Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/540/2020

Capt Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

01 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Consumer Complaint  No	:	540 of 2020
Date  of  Institution	:	20.10.2020
Date   of   Decision	:	01.04.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Capt.Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman, R/o H.No.2015, Sector 79, Mohali.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Manager, HDFC Bank, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh

2]  Managing Director, Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd. Regd. Off: 16/14, 17/2, Major Bhola Ram Enclave, Pochanpur, Sec-23, Dwarka, New Delhi 110077

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.B.M.SHARMA,                MEMBER

 

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

Sh.Bhawandeep Jindal, Adv. proxy for Sh.H.S.Kathpal, Counsel for the OP No.1.

Representative of OP No.2.

 

 

PER B. M. SHARMA, MEMBER

        Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that one Mr.Shukla introducing himself as HDFC Bank representative in Real Estate matters visited the complainant in Dec.,2019 and informed that DDA Approved Special Scheme has been launched for Ex-Servicemen and for that he is doing the demand survey.  It is stated that on his request, the complainant agreed to participate in demand survey, the said person filled some online form in the office of the complainant and got his signatures and other documents but no money transaction was made.
         It is stated that on receipt of monthly credit card statement on 18.12.2029 the complainant noticed fraudulent transaction of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Easebuzz Pvt. Ltd., Pune dated 16.12.2019 which he had not done.  He lodged the complaint with HDFC Bank, Sector 38, Chandigarh and he was informed by the OP Bank that the Bank will reverse the entry within one week and thereafter received another email from the bank on 27.12.2019 that the disputed amount has been suppressed. The complainant was also informed to contact the merchant and submit the cancellation documents to them and as such, the complainant sent mail to the merchant as per search from credit recipient with copy to HDFC Bank. The complainant also reported the matter/complaint to Cyber Crime Cell, Chandigarh Police.  However, the OP Bank instead of making reverse entry showed the fraudulent transaction amount as due amount in his credit card account and imposed penalties. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   

 

2]       The OP No.1-HDFC Bank has filed written version stating that Mr.Shukla was never employee of OP Bank nor the alleged survey has been conducted by the Bank.  It is stated that there is no involvement of any official of the OP Bank in such activity/survey. It is stated that as per the statement of the account for the month of Dec., 2019 (Ann.R-4) the alleged transaction for an amount of Rs.40,000/- was executed on 16.12.2019 hence it has been recorded in the Credit Card Bill for the month of Dec., 2019. It is mentioned that the complainant had shared his credentials i.e. Credit Card Number and the CVV number and it was upon entering personal credentials, the transaction had been authorised for an amount of Rs.40,000/- at Easebuzz Pvt. Ltd. It is submitted that upon the entering the credit card details and CVV number, the complainant had received the secret OTP i.e. One Time Password for authenticating the transaction over the Easebuzz Pvt. Ltd for a sum of Rs.40,000/- over his registered email id and Phone Number, hence in such a manner the above said transaction was made in a secured manner. It is submitted that the transaction had taken place on 16.12.2019 and the OP bank intimated about the said transaction to the complainant over his registered mobile number by way of message immediately upon making the said transaction, hence it is incorrect that the complainant was not aware about the said transaction and the complainant came to know about it later on from the statement of credit card. It is pleaded that that the said transaction had been done over the secured mode i.e. after entering into the OTP so issued upon the registered mobile number and address of the complainant.  It is also pleaded that the said complaint had been lodged after 6 days of the transaction and the complainant has failed to place on record the reason for the delay in making the complaint. It is stated that the complainant raised the dispute for the very first time only on 23.12.2019 about the alleged fraudulent transaction of 16.12.2019, whereas as per circular dated 6.7.2017, the complaint regarding fraudulent transaction should be made to the bank within 3 days. It is denied that the OP Bank ever informed the complainant about the reversal of said amount. Denying all other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       The OP No.2 though put in appearance through counsel Sh.Shivaang  Gupta, Advocate but failed to file written version despite availing several opportunities and hence the defence of OP No.2 was struck off vide order dated 15.12.2021.

 

4]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertion of the OP No.1 made in its reply.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the contesting OP(s) and gone through the entire documents on record including written submissions.

 

7]       The perusal of the record and pleadings of the parties reveals that the complainant himself stated in the complaint that he allowed one Mr.Shukla, who introduced himself as HDFC Bank Official, to fill some online form in his office, who also got his signatures.  This shows that the complainant failed to take due care while permitting someone to go through his personal details etc. without confirming his correct identity.  More so the complainant also failed to place on record documentary evidence to establish that he reported the alleged fraudulent transaction to the bank immediately or within stipulated 3 days period. Keeping in view the facts & evidence on record, we are of the opinion that no deficiency in service is made out towards the OPs.     

 

8]       In view of above discussion & findings, the present complaint stands dismissed being without merit. No order as to costs.  

 

9]       Pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.  

Announced

01.04.2024                                                 

Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER