DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 18^th  day of January,  2024

Present     :   Sri. Vinay Menon V.,  President

                   :   Smt. Vidya A., Member             

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 22/07/2019

                          CC/207/2019

Jayabalan,

S/o. Unnimoothan,

H. No. 44/384, Karnaki Nagar,

Vadakanthara (PO), Palakkad – 678 012.                         -           Complainant

(By Adv. A. Nijammuddin)

                                                                                                  Vs

1. CPP Assistances Services Pvt.  Ltd.,

Ground Floor, Golf View Corporate Tower - A,

Golf Course Road, Sector 42, 

Gurgam – 122 022, Haryana.

2. The Manager,

Federal Bank Main Branch,

Kunnathurmedu, Palakkad.  

Addl. O.P. 3. M/s. HDFC Ergo GIC Ltd.,

                       IInd Floor, Chicago Plaza, Rajaji Nagar,

         Cochin, 

         Rep. by Authorised Signatory/Managing Director

Addl. O.P. 4. M/s. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

                       Unit 401 & 402, 4^th Floor,

                       Agarwal Millennium Towers 1, 2 & 3,

 Nethaji Subash Place, Wazirpur

 New Delhi – 110 034                                           -           Opposite parties

(Addl. O.P.s 3 and 4 were impleaded as per

Order dated 20/1/2021 in I.A. 28/2021)

  (O.P. 1 by Adv. M/s Sanjeev Nirwani & K. Dhananjayan

 O.P. 2 set Ex-parte

       Addl. O.P. 3 by Adv. Ullas Sudhakaran

 Addl. O.P. 4 by Adv. Radhika Rajendran)

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President     

1. Gist of the complainant’s grievance is that the complainant availed a credit of the Addl. O.P.4 issued by the 2^nd O.P. during 2018. Said credit card was used by the complainant sparsely and was later closed during February, 2019.

Thereafter, the 1^st O.P. issued a fresh credit card to the complainant, which was not accepted or used by the complainant. But a fraudster used the credit card at one Qube Business solutions on 28/3/2019 at Delhi expending Rs. 15,000/-. The O.P. had been harassing the complainant for repayment of this amount which was illegally used by a fraudster. O.P.s are not entitled to any of amounts expended by the fraudster. This complaint is filed seeking an order declaring that the complainant had not used the credit card or that they are not entitled to receive any amount from the complainant and for compensation and other reliefs.  

2. Complainant has not made who the 1^st O.P. is, except that they have tie-up with the 2^nd O.P. Bank and that they provide credit cards. OP1 filed detailed version stating that they are no the agent of any Bank. Their role is limited and that too in the event of any untoward illegal incidents. They are not the issuer of credit cards, agent of any bank or tele-caller. O.P.1 only facilitate processing of the Insurance cover. The complainant had not informed the O.P.s regarding the fraud as contemplated under the agreement. Intimation was delayed.
3. O.P.2 remained ex-parte.

4.         In view of the pleadings contained in the version of OP1, the complainant impleaded additional OPs 3 & 4. OP3 is the Insurance company who had insured the credit card as against any fraud or untoward occurrences by issuance of a complimentary Card Protection Plan. Additional OP4 is the original issuer of the credit card.

5.         It is unfortunate to note that the version filed by the 4^th O.P. was devoid of any focus and was inundated with facts and quotes of law reports and provision of law, both relevant and irrelevant and on most parts highlighted and drafted by someone who has no knowledge of the art of pleading in the most unprofessional and haphazard manner.  Wading through the pleading quagmire, we assimilated that the OP4 had admitted that some fraudster had used the credit card as alleged by the complainant. They maintained that amounts are due from the complainant to the OP. They also stated that it was the contractual duty of the complainant to inform them and OP1 regarding the fraud perpetrated upon him. There was delay of over one month on the part of the complainant in informing the fact that some fraudster had committed fraud.

6. Pleadings considered, the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party (Qube Business Solution)?
2. Whether the complainant has raised the claim within the stipulated time prescribed by banking policy?
3. Whether the transaction was due to negligence on the part of complainant as alleged by OP?
4. Whether the complainant has reported the misuse of the card to the nearest police station and FIR was registered?
5.  Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?
6. Whether the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs claimed?

7.         Any other reliefs?

7.         But subsequent developments during the course of proceedings, made it unnecessary to go through the Issues and reach a finding in the said Issues. Pursuant thereto we are deviating from the usual mode of arriving at a conclusion by stating the list of evidence and discussion thereof to arrive at a conclusion as regard the Issues framed.  

8.         During the course of proceedings as already stated supra, additional OP3 was impleaded on 20/1/2021. OP3 is the Insurance company that dealt with any losses occurring to the complainant in the event of any illegalities like fraud. Subsequent to Addl. O.P.3 being impleaded, the matter was posted for settlement to 26/8/2022, 30/9/2022, 28/10/2022, 25/11/2022 and 30/12/2022. On 30/12/2022 complainant and OP3 entered into a settlement whereby OP3 settled the matter with the complainant for an amount of Rs.15,000/- and the dispute, insofar as O.P.3 is concerned, was closed.

9.         The other OPs were aware of these proceedings. But OPs 1 & 4 never raised any claim over the said amount. Till the date of hearing, both OPs 1 & 4 had not filed any application raising any claim over the amounts received by the complainant from OP3 inspite of having clear and indubitable notice and knowledge regarding the transaction.

10.       Pleadings raised by OP4 clearly shows that OP4 is aware of the fact that the credit card dispute was transacted by a fraudster. (Paragraph 2, lines 12 & 13) At the time of evidence the complainant had filed an application as IA No.501/2023 seeking to cross examine the witness for OPs 1 & 4. Even though several chances were afforded, they failed to appear before this Commission to stand trial.

11.       Even on the day posted for hearing of dispute the OPs were not present. The only conclusion that we can arrive at based on the 3 facts, viz

1)         failure to raise claim for Rs.15,000/- received by the complainant;

2)         admission of fraud perpetrated using the complainants credit card ; and

3)         failure to stand trial and adduce evidence

 is that OPs 1 & 4 has no claim whatsoever for any amounts from the complainant.

12.       Therefore, we allow this complaint on the following terms:

1)         The complainant is not in any way liable to pay any amounts to the OPs.

2)         The OPs shall not raise any claim as against the complainant.

3)         The complainant shall be entitled to retain the Rs.15,000/- received by him from the 3^rd OP.

13.       With the above observations, this complaint is disposed off as allowed.

 Pronounced in open court on this the 18^th day of January, 2024.   

                                                                                       Sd/-                                                                                        

                                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                        President

                                                             Sd/-

   Vidya.A

                       Member        

         Sd/-                                                                      Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                          Member

APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1(a)   -  Original Credit Card

Ext.A1(b) – Original password sheet

Ext.A1(c) – Original cover

Ext.A1(d) – Original plastic cover

Ext.A2  –   Copy of printout of communications

Ext.A3   -  Copy of communication dated 20/4/2019

Ext.A4  -  Copy of police complaint dated 30/5/2019  

Ext.A5  -  Print out of SMS  

Ext.A6  - Copy of demand notice dated 15/6/2022  

Ext.A7  - Copy of communication issued by OP1 to complainant  

Ext.A8  -  Printout of SMS dated 5/3/2019

Ext.A9  -  Print out of SMS dated 18/2/2020  

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party:

Ext.B1  - Copy of RBI circular dated 6/7/2018  

Ext.B2  - Indecipherable copy of application.

Ext.B3  - Copy of card holder agreement  

Ext.B4  - Printout of statement of account

Ext.B5  - Copy of consent form

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.