BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.1446-2014

DATED ON THIS THE 29^th December 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

President

1.     This is a complaint under section 12 of C.P.Act for a direction to the opposite party to reverse the debit entry relating to credit card expenses of `62,723/- to the S.B. account of the complainant with interest and also for payment of `15,00,000/- towards tension and mental agony with such other reliefs.
2.     The present complainant being the chartered accountant in Mysore, at the request of opposite party, got international credit card bearing No.4862930100553004 and the credit limit was fixed at Rs.5,00,000/-.  In the month of November 2013, the complainant never visited any other countries and he was very much present in India only even then to his surprise and shock on 21.11.2013, he has received a statement relating to his credit card and came to know that there is transaction to the extent of more than Rs.6,00,000/- between 11.11.2013 to 13.11.2013 in United States of America.  Then the complainant approached the opposite party with letter.  Thereafter, at the instance of opposite party, police complaint was lodged.
3.     In the meanwhile, on 15.05.2014, the opposite party had reversed only a portion of the amount i.e. `96,186/-.  Since the complainant has not made use of his credit card during the period 11.11.2013 to 13.11.2013 particularly in USA.  The demand made by the opposite party is illegal.  Thereby, a legal notice was caused on 11.08.2014.  Further subsequently a sum of `4,95,000/- was revered in the account of the complainant being the amount claimed from insurance company and the opposite party is demanding the balance amount of `62,723/-.  The opposite party has also shared the personal details with CIBIL and black listed the complainant, availing any loans from other financial institutions.  The transaction took place due to collusion of the opposite party with some criminals who have made use of the alleged credit card and thereby, there is deficiency in service.  As such, the complainant has sought for a direction to reverse the debit entry to the extent of `62,723/- which was not so far reversed by the opposite party.
4.     The cause of action for the complaint arose in Mysore city on 21.11.2013 when complainant received credit card statement and subsequently when a legal notice was issued to the other side in Mysore within jurisdiction of this Forum. 
5.     The opposite party appeared and filed version.  It is not in dispute that the complainant availed credit card facility from opposite party bank.  In order to operate the card, PIN number has to be used, it is a secret code provided to the card holder.  Holder of card is expected to maintain the secrecy of the PIN number.  The card is to be used strictly as per the exchange controlled regulations.  Further the card holders are directed or advice to surrender the cards used abroad immediately on return from foreign countries.
6.     In spite of this fact, the opposite party claimed for charge back of alleged amount from insurance company and the opposite party has received the eligible charge back amount from the insurance company.  Thereby, the opposite party has credit the sum of `96,186.65 on 28.03.2014 and a sum of `4,95,000/- on 22.07.2014.  Thereby, a total sum of `5,91,186.65 has been credited to the S.B. account of the complainant.  In spite of it, the complainant’s S.B. account is showing debit balance.  As on 31.12.2014, the S.B. account of the complainant shown debit balance of `1,47,461.64 and the bank reserves the right to claim the outstanding amount from the complainant under due process of law.  The bank is not at all liable to pay any amount claimed by the complainant.
7.     As per rules, CIBIL report was submitted. Thereby, opposite party submits that there is no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice.  Thereby, sought for dismissal of this complaint.
8.     On the above contention of both the parties, this matter is set down for evidence.  During the evidence, on behalf of complainant, the complainant’s affidavit evidence was filed.  Likewise, affidavit evidence of Senior Manager of the opposite party bank was filed.  Further evidence closed.  After hearing arguments, this matter is set down for orders.
9.     The following points arises for our consideration:-

1. Whether the complainant proves that his account was debited as if the credit card used between 11.11.2013 to 13.11.2013 and thereby there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?  As such, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought for?
2. What order?

10.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

11. Point No.1:- It is not in dispute that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ and the opposite party is ‘service provider’.  It is also not in dispute that complainant got an international credit card from the opposite party and the limit fixed in the said card is `5,00,000/-.  It is the evidence of the complainant that between 11.11.2013 and 13.11.2013 he never visited U.S.A.  But to his surprise, he has received statement relating to his credit card on 21.11.2013, which discloses transaction to the extent of more than `6,00,000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested the opposite party to set right the accounts as he has not transacted between 11.11.2013 and 13.11.2013 by using his international credit card.  Further, he never visited USA between these days.  Thereby, there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party as such he has sought for the reliefs.  Further after adjusting a sum of `96,186.65 on 28.03.2014 and `4,95,000/- on 22.07.2014.  Opposite party is still insisting for payment of `62,723/-.  The complainant is not liable to pay the said sum as he never made use of international credit card on the alleged date as per the statement given by the opposite party.
12. The contention of the opposite party is to the effect that the international credit card holder is expected to surrender the card immediately after completion of their visit to foreign countries, that has not been done in this case by the complainant and further submits that the card holder is expected to maintain the secrecy of the PIN number.  In this case, that has not been made by the complainant and the transaction took place due to his negligence only.  Thereby, the bank is not liable to answer the claims.
13. It is not in dispute that the complainant was provided card facility to the extent of `5,00,000/-.  Whereas between 11.11.2013 and 13.11.2013, the transaction exceeds `6,00,000/- even then bank has not taken any care while paying the amount to the traders.  Only after the payment of more than `6,00,000/- and only when the complainant demanded for proper account, the bank has started investigation and insisted the complainant to file police complaint also.  The police complaint was also lodged by the complainant.  The investigation is under progress, the bank is also assisting the investing agency.  Thereby, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.  But, the facts, it reveals first of all the opposite party has honoured the credit facilities for more than `6,00,000/- though the limit was `5,00,000/- only.  Further for the reasons best known to the opposite party, a sum `96,186.65 was reversed in the accounts of the complainant on 28.03.2014, that is not the insurance amount, but a sum of `4,95,000/- being the insurance amount credited to the account of complainant on 22.07.2014.  Still the opposite party is insisting for the payment of the balance amount, which is shown as debit balance in his account.  Further apart from all these things, the opposite party has reported to the CIBIL and the other banks are not allowing the complainant to avail loan facilities in view of this report and as such there is definitely harassment, mental agony to the complainant and there is no answer on the part of the opposite party in this regard.  Though there is submission on behalf of opposite party to the extent that to a good customer, the bank facilitate such customer to avail more credit facility than the limit provided, but such submission cannot be accepted to arrive at a conclusion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.
14. The opposite party being the nationalized bank is expected to take much care when there is huge transaction in 2-3 days of the account of any person.  For that matter, the account of the complainant that has not been done, no care was taken by the opposite party bank,  it amounts to deficiency in service and blaming the good customer amounts to such unfair trade practice.  As such, the complainant has established the point No.1. Hence, point No.1 is answered in the affirmative.
15. Point No.2:- In view of the findings recorded on point No.1, this Forum proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite party is directed to reverse the debit entry relating to credit card expenses of `62,723/- to the S.B. Account of the complainant within one month.  Failing which, the opposite party has to pay interest on the said sum of `62,723/- at 18% p.a.  
3. Further, opposite party is directed to pay a sum of `25,000/- as compensation to the complainant for having caused mental agony and harassment and further directed to pay a sum `2,000/- towards litigation expenses within one month.  Failing which, the opposite party has to pay interest on the said sum of `27,000/- at 10% p.a. 
4. In case of default to comply this order, the opposite party shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, transcript corrected by us and then pronounced in open court on this the 29^th December 2015)

                          (H.M.SHIVAKUMARA SWAMY) 

                                      PRESIDENT     

(M.V.BHARATHI)                          (DEVAKUMAR.M.C.)

      MEMBER                                         MEMBER