Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/764

HDFC BANK LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

ANISH BHATNAGAR - Opp.Party(s)

21 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

 

Date of Decision: 21.10.2016  

 

 

 

First Appeal No.764/2010

(Arising out of the order dated 18.06.2010 passed in Complaint Case No.541/2008 by the District Consumer Redressal Forum (West), Janak Puri, New Delhi)

 

 

In the matter of:

 

HDFC Bank Limited,

Credit Card Division,

B-1/28, 3^rd Floor, Community Centre,

Janak Puri, New Delhi

 

ALSO AT:

9^th Floor, Ansal Classique Tower,

Plot No.1, J. Block, Near Community Centre,

Rajouri Garden, New Delhi

                           ....Appellant

 

Versus

 

Shri Anish Bhatnagar,

Shop No.12 & 13,

LSC, DDA Market,

H-3, Block, Janak Puri,

New Delhi

 

ALSO AT:

C-1/97, Brotherhood Society,

Plot No.3, Vikas Puri,

New Delhi.

….….....Respondent

 

CORAM

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President.

Ms. Salma Noor, Member.

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

 

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 Justice Veena Birbal, President

 

 

1. This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short “the Act”) wherein is challenge is made to order dated 19.06.2010 passed in C.C. No.541/2008 by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(North), (in short “the District Forum”), whereby the complaint case filed by the appellant/complainant has been allowed.
2. Briefly stated the facts relevant for disposal of the appeal are that a complaint under Section 12 of the Act was filed by the respondent herein i.e. the complainant before the District Forum stating therein that he was holding an HDFC Bank Credit Card bearing No.434677002399730. It was alleged that the said card was misused by some unknown person and the appellant/OP had imposed bills/dues against him, which had come to his notice through bank field staff as they had demanded money from him in respect of expenses done by some other person by using his card. It was alleged that on 04.10.2007, the respondent/complainant had made payment of Rs.5733/- as was allegedly demanded by the staff of the bank. It was alleged that after making aforesaid payment, respondent/complainant had received bank statement. On going through the said statement the respondent/complainant came to know that his credit card was used on 12.08.2007 by some unknown person at ecity Mumbai and the expenses costed Rs.560/-. The bank statement reflected that the card was thereafter used on 22.09.2007 at Mumbai for making payment of Tata Indicom at Mumbai for Rs.2200/- and Rs.200/-. Again on 23.09.2007  card was used for making payment of Rs.1420/- and Rs.320/- respectively for Movietell and Ecity entertainment at Mumbai. Respondent/complainant had alleged that the bills raised till 03.10.2007 were towards credit card issued to him. It was alleged that later on he received statement/bills on 03.11.2007, 13.12.2007, 03.01.2008 03.02.2008, 03.03.2008, 03.04.2008 and 03.05.2008 in respect of Credit Card No. 4346772005150486  which was not belonging to him.  The total bills shown as on 03.05.2008 against both the credit cards were  for Rs.37,800.30 p. It was alleged that both the cards were used at Mumbai for making payments were towards Tata Indicom,  Movie Tel, e-City Entertainment etc. Respondent/complainant had alleged that he had never been to Mumbai and had never used the credit card and it was further alleged that he was misguided by the bank officials and was compelled to make payment of Rs.5733/- to the appellant/OP. It was further alleged that he was also pressurized by the bank official to settle the matter and in order to get rid of mental torture and pressure he gave cheque of Rs.20000/0- which he later on got stopped for payment as credit card was not used by him and bills were being raised upon him for the use of card which someone else had used at Mumbai. The respondent/complainant had made prayer before the Ld. District Forum for investigation by the appellant/OP to find the user of the card and had prayed for refund of Rs.5733/- alongwith compensation and costs.
3. Appellant/OP had contested the claim by filing written statement wherein it was admitted that the respondent was credit card holder of appellant/OP being Card bearing No. 434677002399730. It was also admitted that the same was used at Mumbai on the aforesaid dates as was alleged. The appellant/OP also admitted that the respondent/complainant made payment of Rs.5733/- on 04.10.2007. It was alleged that there was outstanding of Rs.15835.33/- as on 03.10.2007 against the use of the aforesaid credit card. It was denied that the card was used by some unknown person. It was alleged that on 19.10.2007 the respondent/complainant contacted the appellant/OP and alleged that he was suspecting misuse of his credit card, as such his credit card be blocked. On the said date, the appellant/OP had also sent a Lost Card Declaration Form but the respondent/complainant did not contact the appellant/OP. On his request the cared was blocked and a new card bearing No. 4346772005150486 was generated and statement since September 2007 was credited to the aforesaid new card number.  It was further alleged that the respondent/complainant had made payment of his own without being misguided by the staff as was alleged. It was also alleged that settlement was not under pressure but the respondent/complainant on his own had visited the office of the appellant/OP and handed over cheque of Rs.20,000/- towards settlement.  A prayer was made for dismissal of the complaint.
4. Both the parties had filed evidence in the form of affidavits.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties, Ld. District Forum held that it was very strange how the bank had generated the new card for the respondent/complainant when the respondent/complainant had never requested or filled any form or sent any request in this regard. It was held that no material was placed on record by the appellant/OP in this regard and there was no justification given by the appellant/OP for new card generation for billing the complainant for the purchases or use of card at Mumbai City when the respondent/complainant is holding card at Delhi. Ld. District Forum also held that the amount of Rs.5733/- taken from the respondent/complainant without showing statement to him was illegal. The Ld. District Forum quashed the same as well as other bills raised upon respondent/complainant and ordered for the refund of the amount of Rs.5733/- and also granted compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing harassment to the respondent/complainant.
6. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the  appellant has contended that the Ld. District Forum acted with material irregularity by directing the appellant/OP to quash the bills and ordered for refund Rs.5733/- specially when there was a settlement dated 26.06.2008 between the parties and pursuant thereto the respondent had given cheque of Rs.20000/-. It is contended that allegation of the respondent/complainant that the settlement was under pressure are not established in any manner and the same are vague and afterthought. It is contended that the finding of the Ld. District Forum that the payment of Rs.5733/- was made by the respondent/complainant under compelling circumstances is also wrong.  The same has also not been substantiated in any manner. It is contended that all the bills raised upon the respondent/complainant are prior to the blocking of the card. It is further contended that only new credit card number was given by appellant/OP for record purposes and no plastic card was issued by appellant/OP Bank. It is also contended that the Ld District Forum has not passed the impugned order on the basis of the material on record as such the same is liable to be set aside.
8. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondent/complainant  to assist us.
9. We have heard counsel for the appellant/OP and perused the material on record.
10. It is admitted position that the appellant/OP had issued credit card bearing No. 434677002399730 to the respondent/complainant. It is also admitted position that on 04.10.2007 payment of Rs.5733/- was also given by the respondent/complainant to appellant in respect of bills of his credit card. Misuse of the credit card was reported by the respondent/complainant to the appellant/OP on 19.10.2007. The credit card No.434677002399730 had remained throughout with the respondent/complainant. It is not the case of the respondent/complainant that aforesaid credit card was lost by him. The credit card PIN number remained in his possession. Simply by alleging that he did not visit Mumbai is no ground that the card was misused. All the statements/Bills dated 03.10.2007, 03.11.2007. 03.12.2007, 03.01.2008, 03.02.2008, 03.03.2008, 03.04.2008 placed on record by the appellant/OP are in respect of Credit Card No. 434677002399730. Perusal of the said statements show that all the transactions are prior to 19.10.2007 and no transaction is done on new generated credit card number.  All the transactions are prior to blocking of the card. The stand of the appellant/OP is that when request of the respondent/complainant was received for blocking the credit card No. 434677002399730 on 19.10.2007, the same was blocked immediately and a new card bearing No.4346772005150486 was generated without the physical plastic card being generated for the same. The stand of the appellant/OP is that new number of card was generated as per standard banking practice after blocking the card. In these circumstances, the finding of the Ld. District Forum that the respondent/complainant had been billed for new generated card for an amount of Rs.37,000/- is wrong. The appellant/OP has used new generated credit card number only for billing purposes as his old card was blocked and nothing has been placed on record by the respondent/complainant to show that he had been billed for the transactions on the new generated credit card No.4346772005150486.
11. It may also be mentioned that as per the respondent/complainant, he had settled the matter with the appellant/OP on 26.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and had given a cheque to the bank in this regard. The respondent/complainant had alleged that the said settlement  was under compulsion. However, he  has failed to substantiate the allegations that he was compelled to enter into any settlement. There is nothing on record to show that the respondent/complainant made any complaint in this regard to higher bank officials. Further it has also come on record that the respondent/complainant had come to know of alleged misuse of his card in October 2007 but the complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum after a lapse of one year. There is no explanation for the same. The complaint is filed only after having stopped the payment of cheque issued by the respondent/complainant for settlement amount. The complaint filed is an afterthought and to escape from the liability.
12. In view of above discussion, we accept this appeal, set aside the impugned order and consequently dismissed the CC No.541/2008.
13. A Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs as per rule and be also sent to the District Forum(West) for information.

           File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Justice Veena Birbal)

•  

 

(Salma Noor)

Member