DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 106 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 20/09/2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 28/06/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Sahabuddin Molla, S/O – Subid Ali Molla, Residing at village – Dakshin Janardanpur, P.O. - Uttarberampur, P.S. – Dholahat South, Barasat, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743399.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Having its branch office at Diamond Harbour, Station road, Diamond Harbour, Noon Gola, Hatuganj, Pin-743331.
2. The Manager, State Bank of India, Credit Card Department, Having its office at APJ House, Block – A, 3rd floor, 15, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016.
3. M/s. SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at Flot No. 103, 2nd Floor Ashoka Bhoopal Chambers, Sardar Patel Road, Hyderabad – 500003, Near Anand Theatre.
4. M/s. SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd., Having its office at DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 10th-12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Pin - 122002
___________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
With allegation of unfair trade practice causing distress and mental agony to the complainant against the O.P.s., this complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12, CP Act, 1986.
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case by the complainant may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant Sahabuddin Molla visited SBI, Dimond Harbour, i.e. O.P. no. 1 where lies his account being no. 30804887563. He was overwhelmed by bank employees who tried to impress upon him for having a credit card for withdrawal of money from the bank not subject to interest charge for 45 days. Having been so influenced, he applied for credit card and one credit card being no. 4726427584231260 was provided to him by O.P. nos. 2, 3 and 4 through courier service. Thereafter, he i.e. the complainant withdrew Rs. 10,000/- in 2 phases of Rs. 5,000/- each by swiping credit card in his nearest ATM. Soon after such withdrawal, he came to know from his friends that interest was chargeable upon such withdrawal by credit card. So, having been anxious, he went to O.P. no. 1 bank and paid Rs. 10,000/- and interest Rs. 1,708/- + Rs. 18.28/- on 14.12.2017 to the bank through cheque with firm determination that he would never operate the credit card any more in future.
Thereafter, one day, i.e., on 14.05.2018 he got a notice from ADR Centre, City Civil Court, Kolkata and came to know therefrom that his outstanding amount to the credit of credit card account is Rs. 1,12,855.90/-. He also got another such notice on 14.07.2018. Having got such notices, he was terribly surprised at the demand of O.P. 3 and 4. That apart, he has been given threat on and often by unknown callers. According to the complainant, he has not withdrawn any money nor has purchased anything by using credit card since after 2 withdrawals as mentioned above and he has been made a victim to unfair trade practice of O.P. nos. 2, 3 and 4 in connivance with O.P. no. 1.
He prays for passing an order directing the O.P.s not to disturb his mental peace by threat calls, compensation for mental agony and harassment and also such other order as the forum deems fit and proper.
O.P. 1 bank appeared in the case through its manager and prayed for time for filing W/V. But, no W/V has been filed by O.P. no. 1 and therefore the case proceeds ex-parte against O.P. 1 bank. It is O.P. nos. 2, 3 and 4 who have filed W/V jointly to contest the case and barring some preliminary objections, it is contended inter-alia by them that SBI and SBI Cards has separate entity. SBI Cards is a private limited company governed by Company Act, 1986. The grievances of the complainant relates to SBI card only. The O.P. issued credit card to complainant on his application in October, 2017. Complainant withdrew Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- on 21.11.2017 and 12.08.2017 and he also paid the same with admissible charges of Rs. 300/- - which is reflected from statement of account dated 21.12.2017 filed herein.
On 01.01.2018, a transaction of Rs. 81,478/- was cancelled and the said amount was paid to the credit of the complainant, vide statement of account dated 21.01.2018. Again, on 10.08.2018, the complainant made a transaction of Rs. 91,147/- with FLIPKART through credit card and this payment is not made to the company by complainant, vide account statement dated 21.01.2018. The total due from the complainant thus stands at Rs. 1,34,882/- as on 21.10.2018, vide statement of account dated 21.08.2018, 21.09.2018 and 21.10.2018 filed herein. The complaint is a fake one; there is no cause of action arising for filing this case by complainant and therefore the case should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s as alleged?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
- What other relief, if any, the complainant is entitled to?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Both the parties have led evidence on affidavit and these are kept in record. BNAs filed by the parties are also kept in record after consideration.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers ,appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version and the materials placed on record. Considered all these.
Now to see whether the complainant has fallen a prey to unfair trade practice ,if any, on the part of the O.Ps as alleged by the complainant. On perusal of the materials on record, it is found that the complainant was provided with a credit card by O.P nos. 2 to 4 in the month of October, 2017 and thereafter he made two withdrawal i.e Rs.1000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 12.8.2017 and 21.11.2017 and these withdrawal amounts were also paid back to the company by the complainant along with interest accruing thereon. This is reflected from the statement of account dated 21.12.2017 filed on behalf of the contesting O.Ps. Up to 21.12.2017 there was no dispute arising between the parties in relation to the transaction and the dispute arose only thereafter. It is the version of the complainant that after two withdrawals of amount as mentioned above, he has not ever used his credit card and that no money has been withdrawn by him with the help of credit card nor has anything been purchased by him with the help of the Card. But, the case of the contesting O.Ps is otherwise. According to them, the complainant purchased things from ‘Flipkart’ and that payment was made from the exchequer of the O.P company and that amount has not been paid by the complainant to the Credit Card company. According to the contesting O.Ps, the complainant purchased articles from Flipkhart on 1.1.2018 and ,therefore, the company paid Rs.81,478/- ; again, he i.e the complainant purchased from Flipkart items on 10.1.2018 and the credit card company also paid Rs.91,477/-. Such purchase is also reflected in the statement of account dated 21.1.2018. These are the version and counter version of the parties and amidst such kind of version and counter version we have to decide what the actual truth is. We have to decide whether the complainant actually purchased anything from Flipkart or whether the entry of payment as shown in the statement of account of the O.Ps ,as if the complainant has purchased something from Flipkart, is wrong.
Before embarking on such discussion, we have to first keep in mind the meaning of two abbreviations. “D” mentioned in the statement of account beside the figure indicates payment by company and “C” stands for payment by complainant . Another thing is also to be mentioned here in this regard . It has been submitted by the contesting O.Ps that SBI (O.P-1) has a different entity from Credit Card Company i.e O.P nos. 2,3 and 4. We know very well that there is usual process followed by each bank and financial institutions in case of online transaction. In case of online purchase of anything from any company, it may be Flipkart, Amazon , Naptoll etc., the company or the bank which wants to make payment to those business company in order to comply with the request of the customer sends an OTP in the registered mobile of the customer. The customer then returns the OTP to the bank or financial company and this return of the OTP of the customer through his registered mobile is nothing but indication of consent of the customer. This is a sort of safeguard for the protection of the account of the customer in the bank and when this OTP is received by the bank or the financial institution from the customer, money automatically stands credited or debited to the account of the customer. At the same time, we cannot but say that it is obligatory on the part of the bank and financial institution to keep the records of the OTP and SMS sent to the customer.
Coming to the facts of the instant case, it is the version of the contesting O.Ps that OTP was sent to the complainant and thereafter the amount was paid to the merchant company. We have already mentioned that the two withdrawals of Rs.1000/- and Rs.10,000/- which were made by the complainant at the very first time go undisputed. That time OTP as well as SMS was sent by the O.Ps to the complainant in his registered mobile and money was also withdrawn by the complainant. We have already mentioned that there was no dispute up to 21.12.2017 and the disptue erupted only thereafter. Two photocopies of “Contact Detailed Changing SMS”and “Contact Detailed Changing OTP” have been filed on record on behalf of the contesting O.Ps. From these two photocopies of contact details it is found that within 10 days i.e from 13.12.2017 to 22.12.2017 the registered mobile number of the complainant has been changed twice. No prudent customer will change his mobile number so frequently within the short span of period and this kind of change of registered mobile number reasonably gives rise to a suspicion. It is the version of the contesting O.Ps that the registered mobile number was changed on request of the complainant and it has been so mentioned in the photocopy of Contact Details filed on behalf of the contesting O.Ps. The Context of the message is reproduced herein as follows:-
“Dear SBI Card Holder,
As per your request we have updated your registered mobile number in our records. If you have made this request, call SBI Card Help Line at 39-02-02-02(Prefix Local STD Code) immediately. You will start receiving your OTP for online transaction on the updated mobile numbers within 28 hours”.
The above message also makes it clear that the registered mobile number of the complainant was changed on the request of the complainant. The contesting O.ps have not divulged anything clearly as to whether the request was made by the complainant online or in writing. Had there been the request in writing form, they would have produced the same on record before the Forum. Had there been any online request made by the complainant, the contesting O.Ps could have produced the record of that online request of the complainant. But the O.Ps have not been able to produce any such document. The complainant submitted application for issuing of credit card and in that application he mentioned his mobile number as being 9153461728. It is the responsibility of the Bank or the financial institution to see that no mischief-monger is able to have any access to the account of the customer . A mischief-monger may also send a ghost request to the bank or financial company in order to subserve their interest. The bank/financial institution should have scrutinized whether that request is genuine or not. It is the responsibility of these institutions to provide protection to the account of the customer. They should know very well that frequent change of registered mobile number is always doubtful . But the O.Ps have not verified these genuineness of the requests received by them while proceeding to insert another mobile number in the account of the complainant twice. The contesting O.Ps have not taken any step to plug the siphoning away of money in respect of the account of the complainant by inserting new mobile number therein. What do the miscreants do? The miscreants insert new mobile numbers of their own to the account of the complainant and thus the registered mobile numbers of the customer is made crippled. OTP begins to go to these new mobiles and these new mobile holders sent back the OTP and the transactions become complete. It is the easy process to plunder the money of the customer from his account having benumbed the registered mobile of the customer. The contesting O.Ps have not made any attempt to change free access of these mischief-mongers to the accounts of the customer. We do not know why they have remained silent. They have remained silent and have again started to demand Rs.1,34,882/-as due amount from the complainant vide statement of account dated 21.9.2018. Had the contesting O.Ps not allowed the access of mischief-mongers in the account of the complainant, the mischief-mongers could not have been able to purchase any articles from the merchant company as against the account of the complainant. So, it is found that the role of the O.P is very much doubtful and the unfair trade practice could not have flourished unless the contesting O.Ps have paved the way for that.
It is the version of the O.P that message was given every time to the customer whenever purchase is sought to be made as against the account of the complainant. But wo do say that the message itself is deceptive in nature. Most people of our country are shy of sending reply to message for fear of plunder of their money kept in the bank. The message which has been mentioned before imposes a liability on customers to call a SBI Card Helpline and if no call is made, mobile number is changed in respect of the account of the customer. Most of the customers do not send reply to message for the fear of being cheated by the mischief-mongers. The contesting O.Ps know this fact very well. They know the weak point i.e the Achilis heel of the customers. Taking the opportunity of these weak points of the customer, the mischief has been so committed. If nothing is heard from the customer, the mobile number will be changed. Why? The proper message should have been, “If no reply is received from you, your request for change of mobile number will be turned down” . This is the proper message and if this message is adopted by the contesting O.Ps, there will be no plunder from the account of the innocent customers. But this is not done by them. Is it to help the mischief-mongers or to help the customer ,that is the common folk of our country? Giving our considered opinion in all these things to their depth, we do hold that the contesting O.Ps are the main wirepuller behind plundering money from the account of the innocent customers . a
Had the message been given by them in proper form as pointed out above, the registered mobile number of the customer would never have been changed and in that case, money from the account of the customer could not have been siphoned out.
We are pointing one by one how unfair trade practice is gaining its ground having nourished by the O.Ps and many other like persons and institutions.
The statement of account as furnished by the contesting O.Ps in respect of the account of the complainant is not also correct; these are found to be full of anomalies. We are proceeding to compare two statement of accounts dated 21.2.2018 and 21.3.2018. From the very statement dated 21.2.2018 , it is gathered that Rs.91,477.09 has been paid by the complainant in his account to the credit card company. “C” is written beside this entry and it has already been mentioned herein that “C” stands for payment by the complainant. But, in the said statement, if we once turn to the ‘account summary’, the payment has been shown as ‘0.00’. Moreover, if this amount is assumed to be paid to the complainant by the credit card company, the contesting O.Ps should have made it clear before the Forum how this amount was paid i.e in what mode. No mode of payment is divulged by them. Money is paid to the credit card account through SBI account of the complainant. The O.Ps could have filed any SBI document that the said money was actually paid to the complainant . Bu no such document has been placed on record by them.
Similarly, in the statement dated 21.3.2018, it has been shown that Rs.1,00,257.30 has been paid by the complainant on 13.3.2018 as there is ‘C’ written beside that entry of money. In the ‘Account Summary’ of that statement dated 21.3.2018, the payment amount is shown as being Rs.1,00,257.36. In this case also, the O.Ps have not been able to produce any paper to show how the payment was made by the complainant to his credit card account. Whereas , the version of the complainant is that he never made any transaction by his credit card after his two earlier withdrawals only. The O.Ps are not able to produce any paper to substantiate these entries because these entries are their subjective reconstruction; these have no basis, far less any solid basis and, therefore, we are compelled to say that the statement of accounts are nothing but wrong and bogus statements.
Let us come back and once turn our notice to the statement of account dated 21.1.2018 filed by the O.Ps. From the statement it is found that credit card company paid Rs.81,478/- on 1.1.2018 and Rs.91,477/- on 10.1.2018 to Flipkart company. But the message which was sent through socalled registered mobile is different. The message shows that Rs.93,476/- was spent on SBI Card of the complainant at Flipkart Internet Private. Statement dated 21.1.2018 also reflects that the complainant has paid Rs.81,596.39 and this is so reflected in “Account Summary “of that statement. Complainant can only make payment through his SBI account maintained in the bank of O.P-1. The contesting O.Ps do not produce any document to show that the amount of Rs.81,596.39 was actually paid by the complainant. In absence of such document, the entries made in the statement appears to be very suspicious and we do say that these bills are wrong and fictitious bills; these bills have no transparency at all. All these are nothing but the reflection of unfair trade practice on the part of the contesting O.Ps i.e O.P nos. 2,3 and 4.
There is another anomaly which is peeping out from the statement of account filed on record by the contesting O.Ps. From the statement dated 21.2.2018 ,it is found in ‘Account summary’ that the purchase amount is Rs.91,477.09 which squarely corresponds with the opening balance of Rs.91477.09 of the account of the complainant. Similarly, from the statement dated 21.3.2018 ,it is found that the purchased amount of Rs.100257.36 squarely corresponds with the opening balance of Rs.100257.36. Our question is whether the complainant purchased things always in commensurate with the opening balance of his account ,not one paisa less nor one paisa more. This is an abnormal conduct on the part of the human being and no human being can be expected to make such purchase in this way. Having gone through the notice of such kind of entry of abnormal nature in the statement of account, we do not feel any kind of hesitation to hold that all these statements are wrong and bogus statements and these are made by the contesting O.Ps with a view to practising unfair trade practice.
Now, comes the question whether SBI bank i.e O.P-1 is liable for unfair trade practice committed by the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4. The contesting O.Ps have given a clean-cheat to O.P-1 bank by saying that O.P-1 has a separate entity completely different from their company. The Credit Card Company uses its name as ‘SBI Cards’. Our question is why the name ‘SBI’is allowed to be prefixed to the name of a private company. O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 have submitted that they are private limited company governed by the Companies Act, 1956. If this be so, why that private company has been allowed to use the fair name of SBI. The banks were nationalized by our Government to protect the common people from the operation of money lenders. Now, it is found that some mischief-mongers have taken the place of those money lenders. Whenever the name ‘SBI’ is allowed to be used by some private company or person, it is a clear attempt to misguide the common people. The common people will take it for granted that the said private company prefixing ‘SBI’to its name is nothing but part and parcel of State Bank of India (SBI). Not only this, SBI also allows the private company to open a counter within their premises so that those private companies can have their prey. There is certainly a tie-up arrangement between the O.P-1 bank and the Credit Card Company. The Credit Card Companies are all out to plunder the money of the common people in connivance with the SBI. In this way, integrity and reputation of the SBI is being eroded day by day. Be that as it may, we are not in a position to give any clean-cheat to O.P-1 bank and we do hold that the O.P-1 bank is also an accomplice to the mischievous act i.e unlawful trade practice of the contesting O.Ps.
Upon what have been discussed above, it is found that the O.Ps are not entitled to claim any amount from the complainant ,as all of their statements as pointed out above are full of various kinds of falsities ,giving rise to a reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person. The complainant is deemed entitled to relief and the relief is accorded to him as hereunder.
In the result, the case succeeds.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 and decreed exparte against O.P-1 with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.Ps are hereby restrained from recovering Rs.1,34,882/- or any amount from the complainant as shown in their statement dated 21.10.2018 and are directed to cancel the credit card issued in favour of the complainant from this day.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compenation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to unfair trade practice adopted by them , within a month of this order ,failing which the compensation amount and the amount of cost will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Further, if the compensation amount is paid by the O.Ps, Rs.1 lac out of the said amount will go the Legal Aid Account of this Forum and another Rs.1 lac would go to the complainant.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
President
I / We agree
Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P nos. 2,3 and 4 and decreed exparte against O.P-1 with a cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The O.Ps are hereby restrained from recovering Rs.1,34,882/- or any amount from the complainant as shown in their statement dated 21.10.2018 and are directed to cancel the credit card issued in favour of the complainant from this day.
The O.Ps are further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2 lacs as compenation for harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to unfair trade practice adopted by them , within a month of this order ,failing which the compensation amount and the amount of cost will bear interest @10% p.a till full realization thereof.
Further, if the compensation amount is paid by the O.Ps, Rs.1 lac out of the said amount will go the Legal Aid Account of this Forum and another Rs.1 lac would go to the complainant.
Registrar-In-Charge of this Forum is directed to send a copy of the judgment free of cost at once to the parties concerned by speed post.
Member President
