Question (ii): Various services are being provided by banks to their customers. In fact, banks are soliciting business by advertising the various services provided by them to their customers in connection with different accounts. SMS alerts is one of the facility extended by most of the banks to their customers in connection with the savings bank accounts having electronic banking facilities including ATM-cum-Debit Card facilities. Such facilities are provided not only to those who specifically request for the same, but also to those who do not ask for such facilities. Could such a facility voluntarily given by banks to their customers determine the rights of parties, is the question. According to me, only if there exists a specific term in the contract between a bank and its customer to the effect that the bank would be exonerated from the liability in connection with the unauthorised transactions if the customer does not respond to the SMS alerts, SMS alerts cannot be the basis for determining the liability of the customer, for, there would be account holders who may not be in the habit of checking SMS alerts at regular intervals and account holders like the plaintiff in the instant case who is working in an offshore oil rig, who may not be able to access their mobile phones for several days having regard to the peculiarity of their avocation. The defendant has no case that there is a contract between them and the plaintiff to the effect that if the plaintiff does not respond to the SMS alerts given by them regarding the withdrawals from his accounts, they would not be liable for the loss, if any, caused to the plaintiff. In the circumstances, question (ii) is also answered against the appellant.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
R.S.A. No. 1087 of 2018
Decided On: 09.01.2019
State Bank of India Vs. P.V. George
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.
