Delhi

East Delhi

CC/407/2014

PRAVEEN JIAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 407/14

PARVEEN JAIN

H. NO. F-100, WEST JAWAHAR PARK

LAXMI NAGAR,

1.  

 

                                                                                                                             ….Complainant

Vs

 

HDFC BANK LTD.

BRANCH OFFICE

1-3, G.F., LAXMI DEEP BLDG., DIST. CENTER,

LAXMI NAGAR, DELHI-110092

 

HEAD OFFICE

8, LATTICE BRIDGE ROAD,

THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI-600041

 

                                                                                                                                    ….Opponent

Date of Institution: 28.04.2014

Judgment Reserved for: 14.02.2017

Judgment Passed on: 20.02.2017

 

Order By: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. This complaint has been filed by Sh. Praveen Jain, the complainant against OP- (HDFC Bank) narrating the facts that he had credit card of OP, which was fraudulently used by someone on 30/03/2014 between 12:42 am to 12:56 am for multiple transactions worth Rs.24,000/-. It is stated that he got confirmation call from HDFC team regarding the abovementioned transactions, to which he answered in negative. Next day, the complainant contacted the customer care to know the status of the disputed transactions, where he was requested to send the dispute form. Another call was received by the complainant from OP, where he was asked to send police complaint, subsequently after 3 days he was again asked to send progressive dispute form. The complainant has also alleged that the staff of OP has twice stolen his cheque from drop box. Therefore, he has prayed for instructions to OP to not demand the amount of disputed transactions.
2. Card holder dispute form dated 31/03/2014, progressive dispute letter, Application for re-activation of closed credit card A/C, complaint to police station Shakarpur dated 03/04/2014 bearing DD no. 89 B, E mails exchanged between the complainant & OP are annexed with the complaint.
3. OP filed their written statement after the notice of the complaint was served upon them. In their written statement they took the plea that there was not deficiency in services on their part. It was stated that the credit card of the complainant was upgraded and he was bound by the terms & conditions of the card member agreement. OP was entitled to levy charges for credit facility, delayed payment etc, and as the complainant had defaulted in payment despite several reminders and OP had right to recover Rs.37,222/-. It was further stated that the transactions under dispute were online transactions using Master Secure Code (MSC), which is second level/additional password. It is stated that for registering of the MSC, customer has to enter credit card number, expiry date, CVV and date of birth/ATM PIN and mobile number, which are only known to the customer. Thus, it is only after multiple level checking, where by maximum levels of validations are done before MSC password is generated, therefore, in the instant case also password was only known to the complainant and e-commerce transaction could not take place without using the MSC password. Second, preliminary objection taken by OP was that the complaint was not maintainable due to non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. “Free Charge” & Sujav Business Pvt. Ltd., to whom the alleged payments had been made. Thirdly, they have submitted that the complainant had alleged fraud, which needed proper investigation by an investigating agency, thus, taking the present complaint out of the purview of the CPA. Therefore, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint and denied the contents of the written statement of OP.
4. Thereafter the complainant in his rejoinder denied all the contents of the complaint. 
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant, where he examined himself and reiterated the contents of the complaint.
6. OP examined Sh. Ashish Singh, Authorized Representative who deposed the contents of WS and relied on Ex-RW1/A, General Power of Attorney, Ex-RW1/B card Application Form, Ex-RW1/C (colly)-usage guide, card member agreement, most important terms & conditions, Ex-RW1/D (colly)- credit card statements.
7. We have heard the argument on behalf of the complainant and Ld. Counsel for OP. Perusal of the material placed on record reveals, that the complainant has alleged that his credit card had been fraudulently used by someone, even in the police complaint, the complainant has alleged fraud transaction on his credit card. When the complainant has alleged fraud, the disputed question of facts needs proper investigation and trial which cannot be tried in the summary proceedings on the basis of affidavit under Consumer Protection Act.

Hence, the present complaint is dismissed as it needs proper investigation and criminal trial.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

(P.N. TIWARI)                                                                               (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)               

   MEMBER                                                                                                      MEMBER                  

 

(SUKHDEV SINGH)

PRESIDENT