This case has arisen out of application U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The case of the complainant is that she has deposited Rs.4,000/- in her Savings Bank A/c No:33395018832 with O.P.No:2/Bank, wherein total balance stands Rs.78686/- on 06.10.2018. O.P.No:2 issued her a Credit Card No:4377 4878 1519 8102 through O.P.No:1 & a mobile Number was linked with her Credit Card so that message would be sent to the mobile number in case of any transaction.
That suddenly a call comes from the bank that Rs.34,000/- is being deducted from her account for using Credit Card facility & immediately she withdrew some money from her account. Thereafter she received a legal notice dated 21.10.2021 calling upon her to pay Rs.46934.09 within 15 days from receipt of the notice failing which to face consequences. She immediately informed the matter to O.P/Bank who assured her that if she does not withdraw money, the total withdrawal sum will be adjusted to her account. After 07 days again she came to the bank but did not get any information from the O.P/bank. Due to negligence act and deficiency in service of the bank she suffered irreparable loss and injury. She prays for direction to O.P to credit deducted amount of Rs.34,000/-(approx) and cancel illegal demand of Rs.46,934.09, compensation Rs.15,000/- due to harassment and mental pain & agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-.
O.P.No:1 submits written statement through its power of attorney Subrat Kr. Mishra denying complainant’s case stating that her said card was debited with secured online transactions on November, 19, 2018-Merchant Name:Airtel Payment Mumbai IN-Rs.9,000/- & PK Retailnet Rohtak IN:Rs.9,285/-. O.P.No:1 received communication from complainant vide e-mail disputing said transactions on April, 23, 2019 and postinvestigation it was revealed that said transaction was online 3D secure transaction(transactions are valid as they have been perform in a Secure Electronic Commerce Environment). OTP & Transaction SMS were sent and delivered to card holder on her registered mobile number, hence basis the aforesaid facts the dispute was closed in complainant liability, communicated to her vide e-mail dated 03 May, 2019. S.B.I card holder are advised to pay total amount due as per monthly statement & the complainant vide monthly statements, MITC & through their website was informed. There was no negligent act or deficiency in service on its part rather the complainant did not come with clean hand, so the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
O.P.No:2 contested the case by filing separate W.V denying complainant’s case stating that on 06.10.2018 Rs.1,000/- was withdrawn from her account in that case ATM WDL was written in the Statement of Account (i.e Rs.2100/- was debited and that transaction was done through online and in that case Transaction No is S8729019. She herself withdrew Rs.9,000/- on 06.10.2018, Rs.588/- was debited from her account on 22.10.2018, Rs.8275/- on 20.11.2018, Rs.7777/-, Rs.7777/-, Rs.9,000/- were used for POS ATM PURCH on 19.11.2018, she withdrew Rs.30,000/- on 28.11.2018 debited Rs.914/- on 08.01.2019, she withdrew Rs.3,500/- on 28.01.2019, on 28.01.2019 Rs.2,257/- & Rs.16.18 and on 26.03.2019 Rs.19/- were debited through S.B.I Credit Card. The case is filed on malafide intention & is liable to be dismissed.
Points for consideration
- Whether there was/ is any negligent act or deficiency in service on the part of the O.P(s)/Bank which gives rise cause of action to file the case?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) as prayed for?
D e c i s i o n w i t h r e a s o n s
Admittedly, the complainant Sadhana Mandal opened a savings bank A/c No:33395018832 with O.P.No:2/S.B.I Raiganj Main Branch & on her application a Credit Card No:4377 4878 1519 8102 was issued through O.P.No:1/S.B.I Cards & Payments Services Ltd (SBICSL) a sister concern of O.P.No:2/Bank.
Complainant stated that lastly in her account total balance stands Rs.78686/- on 06.10.2018. Xerox copy of her passbook (produced by her) shows balance Rs.79686.00 Cr as on 06.10.2018.
The case firstly is based on Statement of her S.B Account. Statement of Account produced by Bank depicts that on 06.10.2018 Rs.1,000/- + Rs.9,000/- was debited as ATM WDL-ATM cash 418 & 419 S.B.I-Balance 69,686.00 Cr & Rs.588.82 was debited-Debit 000000 SBI 000000016 on 22.10.2018.
It further depicts that on 19.11.2018 Rs.8,275/- was debited for POS ATM PURCH-OTHPG734053 PK, similarly three transactions of Rs.7777/-,7777/-,9,000/- were debited for POS ATM PURCH OTHPG287495 PT, 136126 PA, 292189 AI.
It also depicts that Rs.30,000/- was debited on 28.11.2018 for Cash Withdrawal Self at 00162 Raiganj & interest Rs.419/- was credited on 25.12.2018, showing balance 6687.18 Cr.
Further it depicts that Rs.914/-, Rs.2257/-, Rs.16.18, Rs.19.00 were debited for DEBIT SBI CREDIT CARD on 08.01.2019, 28.01.2019, 28.02.2019 & 26.03.2019 respectively and on 28.01.2019 Rs.3500/- was debited for Cash Withdrawal Self at 00162 Raiganj & Rs.19.00 was Interest Credit on 25.03.2019 and the closing amount as on 26.03.2019 was 0.00. (Account status:Inoperative)
The case secondly is based on statement of S.B.I Credit Card. O.P.No:2 admits receipt of communication via e-mail disputing S.B.I Credit Card transaction dated 19.11.2018 Rs.9,000/- & Rs.9,285/- -Merchant Name: AIRTEL Payment Mumbai IN & PK Retailnet Rohtak IN & post investigation it was revealed that the said transactions were online 3D secure transaction (Transactions are valid as they have been performed in a Secure Electronic Commerce Environment), OTP & Transaction SMS were sent & delivered to Card holder on her registered mobile number, hence basis the said facts the dispute was closed in complainant liability and the same was communicated to complainant vide-email on 03 May, 2019(copy produced). The Statement of Account of outstanding dues of Credit Card bill is described in the written statement of O.P.No:1. The O.P duly communicated the same to the complainant vide monthly statement, MITC & through website, so that she would pay the dues as per monthly installment to avoid extra charges.
The statement of the complainant that she has not made any Credit Card transaction since in the year 2019 thus found false. Whatever she stated that she was called from the Bank that Rs.34,000/- was deducted for using credit Card facility is not proved. She was aware about the monthly outstanding dues and her spending capacity towards the Credit Card.
The complainant challenged a legal notice dated 21.10.2021 issued from the end of O.P.No:1 claiming Rs.46,934.09, being due & payable by her, which she has failed to pay despite repeated demands so she was asked to pay the said sum within 15 days from the receipt of the notice failing which appropriate legal action would have been taken & to evade payment she make out a case that she was assured by Bank concern that the total withdrawal money will be adjusted to her account. The date of legal notice 21.10.2021 was stated as the date of cause of action.
She was informed that you had been availing Credit Card facilities granted by O.P.No:1 subject to the terms & conditions of Credit Card Agreement including an arbitration clause conferring exclusive rights upon O.P.No:1 to appoint/nominate sole arbitrator to enter into and decide all disputes & difference between complainant & O.P.No:1. Vide the said agreement the complainant had further undertaken to pay the bills raised by O.P.No:1 which complainant has failed & neglected to pay. As per the accounts maintained by O.P.No:1 in ordinary course of business a sum of Rs.46,934.09 is due and payable by complainant which she has failed to pay despite repeated demands, hence this notice. She lodged this complaint without availing arbitration process as mentioned in the Credit Card Agreement.
Under above facts and discussion, we are of the opinion it is found that Rs.34,000/-(approx) or any sum was not debited from the complainant’s Savings Bank account, rather she has spent as discussed herein above, so question of refund or adjustment does not arise and demand of Rs.46,934.09 of O.P.No:1 found genuine, but only to evade payment she came up with this complaint in unclean hands. The complaint petition is misconceived & made with suppression of material facts, consequently we are of the opinion that there was/is no negligent act or deficiency in service on the part of O.P(s) & the complainant is not entitled to get relief as prayed for.
In the result the case fails.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
that the C.C-47/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but without any cost.
Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.
