Nidhi Verma, Member

1        The complainant has filed the present complaint by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act under Section 11, 12 and 13 against the opposite parties on the allegations that   the complainant has purchased a forex Plus card bearing No. 4726430003592650, and is having account with the bank bearing No:25721000000072. The card was purchased by the complainant on 22.8.2017 having an amount of CAD.7750/- (Canadian Dollars) for his travel to Canada. The card was insured from the opposite party No.3. As such, the complainant is customer of the bank as well as of the company. The complainant has gone to Canada. On 28-12-2017 at about 22:10 Hrs (Canadian Date and time), when the complainant was on a store at Ontario in Canada, some unknown persons have attacked upon the store and committed an armed dacoity and they had snatched the card from the complainant. After the said occurrence, the complainant was taken to hospital and wife of the complainant i.e Kiran Bhatia immediately intimated to one Paramjit Singh S/o Swaran Singh R/o Village Daburji, District Tarn Taran at India about the above said occurrence and has further told him that kindly visit the bank branch at Tarn Taran and get block the card by telling the concerned officials of the bank. At that time, there was morning time in India as such the said person namely Paramjit Singh along with Gaurav Bhatia S/o Jatinder Kumar R/o Deep Avenue Tarn Taran, have visited the bank branch Tarn Taran on 29.12.2017 at about 10:30 AM (Indian time & date) and told about the whole occurrence to Mr. Davinderpal Singh Branch Manager and Mr. Sanjiv Bhatia, one of the officials of the bank. At 10:45 AM, the officials of the bank have called the concerned card division and requested them to block the card belonging to the complainant. The officials of the bank have told that the card has a balance of CAD.5785/- at that time and thereafter the officials of the bank have made assured to the above said two persons that the card will be blocked immediately and they have not to worry about the same. The matter was also reported to the police services at Canada and they have officials reported the matter into police record vide occurrence bearing No.17-43568. Thereafter coming back to India, on 12.4.2018 the complainant visited the bank branch at Tarn Taran and requested the officials of the bank kindly to credit the card balance into his saving bank account. The complainant got astonished to hear from the official of the bank that the card is having a negative balance of -8 CAD. Thereafter the complainant has requested for the statement of the card and got surprised to know that there had been about 30 transactions done after blocking the card. The said 30 transactions were done on 29-12-2017 (Canadian Date) of CAD.201, 203 one after other and last one is CAD.7.13 and the said 29 transactions were done from 2 ATM's located at different locations and 1 transaction is done at Gas station located at another different location. All the said transactions were done through ATM cash withdrawals. As per settled rules, a card got hot listed automatically if transactions are repeated at the same point of time one after other but surprisingly the card was not automatically hot listed even after 30 transactions were done at one time. Since the purchase of the card till 26.12.2017, the complainant got to receive alerts through SMS for every transaction done by him but after 26.12.2017, the complainant never received any alert for the above said 30 un-authorized transactions. It was a grave deficiency in services on the part of bank as the bank has failed to block the card even after giving immediate intimation about the fate of the card on 29.12.2017 (Indian date), which leads to unauthorized use of the card on 29.12.2017 (Canadian Date). The card was unauthorizedly used after giving information to the bank regarding the occurrence of snatching of the card as well as after the assurance given by the officials of the bank that the card has been got blocked. If the bank would have blocked the card, then the above said big loss of Canadian Dollars 5785/- (Indian approximately Rs. 2,89,250/-) would not have been suffered to the complainant. After 26.12.2017 the transaction alerts have been deactivated which is also another grave deficiency in the services on the part of the as if the card was not got blocked transaction alert could save some amount. It is also grave deficiency, when the card was not automatically hot listed even after 30 transactions. The complainant has requested the officials of the bank for several times to look into the matter and to reimburse the amount into the account of the complainant as the amount was un- authorized got withdrawal due to negligence in services on the part of the bank/its officials. The officials of the Bank at branch Tarn Taran have sent various e-mails to the head office or the concerned branch in this respect and all the said record is also in the custody of the Bank. The complainant has also moved a written request in this regard, which was received by bank on 18^th May, 2018 and the complainant has also sent several e-mails to the bank in this regard but despite of above all, no justice has been provided to the complainant. Lastly on 23.5.2019 the bank has repudiated its liability by sending a correspondence dated 23.5.2019 wherein it was stated that "We regret to inform you that the claim has been rejected by the insurance company as Robbery and Theft cases are not covered under the Forex Card insurance policy. The bank has neither talked about its deficiency in services nor have considered the claim of the complainant with regard to deficiency in service on the part of bank rather the bank has intimated about the repudiation of the claim by the insurance company on the basis of some unattached, unexplained terms and conditions allegedly attached to the card, which is also a un-businesslike conduct on the part of the bank. Neither such kind of terms and conditions attached to the insurance policy of the card nor such kind of terms and conditions have been explained dictated to the complainant at the time of purchase of card. As such the company has also repudiated the claim arbitrarily.  The complainant has prayed that the opposite parties may be directed to reimburse the full amount of unauthorized withdrawal through the Card i.e. Rs. 2,89,250/- (CAD 5785) to the complainant and also prayed Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and Rs. 20,000/- as litigation expenses and counsel fee and pendent elite interest @12% P.A. from the date of filing of the complaint.  Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has placed on record affidavit of complainant Ex. C-1, Affidavit of Gaurav Bhatia Ex. C-2, Affidavit of Paramjit Singh Ex. C-3, Self attested copy of Card Ex. C-4,  Self attested copy of Passport Ex. C-5, Self attested copy of Visa Ex. C-6, Self attested copy of Police Report Ex. C-7, Self attested copy of account statement Ex. C-8, Self attested copy of Dispute form Ex. C-9, Self attested copy of hand written application Ex. C-10, Self attested copy of documents of e mail Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of repudiation letter dated 23.5.2019 Ex. C-11, Self attested copy of adhar Card of Gaurav Bhatia Ex. C-13, Self attested copy of Adhar Card of Paramjit Singh Ex. C-14.

2        Notice of this complaint was sent to the opposite parties and opposite parties No. 1, 2 appeared through counsel and filed written version by interalia pleadings that complaint is not maintainable. The complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in Section 2(c) the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The allegations made by the complainant are false and a frivolous story has been concocted by the complainant just to cause wrongful loss to the opposite party bank. It is admitted that the relatives of the complainant namely Paramjit Singh S/o Swaran Singh and Gaurav Bhatia S/o Jatinder Kumar came to the branch of the bank at Tarn Taran on 29.12.2017 and they narrated the story that the said forex card issued to the complainant has been stolen and requested to block the said card. However, both Sh.Davinder Pal Singh and Sh Sanjiv Bhatia had informed them to call the customer care number of the bank and request for blocking/hot listing of the said card. They were also informed by Sh.Davinder Pal Singh and Sh Sanjiv Bhatia that being employees of the bank, they have no authority to block the Forex Card as it can only be blocked by the customer in whose name the forex card is issued or by any of his authorized representative who has all the details of the card i.e. Card Number, Expiry date, name on the card, date of birth of the card holder, address of the card holder etc. as all these security measures are being taken by the bank to stop the misuse of the card.  The affidavits of Paramjit Singh S/o Swaran Singh and Gaurav Bhatia S/o Jatinder Kumar placed on the record by the complainant with the present complaint are false, frivolous and have been filed with the oblique motive to harass and humiliate the functionaries of the bank and just to suit the complainant. The alleged occurrence as per the allegations of the complainant had taken place on 28.12.2017 but the complainant kept on waiting to file the instant complaint till September 2019 Moreover, the complainant has also not stated in the instant complaint that what was the end result of the police complaint submitted/filed by him against the alleged perpetrators in Canada whether these persons were ever arrested or whether alleged recovery was ever affected? The complainant cannot take benefit of both the worlds and should have come clean before this Commission. Since disputed questions of facts are involved in the present complaint which can only be decided by the Civil Court after leading cogent evidence, therefore, the present complaint is not maintainable and this commission does not have the jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint. No assurance was ever given to the complainant that the card would be blocked immediately. When no call was ever made by Sh Davinder Pal Singh and Sh Sanjiv Bhatia then how the card could have been blocked? There is also no proof available on the record that whether it was the complainant or someone else who had withdrawn the amount from the ATM's through different transactions as no CCTV footage has been placed on the record. The complainant might have done these transactions himself and concocted the story that he was robbed by someone and filed a false and frivolous police complaint. No Police enquiry as well as report has been placed on the record which is a material document. Even in the statement of a police official dated 26.06.2018 placed on record by the complainant, it has been stated that the case is before the Court but no such court document or order has been placed on the record by the complainant. For the sake of argument, even if we presume that the forex card was robbed from the complainant then he could not have disclosed the pin of the card or could have given a wrong pin but the complainant did not do so for the reasons best known to him. All the transactions which had taken place in the forex card were in the knowledge of the complainant as due information was given to the complainant through SMS. However, it is for the complainant to show and prove that he was carrying to Canada his mobile phone/ number which is being registered with the bank and international roaming was switched on 28.12.2017 and 29.12.2017 when allegedly this occurrence had taken place. No such document has been placed on the record by the complainant to show that he was carrying his mobile phone/ number on the date of alleged occurrence. The complainant never complained that he did not understood the terms and conditions of the policy until the day he filed instant complaint. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 have placed on record affidavit of Sanjeev Bhatia Ex. OP1,2/2, affidavit of Davinder Pal Singh Branch Manager Ex. OP1,2/3.  

3        The opposite party No. 3 appeared through counsel and has filed written version by interalia pleadings that the complaint of the complainant is premature because the complainant never lodged/registered any claim with the opposite party No. 3 and without registration of any claim, the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the opposite party No. 3. In this case the complainant never intimated the claim to opposite party No. 3 about the loss occurred to him nor the opposite party No. 3 ever received any intimation regarding the alleged loss from any other person on behalf of the complainant, as such the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action qua the opposite party No. 3. As per record of the opposite party No. 3 no claim was registered with the opposite party No. 3 as alleged by the complainant under the policy in question. Had the complainant lodged any claim, a claim number would have been allotted and the claim would have been registered. However, in the complaint, the complainant has failed to put forward any claim number on record in order to establish that actually the claim was registered with the opposite party No. 3. The Opposite party No. 1 & 2 i.e. HDFC Bank has obtained one Cardsure Package Policy covering their Forex Plus and Forex Platinum Card Holder.  The complaint is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties as the opposite party No. 3 has been made party unnecessarily without any cause of action. The complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3. As the insurance of card and terms and conditions of the policy are concerned, it is submitted that at the time of issuance of policy, the company always provided terms and conditions and after acceptance of the terms and conditions, the policy is issued. So far as with regard to the repudiation is concerned, the complainant never lodged any claim with the opposite party No. 3, therefore, no question arises regarding repudiating the claim arbitrarily. The repudiation letter has been issued by the bank since the complainant never lodged any claim with the opposite party No. 3. The opposite party No. 3 has denied the other contents of the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the same. Alongwith the written version, the opposite party No. 3 as placed on record affidavit of Shweta Pokhriyal, Assistant Manager Legal Claims Ex. OP 3/1, power of attorney Ex. OP3/2. 

4        The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 and denied all the pleas taken in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint and it was pleaded that  all the banking and financial institutions use to keep the call details and recordings of the calls with them and if the allegation of the bank is true that no call was made at that time to the concerned card division then why they have not produced the details of the calls received by the concerned card division of the relevant time and date which is 29.12.2017 at about 10:45 AM. If the bank produces all the details of calls received by the credit card division of the relevant time and date, then there must be call made from mobile of Gaurav Bhatia from Tarn Taran at 10:45 AM on 29.12.2017 and the production of the call details along with the above said call and its recording will make the whole matter very much crystal clear. It will thus become crystal clear at time a call was made to the concerned card division for blocking of the card. The production of call details will make whole the matter crystal clear that a request for blocking of the card was made within the time but the bank has failed to block the card for the reasons best known to it, which results into huge loss to the complainant but the bank has withheld the call details in order to cover up its fault. As such, the deficiency in services on the part of the bank is clearly established. The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written version filed by the opposite Party No. 3 and denied all the pleas taken in the written version and reiterated the stand as taken in the complaint.

5        We have carefully gone through the record and heard the Ld. counsel for the parties.

6        In the present complaint , the complainant has purchased a forex plus card, bearing no. 4726430003592650 on 22.08.2017 having an amount of CAD 7750/- for his travel to Canada and same is issued by OP No.3 and is having account with the bank bearing no. 25721000000072. On dated  28^th December 2017 at about 22:10Hrs (Canadian date and time) The customer was on a store at Ontario in Canada ,Some unknown persons have attacked upon the store and committed an armed dacoity and they had snatched the card from the complainant. The wife of the complainant immediately intimated to one of their friend Paramjit Singh at Tarn Tarn and told him that kindly visit the bank branch and get block the card by the branch. Paramjit Singh along with the Gaurav Bhatia , visited the bank branch on 29.12.2017 at about 10:30 A.M.and told about the whole occurrence to Mr. Davinderpal Singh (branch manager ) and Mr. Sanjiv Bhatia (officials of the bank ) , at about 10:45am the bank official called the concerned card division and requested them to block the card belonging to the complainant.  The matter was also reported to the police service at Canada vide occurrence No. 17-43568.

7        Thereafter, coming back to India , on dated 12.04.2018 , the complainant requested the officials of the bank to credit the card balance into his saving account but he came to know from bank that the card is having a negative balance of -8CAD.  The complainant requested for statement of the card and got surprised to know that there had been about 30 transactions done after blocking the card.  The 30 transactions were done on dated 29^th December 2017 and no SMS alerts for the above said 30 transactions were received by the complainant. After that the complainant requested the bank number of times to reimburse the amount , for this he sent e-mails , written request and visited bank but on dated 23.05.2019 the bank has repudiated it’s liability stated that “we regret to inform you that the claim has been rejected by the insurance company as robbery and theft cases are not covered under the Forex Card Insurance Policy”.

8        Op No.1&2 stated in their written version that, the relatives of the complainant namely Paramjit Singh and Karan Bhatia came to the branch of the bank Taran Taran on dated 29^th December 2017 and they narrated the story that the said forex card issued to the  complainant has been stolen and requested to block the said card. However, they were Informed by Davinder pal Singh and Sanjeev Bhatia that being employees of the bank they have no authority to block the forex card as it can only be blocked by the customer in whose name the forex card is issued or by any of his authorised representative who has all the detail of the card i.e. card number, expiry date, name on the card, date of birth of the card holder ,address of the card holder etc as all these security measures are being taken by the bank to stop the misuse of the card. Further OP No 1 & 2 denied the facts that their officials ever called up the customer care number and blocked or hot listed the card. Op No 1&2 also stated that:-

• No proof available on the record that whether it was the complainant or someone else who had withdrawn the amount from the ATM as no CCTV footage has been placed on the record.
• No police enquiry report has been placed on the record , as in the Statement of a police official dated 26^th June 2018 placed on record by the complainant it has been stated that the case is before the court but no such court documents or order has been placed on the record by the complainant.
•  If we presume that the forex card was robbed from the complainant then he could not have disclosed the pin of the card or could have given a wrong pin but the complainant did not do so.
• No document has been placed on record by the complainant to show that he was carrying his mobile number which is being registered with the bank and international roaming was switched for that.

9        Further OP No.1 & 2 denied the fact that the complainant visited the bank on dated 12.04.2018 and requested to credit the card balance to his saving account.  Moreover, OP No1 &2 stated that the bank repudiated the liability though letter dated 23.05.2019 because OP No.3 denied their liability on the ground that robbery and theft cases were not covered under the Forex Card Insurance Policy.

10      OP No.3 stated in their written version that the complaint of the complainant is premature because the complainant never lodged /registered any claim with the opposite party number 3 and without registration of any claim the complainant cannot claim any compensation from the replying opposite party. Regarding the repudiation is concerned,the complainant never lodged any claim with the OP No.3 , therefore no question arises regarding repudiate the claim. The repudiation letter has been issued by the bank since the complainant never lodged any claim with the OP No.3 . Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of replying OP.

11      We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, perused the record. There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant purchased the Forex Plus Card from the OPs. It is also not denied by the OP No. 1& 2 that the respondent relatives ( Paramjit Singh & Gaurav Bhatia ) visited the bank branch Tarn Taran on 29.12.2017 to block the card. The disputes between the parties are :-

1. Bank officials called the concerned card division &requested them to block the card or not .
2. Claim rejected by the bank.

12      However, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that after the card from the complainant was snatched by the unknown person, he immediately informed about the occurrence to someone known in Tarn Taran and they visited the branch and informed the whole occurrence to the concerned person in the bank and requested to block the card belonging to the complainant. To prove his point the complainant placed on the record the Affidavits of the person who visited the bank on dated 29.12.2017  , Paramjit Singh (Ex.C3) and Gaurav Bhatia (Ex.C.2) stated that “ at about 10:45Am on 29.12.2017 the officials of the bank has called the concerned card division in our presence and requested them to block the card belonging to the complainant and the officials of the bank have told ,that the card has a balance of CAD 5785/-.

13      On other hand opposite party number 1 and 2 accepted the fact that Paramjit Singh and Gaurav Bhatia visited the bank at Tarn Taran on 29^th December 2017 and they narrated the story that the said forex card issued to the complainant has been stolen and requested to block the said card.  however the officials of the bank had informed them to call the customer care number of the bank and requested for blocking of the said card, they were also informed by the Varinder Pal Singh and Sanjeev Bhatia that being employee of the bank they have no authority to block the forex card as it can only be blocked by the customer in whose name the forex card is issued or by any of his authorised representative who has all the details of the card. To prove their point OP No.1 &2 placed on the record the Affidavits of the bank officials (Davinderpal Singh) Ex.Op1,2/3 and (Sanjeev Bhatia ) Ex.Op1,2/2 . However, the complainant stated in their rejoinder that “ On dated 29^th December 2017 at about 10:45 AM the bank officials has called the concerned  card division at the request of Gaurav Bhatia and Paramjeet Singh from the mobile belonging to Gaurav Bhatia and the official of the bank has dictated all the details about the card to the concerned card division.” It is pertinent to mention here that if the allegation of the bank is true that no call was made at that time to the concerned card division then why they have not produced the details of the calls received by the concerned card division of the relevant time and date i.e. 29.12.2017 at 10.45am  , which will make the whole matter very much crystal clear.

14      Let’s discuss about the 2^nd dispute between the parties i.e. “claim rejected by the bank” . After gone through the Ex. C12 placed on the record, it is clearly mentioned that , “the claim has been rejected by the Insurance Company as Robbery and Theft cases are not covered under the Forex Card Insurance Policy”. The same letter was sent by HDFC BANK  (OP. No 1&2) but if we go through the written version of the OP No.3 i.e. HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company ,they clearly admitted the fact that the complainant has never lodged or registered any claim with the OP No 3 . Further they stated that , the complainant never lodged any claim therefore no question arises regarding repudiating the claim and the repudiation letter has been issued by the bank as the complainant never lodged any claim with the OP No.3 . Hence the said submission of the insurance company Op No.3 in itself speaks about the deficiency in service and dereliction in duties on the part of the bank O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 and it’s officials as in one hand the bank has repudiated the claim by saying that the insurance company has repudiated the same and on the other hand the insurance company has replied that the claim was never submitted to them. As bank and insurance company are linked with each other regarding purchase and claim of the policy but the contradictory reply given by them clearly established the deficiency on the part of the bank – OP No.1&2 . All these facts clearly shows that the claim process was not forwarded by the bank -Op No 1&2 to OP No.3 and bank itself send the repudiation letter to the complainant without processing the claim form to the insurance company.

15      Moreover, if we go through the repudiation letter ( Ex.C 12) stated that –“ robbery and theft cases are not covered under the Forex Card Insurance Policy”. But related to this Ops  failed to provide any evidence placed on the record regarding the terms and conditions of the policy and further failed to prove their point that they explained or attached the terms and conditions of the policy to the complainant. OP No.1&2 merely stated that the bank repudiated the liability though letter dated 23.05.2019 because OP No.3 denied their liability on the ground that robbery and theft cases were not covered under the Forex Card Insurance Policy. However, the complainant denied the fact that the terms and conditions were attached to the insurance policy of the card not such kind of alleged terms and conditions have been explained to the complainant at the time of purchase of the card.  He placed reliance on citation 2001(1)CPR 93 (Supreme Court) 242 titled as M/s Modern Insulators Ltd Vs The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd, wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that clauses which are not explained to complainant are not binding upon the insured and are required to be ignored.

16      OP No.1&2 failed to provide terms and conditions of the policy with their written version as an evidence, which is the essential part of this policy and to consider whether this point of robbery or theft is applicable in this policy or not. All these facts clearly shows the deficiency on the part of the OPs . However, if we go through the written version of the OP No.3 ,then the repudiation on the base of terms and conditions of the policy has no value because it’s clearly shows the deficiency on the part of the bank -OP No.1&2 , as they failed to process the claim form to the OP No.3 and without processing the claim form they itself repudiated the claim on behalf of the insurance company -OP No.3 , Which clearly proves deficiency in the service and unfair trade practice on the part of the bank – OP No.1&2 .

17      Moreover, if we go through the allegations of the bank -OP No1&2 :-

•  Why the complainant gave correct pin to the unknown person – it’s just a situation where mind doesn’t work and person to save his/her life just do what the person say who attacked with the armed weapon.
• Registered his phone number for international roaming – this point seems useless as phone number registered for roaming or not cannot cover the deficiency on the part of the bank for not forwarding the claim process to the insurance company and furthermore, the complainant lost his phone as well in the robbery too .
• No police enquiry report has been placed on record – regarding this Ex C.7 , placed on the record which clearly stated that “ as case is still before the court,so unable to provide any other information further one contact number is provided for any enquiry” . It is pertinent to mention here that after the claim has been lodged with the bank , it is duty on the part of the bank to inquire about all the relevant facts but bank has not investigated the matter , which is also part of deficiency in service on the part of the bank-OPs No 1 & 2.

18      All above discussion clearly shows that the bank -OPs No. 1 & 2 just to cover up their deficiency in service, pointing all the baseless allegation to the complainant. OPs No.1 & 2 miserably failed to perform their duties  such as –

1. Not blocking the card of the complainant on the request of the complainant’s relatives , as the complainant was out of country so he informed someone in the city to request the bank to block his card which was stolen by some unknown person but giving excuse that they have no authority to block the card and only person himself can call the customer care to block the card, without understanding the position of the complainant itself proved the deficiency in service on the part of the bank .
2. Then failed to provide call details if they had not call the card division on dated 29.12.2017 at about 10:45 Am to block the card.
3. Bank failed to process the claim form to the insurance company and itself repudiated the claim by saying the insurance company rejected the claim as per terms and conditions.
4. Failed to provide terms and conditions of the policy on behave of which they repudiated the claim.
5. Failed to investigate the matter after receiving the claim form regarding robbery and theft of the card, though they have enquiry number as mentioned in Ex.C-12. 

19      In light of the above discussion, the complaint succeeds and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of the complainant against the opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs. 2,89,250/- to the complainant. The complainant has been harassed by the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 unnecessarily for a long time. The complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and 7,500/- as litigation expenses. The present complaint against the opposite party No. 3 is dismissed. Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order, failing which the complainant is entitled to interest @ 9% per annum, on the awarded amount, from the date of complaint till its realisation.  Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission and due to COVID-19. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties as per rules. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room.

Announced in Open Commission

18.4.2023