Orissa

Cuttak

CC/172/2022

Suryamani Dixit - Complainant(s)

Versus

CPP Assistance Service Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

G P Jena & associates

01 Jan 2024

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.172/2022

 

          Sri Suryamani Dixit,

           S/o: Nabaghan Dixit,

           At:Bidanasi Nuasahi,Bidanasi,

           P.O:Abhinaba Bidanasi UPD,

           Dist:Cuttack,Pin-753014.                                             ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       The CPP ASSISTANCE SERVICE PVT. LTD.,

Ground Floor,Wing A Tower-A,Golf View

Corporate Towers Golf Course Road,Sector-42,

                  Gurgaon,Haryana-122007.

 

2.       HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

Regd. & Corporate Office:1^st floor, HDFC House,

165-166 Backbay Reclamation,

H.T Parekh Marg,Churchgate,

                  Mumbai-400020.

 

3.       HDFC ERGO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

Customer Service 6^th Floor,Leela Business Park,

Andheri Kurla Road,

Andheri( E )Mumbai-400059.

 

4.       Manager,Customer Care Service,

SBI CARDS 7 PAYMENT SERVICES LTD.,

DLF Infinity Towers,Tower-C,

12^th Floor,Block-2,Building-3,

DLF Cyber City,Gurgaon-122002.

                      (Haryana)

 

5.       State Bank of India,Bidanasi Branch,

Cuttack CDA Sector-6, At:Bidanasi,

Cuttack,P.O:Avinab Bidanasi,

                Cuttack.                                                                                …Opp.Parties

 

Present:         Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    26.08.2022

Date of Order:  01.01.2024

 

For the complainant:                Mr. G.P.Jena,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps no.1 & 2 :                Mr. Ms. N.Roy,Advocate.

For the O.Ps no.3,4 & 5:                     None.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                           

          Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from her complaint petition in short is that he was provided a Credit Card on 15.12.2021 bearing No.6529-0283-4461-1298 issued by the S.B.I Bidanasi Branch,Cuttack,  with a credit limit of Rs.1,24,000/- and it was valid upto December,2026.  On 18.12.2021 the Credit Card of the complainant was fraudulently used for Rs.1,21,560/- in the cash free payment and the said amount was debited without the knowledge of the complainant.  The complainant received a message from the S.B.I Card that this transaction for the said amount was done.  The Card was blocked and the complainant had declined to have made such transaction.  The complainant had insured his Credit Card under Card Protection Plan Assistance Service Private Ltd. and had paid the charge thereof amounting to Rs.2499/-.  The protection was provided for Rs.2,00,000/-.  When such misuse of his credit card came to the knowledge of the complainant, he had filed FIR in that regard at Bidanasi Police Station on 21.12.2021.  On 20.12.2021 at 9.31 A.M. the complainant had received a telephonic call from Phone No.917771889332 of one Ruchika Singh belonging to the S.B.I Card who had intimated the complainant about the debited amount of Rs.1,21,560/- from his account on 18.12.2021 at 3.43 P.M.  The complainant had also contacted the Customer Service of S.B.I Card and had asked the O.Ps to reimburse the amount so debited since because his Card was under Card Protection Plan Assistance Service Private Ltd.  But when no fruitful result yielded and since when the amount had accelerated to Rs.1,76,759/- he has come up with this case seeking an amount of Rs.1,85,772/- from the SBI Card/O.Ps alongwith another  sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation from them and further an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards his mental agony and suffering.  He has also prayed for interest thereon @ 10% on the total claim as made by him to the tune of Rs.3,85,772/-.

          Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed copies of several documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Though O.Ps no.1 & 2 had filed their written version, it was noticed that the same was filed after exceeding the statutory period limit as provided under the C.P.Act,2019.  Accordingly, the written version of O.Ps no.1 & 2 was not accepted vide order to that effect dated 9.1.2023.  The other O.Ps no.3,4 & 5 were already set exparte vide order dated 5.12.2022.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

          i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.ii.

Out of the three points, point no.ii being the most pertinent one is taken up first for consideration here in this case.

On perusal of the contents of the complaint petition, additional affidavit and the documents as filed by the complainant, it is noticed that the complainant was a Credit Card- Holder bearing No. 6529-0283-4461-1298 which was issued by S.B.I,Bidanasi Branch,Cuttack with a credit limit upto Rs.1,24,000/-.  It is also noticed that the said card was insured under Card Protection Plan Assistance Service Private Ltd.   by the complainant and the assured sum was of Rs,.2,00,000/-.  The complainant had paid the charges thereof for such insurance to the tune of Rs.24,499/-.  Thus, it is to be seen here in this case that if the Credit Card of the complainant was ever misused.  In order to come to a conclusion that infact the O.Ps were deficient in their service and the insurer by not paying the insured amount if is liable.  As per the R.B.I guidelines and as per the terms and conditions of usage of the Credit Card, in order to make valid online transaction, the Credit Card Holder is to go to the Website of a Trader and indent his article as per his choices and desire after going through the product efficacies in the site.  Thereafter when the Credit Card holder chooses to purchase the said article, he has to furnish the details of his Credit Card to the trader through their site as regards to the Credit Card number, date of it’s expiry Pin number etc.  He has also to share the OTP which would be sent by the Trader to his registered mobile phone number and thereafter such transaction can be made.  The Trader would get back his consideration amount from the Banker of the Credit Card Holder as per the agreement to that effect in between the Credit Card Holder and his Banker, that whenever any trade/transaction is made, the consideration amount on demand within the limit period is to be paid.

Here in this case, the complainant alleges about the fraudulent transaction to have been made through his credit card which was not within his knowledge.  Be that as it may, in order to make a successful transaction there should have been sharing of the OTP which must have been sent to the registered mobile phone number of the complainant of this case and the user of the Credit Card must have shared all the secret details of the said Credit Card as required in order to make the said transaction successful.  Sharing necessary details of the Credit card of the complainant was definitely not within the knowledge of any of the O.Ps.  Moreso, the OTP in the said transaction certainly would have gone to the registered mobile phone number of the complainant and not to anywhere else.  The said OTP must have been shared in order to make the transaction successful.  This can only be possible if the complainant had disclosed/divulged all those secrecies to anyone else.  Thus, the allegation as made here in this case by the complainant that the transaction is fraudulent which was made through his Credit Card does not hold good.  The insurer is only liable to compensate the claim amount of the insured complainant when it is made out that for no fault of the complainant money from his account has been debited by using his Credit Card.  But here in this case, when it cannot be concluded that the transaction as has been made through the Credit Card of the complainant was fraudulent one, there cannot be any conclusion that the insurer by not compensating the insured amount is at fault or was deficient in his service.  Accordingly, this point is in no way going in favour of the complainant of this case.

Point no.i & iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed expart against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 1^st day of January,2024 under the seal and signature of this Commission.         

                                                                                             Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                      President

 

 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                          Member