DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 492/2006
Mr. Gulshan Kumar Dua,
NTPC, Lodhi Road, New Delhi
Also at:
2072, Rani Bagh, Shakur Basti,
Delhi – 110034 ….Complainant
Versus
1. Dena Bank
Through its Chief Manager,
Scope Complex, Branch Core No. 6,
7, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
2. Dena Bank Head Office,
Through its Chairman & Managing Director
C-10, G-Block, Bandra,
Kurla Complex, Bandra (E)
Mumbai 400 005 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 07.09.2006 Date of Order : 04.08.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the complainant, in nutshell, is that he had a Savings Account No. 71129 with OP-1 and the OPs had also issued Debit card No. 4695 68106757 to him vide letter dated 3.9.2004 along with personal identification number; that on 30.5.2005 when he was in a hotel in Jakarta, his brief case was stolen by some unknown person regarding which he lodged an FIR with the local police and thereafter, he lodged a supplementary report with regard to theft of important documents including Dena Debit Card. He reported the theft/loss of the Dena Debit Card to OP-1 on 31.5.2005 at 10.30 a.m. However, upon his return to India when he went to OP-1 Bank he was told that the transaction of Rs. 14185.37p had been cleared from his account against some bill though it was neither signed by him nor he was involved with alleged transaction. According to the complainant, in each and every transaction through any particular Debit Card, it is required to provide or punch Personal Identification Number and that PIN is exclusively and confidentially within the knowledge of that particular cardholder. However, in this case, OP-1 cleared the above stated amount arbitrarily and negligently without confirming or having PIN code which clearly shows deficiency in service on their part. It is inter-alia stated that he received a reply dated 20.2.2006 from OPs whereby the OPs refused to give credit to his account on the vague reason that “regarding your querry that PIN number is required for using the debit card at petrol pumps we only like to clarify that the points of sale (POS) terminals may be signature based (where PIN number is not required to be entered for authorizing a transaction) or PIN based (where PIN number is required to be entered for authorizing a transaction). The fact that our debit card can be used at signature based POS terminals is specified in the Users Manual provided to the debit cardholder along with the card (Ref. Page 18 of User Manual)”. According to the complainant, Users’ Manual was never supplied to him and, moreover, he does not have any knowledge about that. Hence pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, he has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OPs:
“(a) to refund the amount of Rs. 14185.37p along with interest pendentlite @ 18% p.a. to the complainant in his existing Savings Bank Account No. 71129 with the respondent No. 1 bank,
- to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and hardship,
- to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the litigation expenses.”
In their written statement, OPs have inter-alia pleaded that the Debit card is always given to a customer in a sealed and secured envelope containing a welcome letter, debit card and the user’s manual; that the user’s manual is provided with each and every card issued by the Bank for the benefit of its customers as it provides information on usage guidelines, charges, important tips and the terms and conditions for use of the debit card and that on the very first page of the user’s manual the cardholders are requested to go through the same carefully for their own safety and convenience. It is stated that the complainant informed the OP’s ATM switch centre on 31.5.05 about the theft/loss of his card on receipt of which the Bank immediately stopped the operation of his debit card; that on 3.6.2005 a formal letter in this regard was also given by the complainant explaining the events that had led to his card being stolen, namely, the fact that the card was stolen on 30.5.2005 when he was in Jakarta, Indonesia, along with other documents which were in his brief case from his hotel room; that in the above said letter, the complainant also claimed that the two transactions dated 30.5.2005 amounting to Rs. 14185.37p had not been carried out by him to which the OPs sent reply dated 13.8.2005 to the effect that the transactions were done on 30.5.2005 whereas they were informed about the theft only on 31.5.2005 i.e. much after the alleged unauthorized use of the card. It is further stated that the transactions were done from merchant establishments which are governed by the Visa Network and approved by Visa; that Visa claimed the amount as the transactions were done in the normal course of business and the OP Bank had no option but to honour the same and make the payment; that the Personal Identification Number (PIN) is required only for each transactions from ATM points, and not for payment of bills, which are signature based point of sale. Hence, it is denied that there was any question of punching the confidential PIN of the complainant in case of payment of bills through the debit card in question. It is stated that the OPs had issued the debit card to the complainant with a covering letter requesting him to immediately sign the back of the card for security reasons but, however, it seems that the complainant did not even bother to sign the same, thus making it easy for unknown persons to unauthorisedly operate this card. Denying deficiency in services, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. C.S. Meena, Chief Manager has been filed on behalf of OPs.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the complainant in person. None has appeared to advance arguments on behalf of the OPs despite opportunity given in this behalf. We have also gone through the file very carefully.
OPs’ witness has filed copy of Users’ Manual as Ex. R-1. It contains the detailed terms and conditions about the use of Dena Debit Card by the cardholders. The complainant has not denied about the terms and conditions contained in the Users’ Manual but, strangely enough, his version is two-fold (1) the user’s manual was never supplied to him and/or (2) he does not have any knowledge about that. These two pleas taken by the complainant are self-contradictory and cannot go together. It means that the complainant had been provided copy of the Users’ Manual along with Debit Card. He was supposed to go through the same. In case he did not go through the same, he cannot fasten the blame on the OPs.
OPs have categorically mentioned that the transaction of Rs. 14185.37p had been done from the merchant establishments which are governed by the Visa Network and approved by Visa and Visa claimed the amount as the transactions were done in the normal course of business and the OP Bank had no option but to honour the same and made the payment and, hence, the contention of the complainant that he had not signed the bill or that he was not involved in the transactions is of no avail. In his affidavit, complainant has inter-alia stated as follows:
“13. That in reply, the Chief Manager of the respondent-1 bank sent letters dated 12.8.05 and 13.08.2005 to the complainant and informed him that bank’s I.T. Dept. had taken up the matter with visa and requested for transaction slip from the POS merchant, but so far, no message has been received from visa. The said letters dated 12.8.05 and 13.8.2005 exhibited as Ex. C-1/7 & C-1/8.”
The mere fact that no such message had been received from the visa is of no help to the complainant because the consistent stand taken by the OPs is that the transactions in question had been done from merchant establishments which are governed by the Visa Network (Annex. P-4) relied on by the complainant himself. However, in letter dated 29.8.2005 (Annex. P-5), the complainant submitted that even to draw petrol from the petrol pumps in India, Pin No. is required to be used for operation of the card and the Pin no. is known to him only and, therefore, he is not responsible for the transactions executed through his card. The Users’ Manual inter-alia contains “Merchant Establishment Usage Policy”. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced as hereunder:
“Merchant Establishment Usage:
- The Card is accepted at all Electronic Point of Sale terminals of merchant establishments in India and overseas which display the VISA Electron logo.
- The Card is for Electronic use only and will be accepted only at merchant establishments that have an Electronic Point of Sale swipe terminal. Any usage of the Card other than electronic use will be deemed unauthorized and the Cardholder will be solely responsible for such transactions.
PIN is not required for the use of the Card at the electronic Point of Sale swipe terminals at merchant establishments.
- …………..
- The Cardholder must sign the sales slip and retain the copy of the sales slip whenever the card is used at merchant establishments. Bank will not furnish copies of the sales slip. Any sales slip not signed personally by the Cardholder but which can be proved as being authorized by him will be deemed to his liability.”
In view of the above provisions contained in the Users’ Manual which are binding on the complainant, OPs did not commit any deficiency in service. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 04.08.2016
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 492/06
04.08.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
