BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
FA NO.575 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.1009 OF 2010
ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-III, HYDERABAD
Between:
Ginka Madhava Kumar
S/o G.K.Swamy, aged about 33 years,
Occ: Private employee,
R/o 12-7-134/407, Flat No.203,
Lakshmi Towers, Anjaneyanagar,
Janata Nagar, Masjid Road,
Moosapet, Hyderabad – 500 018.
…Appellant/Complainant
And
1) M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Credit Card Division,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,
ICICI Phone Banking Centre,
ICICI Bank Tower, 7th Floor,
Survey No.115/27, Plot No.12,
Nanakramguda, Serilingampally,
Hyderabad – 500 032.
2) M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Head-Credit Card Division,
ICICI Bank Credit Card Operations,
P.O. Box No.7931, Tulsiwadi P.O.,
Mumbai – 400 034.
…Respondents/Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri Y.V.Narasimhacharyulu
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s S.Nagesh Reddy
Coram :
Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla … President
and
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Thursday, the Fifteenth day of December
Two thousand Sixteen
Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)
***
1) This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful Complainant against the orders of the District Forum-III, Hyderabad dated 12.06.2013 made in C.C.No.1009 of 2010 in dismissing the complaint.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.
3) The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant obtained two VISA GOLD credit cards from the OP No.1 and using the same since 2007 without any dispute. On 29.06.2009 at 2-14 p.m. he received a message that on credit card number 5176533798934003 there was transaction for USD 1309.85 (equivalent to Rs.53,000/-) at US MINT COIN. Immediately, he made a call to the call centre at 3-00 p.m. and requested to block the card and stop payment to the merchant and also sent fax to the Ops on 30.06.2009 at 3-39 p.m. Neither the Ops took any action nor stopped payment to the merchant. The Complainant requested them to put the transaction under DISPUTE and after several follow-up with the Ops, they assured to finalize the issue by 10.11.2009 by e-mail dated 06.1.2009 but surprisingly, sent message on 18.11.2009 asking the Complainant to pay Rs.65,139/-.
4) Since the Ops failed to settle the dispute, Complainant requested for sending the hard copies of fake transactions which took place without his knowledge on 04.12.2008, which they sent on 18.01.2010 after persistent persuasions. Instead of settling the dispute, again the Ops sent e-mail demand notice on 31.03.2010 requiring the Complainant to pay Rs.68,637/-. Vexed with the attitude of Ops, Complainant approached the Ombudsman at RBI and lodged written complaint on 14.07.2010, who passed an award on 05.10.2010. Complainant also lodged complaint with the Cyber crime police on 18.09.2010. The Ops again sent the statement requiring the Complainant to pay Rs.70,256/-. All these acts on the part of the Ops amounts to deficiency of service and negligence. Hence, prayed to direct the Ops to waive off the amount as demanded by them and to pay compensation of Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony, to pay costs of complaint at Rs.10,000/- and pass any other order.
5) Opposite parties filed counter admitting issuance of two credit cards to the Complainant and stated that they received complaint on 29.06.2010 at 14:30:57 hours about receipt of SMS about a transaction on his card account, and as per customer’s request, the bank immediately arranged to block the credit card No.5176533798934003 on the same day in order to prevent further misuse and informed the customer to send a FAX of a letter duly signed by him confirming his disagreement to follow the dispute. The present complaint is filed by Complainant to anticipate the Ops from taking action against recovery of due amount.
6) It was informed to the customer that as per the standard banking practice, banks cannot withhold payments to merchants for any transaction disputes. Further, in this case, the Ops cannot hold payments to merchant since that merchant is other bank’s merchant. As regards to complainant’s disagreement to the transaction dated 01.07.2010 billed to the card account, as per customer’s complaint, the bank had initiated chargeback. The TAT for chargeback SR would be 90 days from the date of initiation of the dispute and hence customer was asked to wait for the resolution.
7) However, the same has resolved in favour of favouring bank since acquiring bank has provided chargeslip copy showing customer’s liability to the transaction incurred/billed by/to him. As a result, interim (temporary) credit provided on 07.07.2009 has been reversed to the customer’s card account on 20.10.2009 and the statement dated 18.07.2009 reflected as “01/07/2009 US MINT COIN SALES-DR, 800-872-6468 65139.50 and the statement dated 18/07/2009 reflected as “07/07/2009 INTERIM CHARGEBACK CREDIT 65139.50CR” and the statement dated 23.10.2009 reflected as “20/10/2009 INTERIM CHARGEBACK DEBIT 65139.50”.
8) In the e-mail it was stated with reference to complainant letter dt.13.11.2009 addressed to Head-Service Quality in the said matter and after perusal of necessary documentation provided by the merchant bank for the disputed transaction, it was clear that the transaction occurred with details of card number, expiry date and CVV number-which were rightly entered at the time of conducting the transaction. Given that, all the confidential details were matching, bank reinstated that it cannot be held liable for careless sharing of such sensitive information by the card holder with a third party. As per terms and conditions, “the card member is responsible for the security of the card and shall take all steps towards ensuring that the card is not misused. In the event that ICICI bank determines that the aforesaid steps are questionable, financial liability on the lost, stolen or damaged card would rest with the card member.”
9) Based on the details provided to the bank by US Mint/the merchant to the transaction, ICICI had no valid cause whatsoever to undo a purchase that had occurred validly with all the confidential information having been provided for the same. Likewise, on 27.08.2009, ICICI (Head Credit Cards) had sent a letter to the Complainant stating the same reasons as stated above, for reversing the temporary credit given to the customer for the transacted amount. The said letter also stated that if the customer did not raise any further contention for dispute, the bank would assume the customer is agreeable to the measures sought to be taken by the bank and the bank shall proceed accordingly.
10) It is the standard practice that the bank takes additional precautions and asks for information beyond just the card number, cvv number and unique pin number. It also asks for personal information that is known only to the registered card holder. Such transactions are called 3D secure transactions where if the bank is satisfied that the transactions were conducted validly as per the security measures set-up by the bank, it will process the transaction accordingly. As all the criteria being satisfied, the bank had no reason to withhold payment to the merchant or to reverse the funds in the customer’s account which was conveyed to complainant vide letter dt.27.08.2009.
11) The Ombudsman at Reserve Bank of India resolved the dispute on 05.10.2010 in favour of the bank after conducting due investigation and therefore, reversed the interim credit from the customer’s account. However, the Ombudsman stated that the matter requires detailed investigation and consideration of technical and oral evidence. The complaint lodged with Cyber crime police is pending investigation. There is no deficiency in service and hence prayed to dismiss the complaint as not maintainable and further to dismiss the complaint as no deficiency in service.
12) During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A9 and on behalf of the Opposite parties got filed the evidence affidavit of one R.Sreenivas Rao, its Legal Manager.
13) The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
14) Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below (a) dismissed the complaint contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; (b) failed to observe that the disputed transaction occurred on the part of the Respondents or Appellant, instead of dismissing the complaint on the ground of no deficiency in service; (c) ought to have given credence to the documents filed by the Appellant. Hence, prayed to allow ther appeal and set aside the orders of the forum below made in CC No.1009/2010, dated 12.06.2013 and consequently allow the complaint as prayed for.
15) The point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner? To what relief ?
16) Both the parties filed their written arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version.
17) It is not in dispute that the Appellant is holding two credit cards of the Respondents bank and using the same since 2007. The only dispute is that on 29.06.2009 the Appellant received SMS that there was a transaction for USD 1309.85 at US mint coin though he had not utilized the same. It is also not in dispute that the Appellant lodged a complaint with respect to the said transaction with the Respondents requesting to block the card and stop payment as also the FAX message.
18) The Appellant would further contend that as the Respondents failed to respond to his frequent enquiries, he lodged a complaint with Ombudsman, who too negated his claim granting liberty to the Appellant to approach any other forum to ventilate his grievance. Admittedly, the Appellant lodged a complaint with cyber crime police and the same is pending investigation. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that their enquiries revealed that the transaction was done with the same credit card and the credentials matched with the 3D security provided to the Appellant.
19) In so far as deficiency in service and negligence is concerned, immediately after lodging complaint by the Appellant, the Respondents bank had acted upon the complaint and caused enquiries with regard to the transaction. It also blocked the credit card but could not stop payment as the same is against the standard banking practice. We may state that the matter under the subject appeal requires elaborate enquiry and detailed investigation and admittedly the complaint lodged with Cyber Crime Police is still pending.
20) A perusal of Ex.A5 and connected papers would goes to show that the transaction took place on–line and the merchant with whom the transaction was done is M/s US Mint Coin Sales-Dr Washington and the items under the transaction were delivered through shipment on 07.07.2009, signed by one Ravinder Singh. Even the letter dated 17.07.2009 addressed by Merchant Services (MOC) 5050 Kingsley Drive, MD 1M0C2U, Cincinnati, OH 45263-5300 to the Treasury-US mint, the merchant response contains “potential fraud”. In a case of such nature, it requires elaborate enquiry and detailed investigation which the Fora constituted under Consumer Protection Act are not empowered to. It is an admitted fact that the matter is still pending with Cyber crime police. Hence, the subject matter falls outside the purview of jurisdiction of the fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, in the circumstances, we do not find any irregularity or infirmities in the orders passed by the forum below and concur with the findings of the forum below.
21) In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with the above observations, no costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER
Dt. 15.12.2016
