Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/874/2022

RAJINDER KAUR - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

SANYAM BHARDWAJ

05 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	874/2022
Date of Institution	:	14.10.2022
Date of Decision	:	5/11/2024

 

Rajinder Kaur C/o Harbans Singh Saggu, aged about 47 years, R/o #2264 D Block 4 CHB Flats, Sector 63, Chandigarh.

...Complainant

Versus

1.       HDFC Bank Ltd, HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg. Lower Parel(W), Mumbai-400013, through its authorized officer.

2.       HDFC Bank Ltd., Bank House, 28, Industrial Area, Phase 1. Chandigarh, through its authorized Officer.

...Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Harish Goyal, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. B.D. Jindal, Advocate for OPs.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that credit card bearing No.xxxx xxxx xxxx 9759 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject credit card”) was issued by the agent of the OPs which was received through post and the complainant had been using the same. On 09.07.2022, the complainant was shocked when she received an e-mail (Ex.C-1) that a transaction worth ₹20470/- has been made through the subject credit card and  a copy of the statement of the credit card is Ex.C-2. Immediately, the complainant made a  request for the blockage of the subject credit card and the “subject credit card” was locked by the OPs on 09.07.2022. After the blockage of the subject credit card, the OPs had issued the new credit card to the complainant in place of the old one, without the consent of the complainant and all the transactions, outstanding amount etc. were transferred to the new credit card No.xxxx xxxx xxxx 1554. Even after issuance of the new credit card, the same was never handed over to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant sent email dated 10.07.2022 (Ex.C-3) to the OPs regarding the above said fraudulent transaction of ₹20470/- from the subject credit card and had also made a complaint to the RBI on their portal within few hours of the transaction and copy of the acknowledgment is Ex.C-4. On 25.07.2022, the complainant received another shocking e-mail from the OPs stating that there are two add on credit cards in the name of the complainant for which she had never made any request. It was also intimated that the subject transaction took place after getting the OTP but no such OTP was ever received by the complainant. Even vide e-mail dated 26.07.2022 sent by the complainant to the OPs stating that she never used the credit card for Paytm Balance etc. as it was a health credit card.  Vide e-mail dated 30.08.2022 (Ex.C-7) sent by the RBI, it was informed that the complaint was closed as no such deficiency in service on the part of the bank was found. It is further alleged that even as per the RBI guidelines for the disputed transaction,  if the customer reports the bank regarding fraud transaction within 3 days, he/she will have to bear zero liability and the whole amount shall be refunded in the account by the concerned bank. The aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OPs resisted the consumer complaint and filed their written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, non-joinder and mis-joinder of the parties; cause of action and concealment of facts. However, it is stated that the complainant had approached the OPs for issuance of the credit card and upon this the subject credit card was issued to the complainant. In fact the said transaction had been carried out over the secured platform and the transaction was only successful upon the entering of OTP, which was solely known to the complainant, having been received on her registered mobile number. It is also alleged that apart from the OTP to complete the online transaction, the credit card credentials viz credit card number, card validity and CVV i.e. three digit highly confidential number were also required and the said details are confidential data and were only known to the cardholder i.e. the complainant and the OTP and transaction alert messages were also delivered upon the registered mobile number of the complainant. It is also alleged that in fact the credit card is being used by the complainant right from the year 2017. It is further alleged that even as per the RBI guidelines, the claim of the complainant is not covered under the same, since the complainant herself has shared the confidential details viz credit card credentials viz credit card number, card validity and CVV i.e. three digit highly confidential number etc. The complaint of the complainant is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. Despite grant of sufficient opportunity, rejoinder was not filed by the complainant to rebut the stand of the OPs.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. In order to prove their case, the parties tendered/proved their evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties/complainant and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the OPs had issued the subject credit card bearing No.xxxx xxxx xxxx 9759 to the complainant and the complainant has been using the same since the year 2017 and on 09.07.2022, the transaction of ₹20470/-  had taken place through the subject credit card and immediately after the said transaction, the complainant got the subject credit card blocked and thereafter had lodged the complaint with the OPs as well as RBI intimating about the fraudulent transaction, as is also evident from Ex.C-1, a copy of the e-mail, Ex.C-2 the copy of the statement of the credit card, Ex.C-3 the copy of the complaint lodged with the OPs and another copy of the acknowledgment of the complaint lodged by the complainant with the RBI and further after the blockage of the subject credit card, no further transaction had taken place from the said blocked credit card, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if on account of the said transaction, the complainant has zero liability as per the RBI guidelines and the complainant is entitled for the refund of ₹20470/-, as is the case of the complainant or if the aforesaid fraudulent transaction had taken place due to the negligence of the complainant and the OPs have no liability and the complaint of the complainant being false and frivolous is liable to be dismissed, as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. The learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant is entitled for the refund of ₹20470/- which was debited from her account on the ground that she had never used the subject credit card nor she shared any OTP or other confidential credentials with any person and as per the RBI guidelines as the complainant had reported the matter to the OPs within 72 hours, she has zero liability and the entire liability has to be borne by the OPs.
   3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP has submitted that as the complainant had received the OTP on her registered mobile number and only when she had completed online transaction by filling the credit card credentials viz credit card number, card validity and CVV i.e. three digit highly confidential number etc. and only after that the said transaction had taken place and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. There is force in the submission of the learned for the OPs as it stands proved on record that in fact the complainant had received the OTP number on her registered mobile number before the transaction and when the complainant herself had shared the said OTP along with the credit card credentials in order to complete the online secured transaction, the subject transaction had taken place. The OPs have given the details of the OTP number, request time made by the complainant and the time when the transaction had taken place by referring the same in para 6 of the preliminary objections of the written version, making it clear that the said subject transaction had taken place when the complainant shared the aforesaid credit card credentials viz credit card number, card validity and CVV i.e. three digit highly confidential number etc.  Moreover, when it is an admitted case of the complainant that after the blockage of the subject credit card,  no transaction had taken place, to our mind even the case of the complainant is not covered under part (a) i.e. Zero Liability of a Customer of the RBI guidelines. The relevant portion of the RBI guidelines is reproduced as under:-

“RBI/2017-18/15                       July 6, 2017

DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18     

“No.________ Dated:

Limited Liability of a Customer

 

(a)    Zero Liability of a Customer

6.     A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events

(i)     Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

(ii)    Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction

(b)    Limited Liability of a Customer

7      A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transactions in the following cases:

(i)     In cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be bone by the bank

(ii)    In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorised electronic banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of four to seven working days after receiving the communication from the bank) on the part of the customer in notifying the bank of such a transaction, the per transaction liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in Table 1, whichever is lower.”

4. Reliance here is also placed upon the order passed by our own Hon'ble State Commission in FA No.72 of 2021 titled as Nidhi Gupta vs Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd and ors, wherein it was held as under

"going through the material available on record very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bare perusal of Annexures R2/2 and R-2/3 makes it abundantly clear that the disputed transactions took place, only after One Time Password (OTP) was sent on the registered mobile number of the appellant. There is nothing on record to prove that the card of the complainant was misused by any third party. It is not the case of the appellant that the card was lost or stolen. Per documents on record, it is very much established that the alleged transactions of Rs. 10,000/- each were done at Airtel Payment through secured mode by using second factor authentication ie. One Time Password. No negligence on the part of the respondents can be attributed, if the appellant herself did not take due care and caution while handling her credit card Thus, as rightly held by the Ld. District Commission, the actual transaction had taken place only after the appellant shared the details qua OTP etc. Thus, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission,"

5. In the case in hand as it stands proved on record that the said transaction had not taken place due to third party breach or lies elsewhere in the system, it is safe to hold that the transaction had taken place due to the negligence of the complainant and she herself has to bear the loss.

5. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 5/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member