Punjab

Sangrur

CC/172/2015

Himanshu Kant Madaan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Shri G.S.Shergill

10 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

 

 

 

                                                               

                                                Complaint No.    172

                                                Instituted on:      06.04.2015

                                                Decided on:       10.09.2015

 

 

Himanshu Kant Madaan aged about 42 years son of Shri Mehar Chand C/o Standard Times, Court Road, Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.     HDFC Bank Limited, Kaula Park, Sangrur through its Branch Manager.

2.     HDFC Bank Credit Cards Division, 8, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmivur, Chennai through its authorised signatory.

                                                        …Opposite parties

 

For the complainant            :               Shri G.S.Shergill, Adv.

For OPs                            :               Shri Sumesh Garg, Adv.

 

 

Quorum:    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                K.C.Sharma, Member

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

 

Order by : K.C.Sharma, Member.

 

1.             Shri Himanshu Kant Madaan, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the OPs on the ground that he obtained the services of the OP number 1 by opening a saving bank account bearing number 2621050000021 and the OPs also issued a credit card bearing number 4617872000699974. It is further stated that nothing is due towards the complainant as he has been paying all the dues in time. It is further stated that the complainant never withdrew any amount in cash and further in case of any unauthorised transaction due to theft, then the said transaction is duly insured with the insurance company and the insurance company has to indemnify the loss. 

 

2.             The case of the complainant is that on 8.6.2014, the complainant went to Varindavan and at about 5:20 PM the complainant went to pay the obeisance in Shree Bankee Bihari Temple and at about 6.00 PM he returned and was shocked to notice that his wallet was stolen by some unknown person in crowd and in the wallet, there was credit card bearing number 46178720000699974 along with other four debit cards, driving license, RC of the car etc. It is further averred that at about 6:03 PM the complainant was again shocked to receive a SMS from OP number 1 wherein it was informed that an unsuccessful transaction of Rs.5000/- has been carried out through credit card and after that the complainant immediately lodged the complaint on the customer care number 98153-31111 of the OP number 1 and made request for blocking the credit card as well as debt card issued by OP number 1 and the customer care official immediately blocked the card of the complainant and a SMS was also received by the  complainant. It is further stated that thereafter at about 7:33 PM the complainant was shocked to receive two SMS from the OP number 1 for having two successful transactions of Rs.10,000/- each at 6:23 and 6:24 PM. The complainant immediately called at the customer care centre and the customer care official again informed the complainant that as per their record there is no transaction took place at 6:23 and 6:24 PM rather it was unsuccessful attempt.  Further case of the complainant is that on 10.6.2014 as per the direction of the OP number 1, the complainant submitted the commercial card holder dispute form with HDFC Bank Limited Sangrur and also sent a copy of the police complaint to OP number 1.  On 24.6.2014 the complainant received a letter dated 20.6.2014 wherein the OP number 1 stated that the amount of Rs.10,000/- each has been successfully withdrawn whereas as per the customer care confirmation of OP number 1 on 8.6.2014 there was no successful transaction.  The complainant even requested OP number 1 to provide the video footage, but the OP number 1 failed to provide the same. It is stated further that the complainant is not liable to pay the amount as mentioned above.  It is further averred that the complainant also received a legal notice dated 8.10.2014 whereby the Ops number 1 and 2 demanded an amount of Rs.25,594/-  which is said to be wrong and illegal and the notice was duly replied. It is further averred that the OPs number  1 and 2 have illegally and arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.6089.96 from the account of the complainant and also blocked the saving bank account of the complainant. It is further averred that thereafter the complainant also received another notice dated 26.2.2015, whereby an amount of Rs.31,980.72 has been demanded.  The complainant has stated that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP number 1 in demanding the amount of Rs.20,000/- as the complainant had already got blocked the card in question.  Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund to the complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant and further to refund an amount of Rs.6089.96 illegally withdrawn from the account of the complainant and further to pay compensation and litigation expenses.

 

3.             In reply filed by OPs number 1 and 2, legal objections are taken up on the grounds that this Forum has got no territorial jurisdiction to try and decide the present complaint, that this Forum got no cause of action, that the intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present case, that the complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum and that the complainant is not entitled to get any relief. The complainant has concealed the fact that the card was blocked/hot listed on dated 8.6.2014 at 6.26.41 pm, whereas the valid transactions took place at 6.24.22 p.m. It is further stated that no transaction through credit card can take place with the use of Personal Identification Number (PIN) which is confidential/supposed to be known only by the complainant and thus only the complainant or any other person only at the instance of the complainant could make a transaction with credit card by use of the PIN.  It is further stated that in this case the cash has been disbursed at an ATM centre and not across the teller counter and ATM can be operated only with the help of PIN, therefore, the allegations of the complainant are false and the complainant is bound to pay the said transaction as per terms and conditions of the credit card availed by him. On merits, it is admitted by the Ops that the complainant is having a saving bank account as well as credit card in question. It has been denied that any unauthorised transaction took place. It has been further denied that the complainant immediately lodged the complaint at customer care number 98153-31111 of OPs or made the request for blocking the credit card as well as debt card. The complainant got the card blocked/hot listed at 6.26.41 whereas the last valid transaction took place at 6.24.22 pm and the complainant is bound to pay for the transaction which took place before blocking of the card.  It is further stated that both the transactions of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- each took place with the use of PIN and the said PIN was confidential only to the complainant or any person to whom the complainant told the PIN.  It is further mentioned in the reply that on the request of the complainant to provide CCTV footage, the complainant was called upon to visit the concerned branch to view the CCTV footage concerned branch at Varindavan, but the complainant never visited the said branch for viewing the CCTV footage.  It is stated further that the present complaint has been field after a period of 10 months of occurrence.  It is stated that the complainant is liable to pay the amount due.  However, any deficiency in service on the part of the Op has been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with special costs.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 copy of letter dated 8.6.2014, Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-11 copies of emails, Ex.C-12 copy of letter dated 8.10.2014, Ex.C-13 copy of reply of legal notice, Ex.C-14 copy of receipt dated 17.10.2014, Ex.C-15 copy of accounts statement, Ex.C-16 copy of letter dated 2.2.2015, Ex.C-17 copy of letter dated 26.2.2015, Ex.C-18 copy of letter dated 20.6.2015, Ex.C-19 affidavit of the complainant and closed evidence. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has produced Ex.OP1&2/1 copy of application form, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of declaration, Ex.OP1&2/3 copy of credit card statement, Ex.OP1&2/4 copy of accounts statement, Ex.OP1&2/5 copy of email dated 16.7.2014, Ex.OP1&2/6 copy of email dated 25.7.2014, Ex.OP1&2/7 affidavit, Ex.OP1&2/8 copy of credit card statement, Ex.OP1&2/9 copy of terms and conditions, Ex.OP1&2/10 copy of schedule of charges and closed evidence.

 

5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, version of the opposite parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             It is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a saving bank account number 26211050000021 and a credit card bearing number 4617872000699974 issued by the OPs. 

 

7.             The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that on 8.6.2014, the complainant went to Varindavan and his wallet was stolen in which credit card bearing number 4617872000699974 was also lost.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended further that at 6.03 PM on 8.6.2014, the complainant was shocked to receive a SMS on his mobile phone that three was an unsuccessful transaction of Rs.5000/- through the above said credit card issued by the Ops,  as such, the complainant immediately lodged the complaint with the customer care number 98153-31111 of the OP and got blocked the credit card and as such, a SMS was also received from the OPs.  The learned counsel for the complainant has contended vehemently that thereafter at about 7.33 PM the complainant again received a SMS whereby it was told that there were two successful transactions of Rs.10,000/- each at 6.23 PM and 6.24 PM and by this way an amount of Rs.20,000/- was withdrawn from his credit card in question.   It is further contended by the learned counsel for the complainant that thereafter, the complainant approached the OPs a number of times for getting the entries corrected, but nothing happened.  On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the complainant has filed a false complaint stating wrong facts as the credit card was got blocked only after occurrence of transactions i.e. the transactions of withdrawal of Rs.10,000/- each for two times took place on 8.6.2014 at 6.23 and 6.24 PM, whereas the card in question was got blocked by the complainant at 6.26 PM.  As such, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended vehemently that the Ops are not at all responsible for the same.  It is further contended by the learned counsel for the ops that the credit card at the ATM can only be used with the Personal Identification Number (PIN) which is confidential/supposed to be known only by the complainant and thus, the complainant is only person, who knows the PIN number and at both the occasions the PIN number has been used at the time of withdrawal of the amount of Rs.10,000/- each.  Lastly, the learned counsel for the OPs has contended for dismissal of the complaint with special costs.

 

8.             It is an admitted fact that the amount of Rs.10,000/- each was withdrawn twice through the credit card  which was duly issued by the OPs number 1 and 2 on 8.6.2014 at 6.23 PM and 6.24 PM at Varindaban by using the credit card in question. It is further worth mentioning here that the credit card in question can only be used by inserting the Personal Identification Number (PIN) which is only known to the complainant.   Moreover,  the complainant lodged the complaint for getting blocked the credit card only at 6.26 PM, meaning thereby at that time the credit card had already been used for withdrawal of the amount of Rs.20,000/- in two withdrawals. Further the learned counsel for the OPs has drawn our attention towards the copy of statement Ex.OP1&2/4, which clearly shows that on 8.6.2014 at 6:23:04 and at 6:24:22, the amount of Rs.10,000/- each was withdrawn.  Moreover, the complainant has not produced any documentary evidence on record to show that the complainant got blocked his credit card immediately after 6:03 PM on 8.6.2014 after receiving the SMS from OP number 1 wherein it was informed that an unsuccessful transaction of Rs.5000/- was carried out and further the complainant has not produced any record of SMS (as mentioned in the complaint) showing that the customer care official immediately blocked the credit card of the complainant. Under the circumstances of the case, we find that the complainant has miserably failed to prove on record that the Ops number 1 and 2 are not at all liable for use of the credit card in any way and the loss caused, if any, to the complainant is due to the negligence of the OPs number 1 and 2.  It is worth mentioning here that the Ops immediately blocked the credit card on 8.6.2014 at 6:26 PM after receiving the call for the same from the complainant, as is also evident from the electronic records as mentioned in the reply of the complaint itself.

9.             In view of our above discussion, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                September 10, 2015.

                                                (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                     President

                               

 

                                                   (K.C.Sharma)

                                                        Member

 

 

                                                    (Sarita Garg)

                                                       Member