supreme Court has ordered a bank to pay Rs 25 lakh to DAV Public School as compensation for the money siphoned off from its account in 2014.
A Bench of Justice DY Chandrachud and Justice Hrishikesh Roy, however, refused to order Indian Bank to pay the school an additional Rs 5 lakh for delay on part of the school in lodging a complaint in this regard.
The school had challenged the final judgment and order dated April 24, 2018, of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dismissing its appeal against an order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal, which said the bank’s liability was limited to only Rs 1 lakh.
This was despite the fact that the complainant school suffered a total loss of Rs 30 lakh from its accounts sought return of the entire lost money.
The top court agreed with the finding of the State Commission, the Banking Ombudsman and the NCDRC that the bank rendered itself liable by enabling net banking facility by linking the individual account of the school’s principal to the school’s account.
It said the police did not find any complicity of the school principal with those fraudulent transactions, and therefore, denial of compensation of Rs 25 lakh was not justified.
The Bench, however, noted when the siphoning of a large amount of Rs 25 lakh was first detected by the school, the complaint was not lodged immediately and it was done only the next day.
It was for this lapse on the part of the school that the top court refused to order the bank to shell out an additional Rs 5 lakh.
The school had moved the consumer forum accusing the bank of deficiency of service as its bank account without net banking facility was linked with the personal Customer Information File of the school’s principal, facilitating online transaction which led to siphoning of Rs 30 lakh from the school’s account.
The State Commission and the NCDRC both held the bank liable for deficiency in service, but ordered only Rs 1 lakh as compensation for alleged complicity of the principal. But the top court enhanced the compensation to Rs 25 lakh.
