COMPLAINT FILED: 29-04-2009 <br /> DISPOSED ON: 23-11-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 23RD NOVEMBER 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :-SRI. B.S.REDDY PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.969/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Ramji.M,<br /> No.112, B.S.A Road,<br /> Fraser Town,<br /> Bangalore – 560 05.<br /> <br /> Party in person<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,<br /> Credit Card Services,<br /> Ambal House,<br /> Chennai - 600 006.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.B.K.Ashok<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. B.S.REDDY, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> The complainant filed this complaint seeking direction to Opposite Party (herein after called as OP) to write off charges of Rs.10,940/- and direct HSBC Bank to remove his name from the list of defaulter under the CIBIL on an allegations in deficiency of service on the part of the OP.<br /> The case of the complainant to be stated in brief is that:-<br /> <br /> 2. The complainant has availed HSBC credit card service. Around 1 ½ years back he received message to his mobile asking him to pay back a sum of Rs.10,940/- for a transaction on his card (Credit Card No.4476 9212 0207 5879) which was stolen and swiped without authorization, he was unaware of the card missing. When the complainant asked HSBC to provide details about transaction relating to the dispute, he was asked to wait for the statement to be generated but on his persistent insistence the following details were furnished where the credit card was used:-<br /> <br /> 1. Mahesh Electricals – 27-04-2007 for a sum of Rs.7,500/-<br /> 2. World of Titan – 28-04-2007 for a sum of Rs.3,190/-<br /> 3. Shoe Mart – 28-04-2007 for a sum of Rs.250/-<br /> <br /> 3. It is stated that the complainant did not receive any authentication or authorization calls or any sort of transaction message on his mobile from HSBC credit card service which they usually follow this protocol during any of the transactions which also involves asking for a confirmation or validation or any kind of authentication of his card whenever it is swiped and until then the complainant was unaware of his card was misused. He did receive the message after days, but the message was received only to pay back the transaction amount of Rs.10,940/- in easy installments. Immediately the complainant called up HSBC credit card customer service for the details of the message and he was informed that his credit card has been used for the above mentioned transactions. The complainant asked customer service to block the card and sought for explanation why as per protocol and procedure he did not receive any call or authentication call which usually receive whenever the credit card has been swiped for a amount more than Rs.5,000/-and above for which the customer service representative did not have any explanation and ended up apologizing. The complainant requested the customer service to provide the exact address details so that he can lodge a FIR for which they mentioned that those details can be provided once a statement is generated. No merchant details or helpful information pertaining to the misusage of card has been furnished to the complainant. Without the merchant details regarding the misuse of the card, the complainant is unable to lodge FIR with the police. Recently when the complainant applied for personal loan to his marriage purpose from HDFC Bank, the loan application was rejected by the bank and the reason mentioned as credit rating as per the CIBIL is very low and his name has been black listed as a defaulter. On further investigation he was informed that on HSBC Bank intimation his name has been block listed. Thus complainant claimed the above reliefs against the OP.<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. OP on appearance filed version contending that it is a reputed Banking institution. The complaint filed is not maintainable as the complainant has not made out the cause required to be adjudicated by this Forum. The complainant is holding two credit cards and availing Banking service. The credit card limit was Rs.15,000/- each, the out standing payable is Rs.41,864-92 as on June’ 2009. The complainant had used credit card on 27 & 28th April’ 2007 for a sum of Rs.10,940/-, the due date for payment was on 24-05-2009. The complainant had lost the card and called the customer care on 30-04-2007 to block the credit card. As per his request said card was blocked. The transactions were done prior to the blocking of the card. It is contended that HSBC does not investigate on the misuse of the card. As per the credit card service guide the card was valid and active when the transaction took place and complainant is liable for the outstanding payments.<br /> <br /> 5. SMS alert to the customer were provided over their phones i.e., cellular service provider (CSP) with HSBC. These privileges are allowed to the customers who are within the cellular circles of CSPs or in circle forming part of the roaming network of such CSPs. The OP Bank enhanced the limit to Rs.18,000/- with effective from 03-05-2007. Due to non payment of arrears the credit limit was decreased to Rs.13,000/-effective from 03-06-2007. OP had sent a letter on 03-05-2007 intimidating the complainant about the disputed transactions that were prior to the reporting of the loss of the card. It is submitted that when the card holder swipes the card approval is routed through VISA /Master to the issuer Bank. If the transactions amount is with the limit and there is no block on the card, the approval is auto generated and an approval code is sent, a charge slip is produced vide EDC machine. A signature is obtained on the charge slip. The merchant approaches his Bank within the time frame fixed according to their agreement. When the complainant disputes stating that he has either lost the card or has not participated in the transaction then the Bank request for charge back. Signature mismatch is not the ground for charge back; the complainant is to take due care of his card. There is no cause of action to file present complaint; there is no deficiency in service, as alleged by the complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant filed affidavit to substantiate the complaint allegations, the official of the OP filed affidavit in support of the defence version. <br /> <br /> 7. After perusing the pleadings, the documents produced and affidavit evidence of both the parties and hearing on both the sides the points that arise for our consideration are:-<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 8. We record our findings on the above points as:-<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 9. It is not in dispute that the complainant was holding credit card bearing No.4476 9212 0207 5879 of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (herein after referred as HSBC). The said card was used by some unauthorized person for three transactions on 27-04-2007 at Mahesh Electricals for an amount of Rs.7,500/-, another one on 28-04-2007 at world of Titan for an amount of Rs.3,190/- and on the same day third transaction at Shoe Mart for an amount of Rs.250/. Thus total amount of Rs.10,940/- was debited to the account of this complainant and on 30-04-2007 around 8 p.m. the complainant received message on his mobile asking to clear that amount in instalments. After the receipt of that message the complainant came to know that his credit card has been misplaced and same has been used by unauthorized person. Hence, he notified to credit card division to block the same. <br /> <br /> 10. The main grievances of the complainant is that earlier he used to receive call from HSBC credit card customer services with regard to any transaction of his credit card exceeding Rs.5,000/- for confirmation. But the transaction dated 27-04-2007 for an amount of Rs.7,500/- he has not received any call from the customer services as such the said transaction is on account of gross negligence on the part of customer service. As against this it is contended for the OP that the alert message will be sent to the customer only if the customer is within the cellular circle of CSPs or in circle forming part of the roaming network of such CSPs, as the complainant might have been out side the area, as a result he might have not received alert message, for that OP cannot be held responsible. <br /> <br /> 11. In our view the three transactions are much earlier to the request to block the card, as the transactions had taken place on 27th and 28th April’ 2007 and the card was blocked on 30-04-2007. The complainant was unaware of the card being lost and the alert message required to be sent was not received by him as he might have been out of coverage area. Only because complainant has not received the alert message regarding the transaction it cannot be said that OP is negligent in not alerting the complainant regarding these transactions. Annexure – C produced by OP reveals that the alert will be sent to the customer only if the customer is within the cellular circles of the CSPs or in circles forming part of the roaming net work of such CSPs.<br /> <br /> 12. The other grievances of complainant is that OP has not furnished the details of merchant addresses where his card was used in these transactions so as to enable him to lodge police complaint. It is contended that inspite of repeated requests OP has not furnished the detail address of the merchants where the card has been swiped. Unless detail addresses of merchants where the card was unauthorizedly used, he is unable to lodge a police complaint. As against this it is contended for the OP, that after the card holder swipes the card the approval is routed through VISA / Master to the issuer Bank and if the transaction is within the limit and there is no block on the card, the approval is auto generated and an approval code is sent, a charge slip is executed vide EDC machine and signature is obtained on the charge slip. The merchant details would be available only in VISA / Master through which the approval was routed. OP is unable to furnish the merchant details. In our view whatever the information available with OP the same has been furnished; the details of merchant addresses where these three transactions had taken place making use of the credit card of the complainant is not available. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate authority for obtaining the merchants details so as to lodge police complaint with regard to the misuse of his credit card. <br /> <br /> 13. As per Annexure – B produced by OP with regard to service guide of credit card, it is clear that in the event the credit card is lost or stolen the card holder must report to the HSBC customer service center and any transaction made on the credit card only after reporting the lost /theft/misuse to HSBC, the card holder will not be liable. Until the card holder reports to the Bank about the lost/theft/misuse of the card the card holder is liable for transactions by using the credit card. As already observed these disputed three transactions had taken place two days earlier to his reporting the lost/theft/misuse of the credit card as such the complainant is liable for making payment of the amount. Under these circumstances we are of the view that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The complainant is not entitled for any of the relief claimed. The complaint is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:-<br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed. In view of nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> Send copy of this order to both the parties free of costs. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 23rd day of November 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> NRS<br />