The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh, has ruled in favour of a senior citizen in a cyber fraud case, directing HDFC Bank to release the frozen amount of ₹2 lakh and pay an additional ₹20,000 as compensation and litigation expenses. The Commission observed that the victim had promptly informed both the bank and the police about the fraud and had completed all the required formalities. Despite this, the bank failed to take any meaningful steps to return the money, amounting to a clear deficiency in service.
The order was pronounced on June 9. The Commission held that retaining the complainant’s money for an extended period without any valid explanation or resolution reflected negligence on the bank’s part. It further noted that the senior citizen had been forced to make repeated visits to the bank, causing him mental agony, inconvenience, and unnecessary harassment.
According to the complaint, Balwinder Singh received a phone call on April 3, 2024, from unidentified fraudsters claiming that his son had been taken into custody in connection with a narcotics case. The callers even made him speak to a person impersonating his son. Fearing serious legal consequences for his son, he was persuaded to transfer ₹2 lakh to an HDFC Bank account.
After transferring the money, Balwinder Singh contacted his actual son and discovered that he was completely safe, realising that he had fallen victim to a cyber fraud. He immediately approached the concerned HDFC Bank branch and successfully got the transferred amount frozen. He also lodged a complaint with the Chandigarh Police and submitted a copy of the complaint to the bank.
The complainant alleged that despite the amount being frozen, the bank failed to return the money even after several written requests and personal visits. No satisfactory explanation was provided for the delay. Left with no alternative, he approached the District Consumer Commission, alleging deficiency in service by the bank.
During the proceedings, it emerged that despite being served notice, HDFC Bank’s Sector 22 branch did not appear before the Commission. Consequently, the matter proceeded ex parte against the bank. The Commission observed that the bank’s absence warranted an adverse inference, indicating that it had no effective defence against the allegations made by the complainant. As a result, the complainant’s claims remained unrebutted.
The Commission further noted that there was no evidence on record to suggest any legal impediment, court order, or other valid reason preventing the release of the frozen amount. It held that since the money originally belonged to the complainant and he had promptly reported the fraud to both the bank and the police, the bank was duty-bound to take a reasoned decision on his request within a reasonable time after completion of all required formalities.
The Commission concluded that retaining the complainant’s money indefinitely without offering any explanation or resolution amounted to a deficiency in service. It also observed that the complainant, being a senior citizen, had suffered financial hardship, mental distress, and repeated inconvenience because of the bank’s inaction.
Accordingly, the Consumer Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed HDFC Bank to immediately credit the frozen ₹2 lakh back to the complainant’s account. In addition, the bank was ordered to pay ₹20,000 as a consolidated amount towards compensation for harassment and litigation expenses. The ruling is being viewed as a significant decision reinforcing the rights of cyber fraud victims and highlighting the responsibility of banks to act promptly and fairly in such cases.
