Delhi

North East

cc/157/2012

Mr. Ritul Rastogi - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

11 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.157/12

 

In the matter of:

 

		Mr. Ritul Rastogi R/o B-804, Saffron Tower NIHO Scottish Garden, Ashinsha Khand-11, Indirapuram, Ghaziabad UP		Complainant
		Versus
		HDFC Bank Ltd. R.G Complex Plot No.4 DDA Community Centre Sec-9 Rohini Delhi-85		Opposite Party
			DATE OF INSTITUTION: JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                   DATE OF ORDER:		27.04.12 03.11.22 11.01.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

                                                                    ORDER

      Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the executive of Opposite Party offered the Complainant their Credit Card and obtained necessary documents with duly signed application. The Opposite Party issued Credit Card in the name of Complainant having card no. 5289456002260037. On 21.05.11, the Complainant’s registered mobile no. was changed by Opposite Party on which he got transaction massages without his information and consent. On 25.05.11, he received a call from executive of customer care that he made a transaction of Rs.62,032/- and the Complainant told him that he did not make any transaction of Rs. 62,032/- and requested for blockage of his card. The Complainant visited the office of Opposite Party and lodge a complaint and officer of Opposite Party assured him that investigation is going on but he did not got any satisfactory response from Opposite Party. After getting no satisfactory response from Opposite Party he lodged a complaint in police station Vashundhra Indirapuram, Ghaziabad and then also he did not get any satisfactory response from Opposite Party. After that the recovery agent of Opposite Party started to call Complainant for recovery and threated him that he had to pay               Rs. 60,000/- to Opposite Party. Hence this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to clear the all illegal outstanding amount against him and for issuing the NOC. He has also prayed for Rs. 80,000/- towards mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- for litigation charges.

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The Opposite Party contested the case and filed written statement.  It is stated by the Opposite Party that the card of the Complainant was blocked on 24.05.11. On the request of the Complainant a new Credit Card bearing no. 5289456002686538 was generated for him and he is availing credit facility subject to terms and conditions for Card Member Agreement. The charges referred to in the Card Member Agreement was extracted and notified separately, and all the documents with Credit Card and Card Member Agreement was sent to him. The Complainant used his card for first transaction shows that the Complainant had read all the terms and conditions and accepted the same. The Opposite Party bank is entitled to levy charges on revolving of credit facility, for delayed payments, for exceeding credit limit, including other charges as provided therein. The Complainant made various transactions using his Credit Card and he was very irregular in paying the dues despite reminders.
3. As per the investigation done by Opposite Party bank the transaction made by Complainant is online transaction. There is Mastercard Secure Code (MSC) service for Mastercard Credit Cards. The Complainant had registered his Credit Card account for MSC on 24.05.11 and there was no password reset alongwith change in mobile number or email identified on card account and also multiple levels of checks are done before MSC password is generated. The MSC password was sent to customer registered mobile no. and email address only. The password was only known to customer and transaction cannot take place without MSC password. Hence the liability of disputed transaction rests with the Complainant and had already been explain to him time and again by Opposite Party bank with letters and emails and further he was called upon to make payment of Rs. 9844.68 as it was outstanding and he failed to pay it and present complaint is a frivolous attempt by the Complainant to escape his liability towards the Opposite Party bank. As on 16.05.12 an amount of Rs. 1,03,225/- was due and payable by Complainant on account of above said Credit Card with the Opposite Party bank is entitled to recover alongwith charges and interest from 16.05.12 and it is only then he would be entitled to receive no due certificate/NOC from Opposite Party bank.  

Evidence of the Complainant

4. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit       wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

5. In order to prove its case Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Verma, AR of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

6. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the parties. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Parties. The case of the Complainant is that he has obtained a Credit Card from the Opposite Party. It is his case that without his consent his registered mobile number was changed by the Opposite Party and also no information was given to him in this regard. It is his case that he received a phone call from the Opposite Party that an online transaction of Rs. 62,032/- has been done from his Credit Card whereas he did not do any online transaction from his Credit Card. The case of the Opposite Party is that as per the investigation done by Opposite Party bank the transaction made by Complainant is online transaction. There is Mastercard Secure Code (MSC) service for Mastercard Credit Cards. The Complainant had registered his Credit Card account for MSC on 24.05.11 and there was no password reset alongwith change in mobile no. or email identified on card account and also multiple levels of checks are done before MSC password is generated. The MSC password was sent to customer registered mobile number and email address only. The password was only known to customer and transaction cannot take place without MSC password. Hence the liability of disputed transaction rests with the Complainant and had already been explain to him time and again by Opposite Party bank with letters and emails and further he was called upon to make payment of Rs. 9844.68 as it was outstanding and he failed to pay it and present complaint is a frivolous attempt by the Complainant to escape his liability towards the Opposite Party bank.
7. It is important to note that the Complainant in his complaint and evidence did not disclose his registered mobile number. It is also important to note that the Complainant did not disclose the phone number on which he received a call from the Opposite Party bank regarding the online transaction. The Complainant has also lodged a complaint in Police Station Vashundhra, Ghaziabad but he has not disclose the outcome of this complaint. The Opposite Party has filed written statement wherein it is averred that the Opposite Party bank sent the MSC on the registered mobile number and email of the Complainant only and he is the only one who is intimated about the MSC for purpose of secured transaction and without MSC password transaction cannot be done. Hence the transaction in question was a secured one and was authenticated by using MSC password which was only known to the Complainant. Opposite Party has also filed evidence in this regard. It is important to note that the Complainant did not file rejoinder to controvert the said assertions made by the Opposite Party nor the Complainant in his affidavit has controverted the said assertions made by the Opposite Party. It is not the case of the Complainant that he did not receive the password on his email.
8. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that Complainant has failed to prove his case. Therefore, the case is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 11.01.23 .

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President