AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Second Appeal has been filed with a delay of 99 days as per the calculation made by the Registry. IA/7693/2026 has been filed seeking condonation of delay. The delay in filing the SA is condoned after considering the reasons stated therein and the case is taken up on merits.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Second Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 08.01.2026 of the State Commission, vide which the First Appeal filed by the appellant herein was dismissed and the order of the District Commission was upheld. Earlier, the District Commission, vide its order dated 22.02.2022, partly allowed the complaint and passed the following directions:
“6.Thus keeping in view that facts and circumstances of the case and after hearing the complainant and going through the record placed on file, we are of the considered view that the ends of justice would be met, if a direction is given to the opposite party not to recover the amount of Rs.84,000/- from the complainant which was illegally deducted from his credit card account. Therefore, we direct the opposite party not to recover the amount of Rs.84,000/- from the complainant which was illegally deducted from his credit card account. The complainant is also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- on account of suffering, harassment and mental agony as well as litigation charges. The OP shall make the compliance of the order within 30-days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The parties be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.”
No doubt, the OP was proceeded ex parte before the District Commission, but before the State Commission also, despite being the appellant themselves, they failed to appear and, hence, the State Commission disposed of the First Appeal on merits. Both the fora below have recorded concurrent findings against the appellant herein.
Section 51(2) envisages a Second Appeal to this Commission if it involves a substantial question of law. What constitutes a substantial question of law and how it differs from a mere question of law has been elaborated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chandrabhan (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives & Others vs. Saraswati & Others, (2022) 20 SCC 199. As per Section 51(3), such substantial questions of law have to be specified in the Memorandum of Appeal. In the present case, no such substantial questions of law have been specified in the Memorandum of Appeal. What has been stated in the Memorandum of Appeal are only the grounds for challenging the orders of the State Commission.
We have carefully gone through the order of the State Commission, the District Commission and other relevant records. RBI vide its Circular dated 06.07.2017 have issued detailed guidelines on Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions. Extract of relevant paras of this Circular is reproduced below:
"Limited Liability of a Customer
(a) Zero Liability of a Customer
6.A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:
i.Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer). ii. Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction.
(b) Limited Liability of a Customer
7.A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions in the following cases:
i.In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be borne by the bank.
ii.In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of four to seven working days after receiving the communication from the bank) on the part of the customer in notifying the bank of such a transaction, the per transaction liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower."
After careful consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no merit in the Second Appeal. The case involves no substantial question of law. Accordingly, SA/511/2026 is dismissed.
Pending IA's, if any, stand disposed off.
Registry of NCDRC is directed to send a copy of this order (free certified copy) to both sides, in particular the Respondent(s), on the address given in the Memo of Parties, within a maximum period of one week from the date of this order.