Ludhiana District Commission Holds PNB Liable For Wrongfully Debiting Temporary Credit Provided In Lieu Of Unauthorized Transactions

Brief Facts:

The Complainant held a bank account in Punjab National Bank (“Bank”). He provided his Aadhar Card, PAN Card and mobile number to the Bank. However, the Bank failed to link his mobile with the account. Subsequently, when the Complainant attempted to withdraw money from an ATM, he discovered certain unauthorized transactions totalling Rs. 1,00,000/-. Despite the debit card being in his custody, someone withdrew this amount. The Complainant immediately reported these unauthorized transactions to the Bank and the police. The Bank assured him that the amount would be credited back to his account and blocked his debit card. Eventually, the Bank credited Rs. 1,00,000/- as a temporary relief, but when the Complainant tried to withdraw the money, the bank demanded additional documents, including an FIR. The police, however, closed the Complainant's case, stating that the Bank already credited the amount.

Despite multiple complaints and a legal notice to the Bank, the Bank did not allow the Complainant to withdraw the money, citing a need for an FIR, which was never provided by the police. Subsequently, the Bank debited the Rs. 1,00,000/- from the Complainant's account again without prior notice or explanation. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint against the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ludhiana, Punjab (“District Commission”) against the Bank.

In response, the Bank contended that it followed all necessary procedures per RBI guidelines and its own rules. It provided a temporary credit to the Complainant's account while awaiting further instructions from its Cyber Crime Monitoring Cell and an insurance claim with New India Assurance Company Ltd. The insurance claim, however, required an FIR for amounts over Rs. 50,000/-, which the Complainant failed to provide despite multiple opportunities. Consequently, the shadow credit was reversed. The Bank argued that it notified the Complainant about the need for an FIR and blamed the police for not registering it. The Bank also contended that it offers 24/7 SMS services, which the Complainant did not subscribe to, thereby shifting part of the responsibility to the Complainant for not being proactive.

Observations by the District Commission:

The District Commission referred to a copy of the complaint written to the Commissioner by the Complainant and a copy of the FIR. It noted that the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- was credited to the Complainant's account on January 20, 2021, and subsequently debited on March 2, 2022. The Bank credited this amount based on RBI guidelines and its internal circular. The District Commission observed that the amount was deposited on January 20, 2021, and the Complainant was not allowed to withdraw it. The District Commission held that debiting this amount without prior intimation or a valid reason constituted a deficiency in service by the bank, causing significant physical, mental, and financial distress to the Complainant.

Therefore, the District Commission directed the Complainant to supply a copy of the FIR to the Bank within ten days. Upon receipt of the FIR, the Bank was directed to re-credit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant's account within ten days. Additionally, the Bank was ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, including litigation expenses, for the mental tension and harassment caused to the Complainant.

Case Title: Gurmukh Singh vs Punjab National Bank

Case Number: CC/363/2022

Date of Order: May 24^th, 2024