Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/318/2015

The Senior Manager, Union Bank of India - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gurtaj Singh - Opp.Party(s)

Karun Kumari Dogra, Adv.

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

   STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

 

First Appeal No.	318 of 2015
Date of Institution	26.11.2015
Date of Decision	30.11.2015

 

The Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch
Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

                                  …..Appellant/Opposite Party

                        Versus

Gurtaj Singh son of Sh. B.P.S. Gill resident of House No.51, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

                                        …..Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:  JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                 MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER

                 MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, Advocate for the appellant.

                     

PER PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the order dated 28.10.2015, rendered by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.435 of 2015, filed by the complainant, with the following directions:-

“13.     In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is, directed to:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as Litigation expenses.

         

14.      The above said order shall be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] above shall carry interest  @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.” 

 

2.    The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant opened an account bearing No.511202010013266 with the Opposite Party. The Complainant was also issued Credit/Debit Card No.4391 5500 0005 4521. It was stated that on 08.04.2015, two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each were made through the said Card, at Moradabad. It was further stated that the card, in question, remained with him, all the times, at Chandigarh. It was further stated that on 09.04.2015, the very next day of incident, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party, to take action against the guilty person (Annexure C-2). It was further stated that the Opposite Party vide letter dated 23.5.2015 (Annexure C-3) with a view, to evade its liability, shifted the entire responsibility on the VISA Card, with whom the Complainant had no business. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.
3. In its written statement, the Opposite Party admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that any transaction for payment through Credit Card, swapping device is not possible without physical usage of Credit Card along with its secret PIN. It was further stated that there was no question of shifting the liability to VISA Card. It was further stated that upon receipt of written Complaint dated 09.04.2015 from the Complainant, Credit Card Division of OP-Bank immediately referred the matter, to VISA authorities, for reversal/refund of disputed transaction, and the same was apprised to him also vide letter dated 16.04.2015, and further course of action was also apprised to him vide letter dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure-3 & Annexure-4). It was further stated that all suitable and timely actions were taken by the answering Opposite Party, and the Complainant was also provided the receipts of disputed transactions which took place at Moradabad. It was further stated that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
5. After hearing the Counsel for the Parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, allowed the complaint, as stated above.
6. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/Opposite Party.
7. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party, at the preliminary stage, and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
8. After going through the facts of the case we are of the considered opinion that the appeal in the instant case deserves to be dismissed for the following reasons.
9.  The Opposite Party i.e. Appellant in the instant case has not taken any prompt action, after it was informed about the transaction of Rs.20,000/, which was done through the account of the complainant, by some unknown person, though the Credit/ATM Card was with him (Respondent). The learned Forum had rightly upheld that the question regarding the withdrawal of the total sum of Rs.20,000/-, from the account of the respondent/complainant, was fraudulent and could be decided only by a detailed inquiry/investigation, either by the police or the civil court, after examining whole of the record, of the disputed transaction. This aspect is beyond the purview of the summary jurisdiction of the learned Forum, but, the Forum has held that there was definitely deficiency in service, on the part of the appellant. The appellant after being intimated about the withdrawal of Rs.20,000/-, instead of probing the matter at its end, sent a letter to VISA Authorities, to look into the matter, but, nothing fruitful came, out of the same. This clearly shows that there was total inaction, on the part, of the appellant, referring the matter to the VISA Authority, instead of investigating the matter, at their own end. Moreover, the respondent/complainant had no direct concern with the VISA Authority, and it was natural on his part only to take up the matter, with the bank with whom, he was having saving account and the Credit/ATM Card. This further proves that there was deficiency in service, on the part of the appellant, towards its customer i.e. the respondent/complainant and the learned Forum had rightly allowed the complaint against the Opposite Party. Therefore, the said appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.

10.        Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.

11.        The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

30.11.2015                         

                                                      Sd/-

                           [JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 [DEV RAJ]

MEMBER

Sd/-

 [PADMA PANDEY]

 MEMBER

Gp

 

                                STATE COMMISSION

FIRST APPEAL No.318 of 2015

(Senior Manager, Union Bank of India Vs. Gurtaj Singh)

 

Argued by:

 

Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, Advocate for the appellant.

 

 

Dated    the   30^th day of  November, 2015

                                -.-

             Vide our detailed order of the even date, recorded separately, the appeal filed by the appellant has been dismissed, with no order as to cost and the order passed by the District Forum has been upheld.

 

Sd/-                     Sd/-                            Sd/-

(DEV RAJ) MEMBER	(JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)) PRESIDENT	(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER

Gp