District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
(Complaint case No. 47/2021)
(Dt. Of filing:- 05.03.2021)
Sri Nabarun Saha
Village and P.O.:- Manashpur/Behind Colony,
District:-Hooghly, Pin-712123……Complainant
-Versus
- The Branch Manager,
State Bank of India, Bandel Branch, P.S. Chinsurah
Bandel, Hooghly, Pin-712123.
- State Bank Credit Card Ltd.,
Gurugram, Haryana, DLF Infinity Towers-C, 12th floor
Block-2, Building-3
P.S. DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana-122002
- The Chief Manager, SBI Chinsurah Branch, P.O. and P.S. Chinsurah, District:- Hooghly, Pin:- 712101
…….Opposite parties
Before:-
Mr. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President
Mr. Debasis Bhattacharya, Member
Final Order/Judgment
Debasis Bhattacharya:- PRESIDING MEMBER
Having been agitated over the service extended by the opposite parties as mentioned before in the matter of issuance of a credit card and showing indifferent attitude and inaction, even after bringing the alleged fraudulent activities involving the said credit card, into the knowledge of the Opposite parties, the instant case has been filed by the complainant, u/s 35 (1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows.
As depicted in the Complaint petition, the Complainant who had an account with the OP 1 i.e. the Bandel branch of State Bank of India received a credit card of the same bank on 11.03.19 through courier.
The Complainant on receipt of the said card claims to have approached to the branch and conveyed that he was not in need of the card.
The Bank is reported to have intimated that the card could not be cancelled before expiry of six months.
The Complainant claims to have made no transaction using the card till date.
The Complainant further claims to have blocked the card on 28.08.2019 and received message to that effect.
However, the Complainant, while he was in Jalpaiguri, received a letter dtd. 18.11.2019, the issue in which was cancellation of auto debit service against the credit card. Surprisingly the letter received by the Complainant in his Bandel residence was addressed to SBI Cards and Services Pvt. Ltd. of New Delhi and signed in the name of none other than the Complainant himself. The Complainant claims that the card number mentioned in the letter was not that of the card held by him but the account number did not differ from his own.
On 12.02.2020, Rs.24,351/- was found to have been debited from his S/B A/C with the intimation ‘Debit SBI Credit card’.
From then on, the Complainant claims to have received several SMS from the OP, showing deduction of charges from his account.
In spite of repeated persuasions, the matter was not resolved and on the other side the OP Bank preferred to keep indifferent over the issue causing hardship for the Complainant.
The matter was taken up also with the concerned authority of SBI Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Of Gurgaon by a letter dtd.27.02.2020 which resulted in written assurances of redressal only.
Subsequently, the Complainant started receiving intimidating phone calls from various agencies of the SBI Card and other departments asking him to pay off the dues against the usage of the credit card which went to the extent of Rs.6,00,000/-.
The demand in the Complainant’s opinion was fabricated.
Facing all these hazards, the Complainant claims to have filed a complaint with the Chinsurah Police Station.
However disturbing phone calls continued to pour in holding the Complainant responsible for changing his OTP, mobile number and address. The Complainant on the other hand denies all these allegations.
In the process, the Complainant claims to have lost an amount of Rs.30,000/-
Considering the opposite parties’ indifference and inaction towards the financial loss and harassment faced by him, as deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the instant complaint petition is filed with the prayers to impose direction on the OP Bank to make refund of the amount of Rs.30,000/-, to take necessary action to close the credit card, to pay an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-as compensation with interest @10%, to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards litigation cost, and to pay further Rs.2,00,000/- for ‘harassment, mental pain and agony’.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are almost replica of the complaint petition.
The Complainant along with their petition has submitted copies of certain bank statements related to the material period, print outs of certain purported sms and e-mails received from the OP, mails sent to the OP, purported complaint letter submitted before the Chinsurah P.S. and SBI Card monthly statement.
The instant case runs ex parte against the OP 2 and OP 3. OP 1 primarily prayed to be expunged from this case but considering all the aspects of the case, this Commission could not be inclined to expunge OP1 i.e. Bandel branch of SBI from this case.
However the OP Bank contested the case by submitting written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument in which all the charges leveled against them have been denied.
In the written version, notarized affidavit in chief and brief notes of argument the OP bank puts stress on the issue that the Bank and Credit card division are totally two different entities and the bank has no connection with the credit card division. The OP Bank denies to have approached to the Complainant for the issuance of the credit card.
The OP bank further points out that no correspondence was made to them in this regard and they had no knowledge about the interactions made between the Complainant and OP No.2.
OP Bank in their evidence on affidavit denies the allegation that on being approached, they intimated the Complainant that the card could not be cancelled before expiry of six months. The entire issue is termed by the OP Bank as planting of a story by the Complainant.
Issues for consideration
- Whether the complainant is the consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.
- Whether this Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief.
Decision with reason
Issue No. 1
In view of the above discussion and on examination of available records it transpires that the complainant is a consumer as far as the provisions laid down under Section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 are concerned.
Issue No. 2
Both the complainant and the opposite parties 1and 3 are resident/having their office address within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Issue No. 3 and 4
Materials on records are perused. The issues being mutually inter-related, are taken together for convenient disposal.
The Complainant admits to have applied for the credit card but denies to have made the card operative by creating PIN and observing other technical formalities. He also denies to have made any transactions using the card. But the fact remains that the card was used and there were a number of transactions against the card. The Complainant after depicting the series of events since issuance of the card, eventually indicates at the fraudulent use of the card by somebody else. Lots of mails in this regard were sent to the OP 2 in this regard. OP 2 finally in their mail dtd.11.09.2020 intimated that the complaint of the cardholder was reviewed and no fraud was identified in the ‘application processing and details change’. By using the term ‘details change’ OP 2 perhaps has indicated at change of address and mobile no. It is further affirmed that mobile no. was changed with the help of the OTP in which intimation sms were routed to the Complainant’s registered mobile No.
However so far as the statement of facts as presented by the Complainant is concerned, there are certain questionable areas.
Though primarily the Complainant has his account with the Bandel Branch of the OP Bank, escalation of the issue with the said branch is remarkably absent.
There is no hard evidence that the OP Bank suggested that the card could not be cancelled before expiry of six months.
Even if there was any possibility of fraudulent use of the card by somebody else taking recourse to some sort of manipulation, the Complainant should have approached to the cyber crime cell of the concerned police wing. But there is no such evidence that the matter was referred to the concerned cyber crime cell.
The Complainant claims to have lodged a complaint in this regard with the Chinsurah Police Station. But the copy of the purported GD filed by the Complainant does not contain any seal and signature of the concerned police station. A police station accepting a GD without giving a signed and stamped receipt is hardly likely. Thus the authenticity of the GD is questionable.
Now the only dispute revolves around the issue whether the credit card was fraudulently used by somebody else. A sincere criminal investigation into the matter was badly required which was supposed to be arranged by the appropriate Cyber Crime Wing of Police. The same was neither pursued nor done.
Besides, in an appeal challenging the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) dismissing the appeal against Tamilnadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC) holding the bank liable for deficiency of service under section 2(1)(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, the Division Bench of Ajoy Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ. held that complaints involving highly disputed questions of facts could not be decided by NCDRC or SCDRC respecting the summary nature of proceedings under the 1986 Act.
Thus, on meticulous scrutiny of all the aspects of the case, this Commission is of the view that allegations leveled against the opposite parties cannot be established in unequivocal terms and the complaint highlighted in the petition involves highly disputed question of facts which is not supposed to be resolved in this forum.
Hence it is
ORDERED
That the complainant case no.47/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest.
However there is no order is passed as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The final order will be available in the website www.confonet.nic.in.
