10 September,2021 08:43 AM IST | New Delhi | IANS
This picture has been used for representational purpose
The Supreme Court on Thursday stayed the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) decision upholding state consumer forum order, which directed HDFC Bank to pay for Rs 30 lakh to a customer, who claimed fraudulent withdrawals from his account.
HDFC Bank counsel submitted before a bench headed by Justice D.Y. Chandrachud that the customer logged on into his account through net banking and changed his PIN (Personal Identification Number). He then added a beneficiary and made three transactions in three consecutive days by transferring Rs 10 lakh each to a firm based in Agra and was notified about these transactions through SMS and email. Later, he filed a complaint with the consumer forum alleging fraudulent withdrawal from his account but did not visit the branch to raise the issue, the counsel submitted.
The bench, also comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Hima Kohli, said there shall be a stay on the orders of the NCDRC and state consumer forum, Punjab. The top court also sought a response from the customer. In July 2014, the state commission had ordered reversal of three transactions of Rs 10 lakh each into the man's account within 30 days of the receipt of the order. The consumer forum also sought furnishing of corrected statement of account to the complainant.
Also Read: Reserve Bank allows HDFC Bank to sell new credit cards
ALSO READ
Court denies TikTok's request to halt enforcement of potential US ban until Supreme Court review
Important matters heard by Supreme Court on December 13
Why don't this matter go before the same bench? SC on EVM verification plea
SC expresses concern over poor health of protesting farmer, directs medical aid
Bangladesh court keeps bail petition, refuses to advance hearing of Hindu monk
During the hearing, the HDFC counsel submitted that when they moved the NCDRC, it recorded everything in its August 26, 2020 order, but chose not to interfere with the state commission order. Counsel also said yes when the bench queried whether the transactions were RTGS. Seeking the response from the man, the top court has listed the matter for final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day.
This story has been sourced from a third party syndicated feed, agencies. Mid-day accepts no responsibility or liability for its dependability, trustworthiness, reliability and data of the text. Mid-day management/mid-day.com reserves the sole right to alter, delete or remove (without notice) the content in its absolute discretion for any reason whatsoever
