1.      This revision petition has been filed by the petitioners, HDFC Bank Ltd &Ors. against the order dated 27.04.2016 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in Appeal No.A/16/418.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant had an account with the petitioner bank and the respondent/complainant was using credit card issued by the petitioner bank.  It is the case of the complainant that on 14.03.2014 there was a deceitful transaction and payment was made of Rs.26,998/- from the credit card through Amazon Seller website.   The same day, in the evening, the complainant received a phone call from HDFC Credit Card Company informing about the said transaction and proposal for payment.  The complainant disputed the same and sent a protest to the bank that he had not used the credit card to make any such payment.  The complainant did not pay this amount when the bill of the credit card was received.  However, the opposite party bank recovered an amount of Rs.41,656.46 which included the principal along with interest and penalty from complainant’s other account.

3.      Aggrieved with the action by the petitioner bank, the complainant filed a consumer complaint No.CC/2014/639 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune (in short ‘the District Forum’). The opposite party bank did not file any written statement.  However, it was contended that the complainant was resident of Pune, whereas the payment has been made at Bangalore.  The payment was Visa Password Verified and therefore, it was only possible when some person knowing the password would have used the credit card.  The password was not known to the bank employees.  It is only known to the customer.  However, District Forum allowed the complaint vide its order dated 06.11.2015, directing the OPs to pay Rs.41,656.46 to the complainant by depositing in his account and also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for harassment, mental agony and cost of litigation.

4.      Aggrieved with the order dated 06.11.2015 of the District Forum, the petitioner preferred an appeal with the State Commission, which was dismissed vide its order dated 27.04.2016.

5.      Hence the revision petition.

6.      Heard the learned counsel for both the sides and perused the record.

7.      The learned counsel for the petitioners stated that when the payment was Visa Password verified and the password was known only to the complainant, then nobody else can use this Credit Card for making any payment.  Such payment is possible if the complainant could have shared this password with any other person.  Learned counsel further stated that internal investigation was done after receiving the complaint from the complainant and it was found that it was not an unauthorised payment, rather it was a payment authorised by Visa Password.  Hence, no deficiency can be attributed to the petitioner bank and both the fora below have erred in passing order against the petitioner. 

8.      On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent mentioned that the complainant had received a phone call in the evening of 14.03.2014, to confirm the transaction, which was denied by the complainant then and there, and as advised, he filled up a complaint form and also sent e-mail. The complainant filled the requisite form and sent the information to the petitioner bank on 14.03.2014 itself claiming that the said transaction was not done by him. On 15.03.2014, the petitioner bank replied that the payment was approved by the bank, however, it was also informed by the same e-mail that the ‘transaction has not been processed to your card’.  The learned counsel argued that by that time the bank had full knowledge that the said transaction was a false transaction, not authorised by the credit card holder and by that time it was not even processed on the card, the petitioner bank should have stopped the processing then and there and should have stopped the payment.  The complainant/respondent again sent an e-mail on 17.03.2014 seeking the status of his claim. Vide e-mail dated 18.03.2014, the petitioner bank replied that from their record they found that the transaction was incurred on secured mode using secure login and password which could be known only to the cardholder.  By this e-mail, petitioner bank also sought the screenshot of the payment process if the payment was discontinued in between and could not be completed.  Learned counsel argued that there was a clear assertion of the complainant that he had not made any payment nor had used the credit card, so there was no question of sending screenshot.  The learned counsel again hammered on the same point that if the bank had known that the payment has been disputed by the credit card holder and by that time the payment was not processed on the card, the bank should have stopped the payment and should have inquired into the matter.  Thus, clearly there is a deficiency on the part of the petitioner bank.

9.      We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and have examined the material on record.  The phone call by the HDFC bank Ltd. on 14.03.2014 is admitted by the opposite party/bank.  The purpose of the phone call would have definitely been to verify the transaction.  The complainant had informed the same time that the said transaction was not performed by him.  He was advised to lodge the complaint for the same.  This was the first occasion when the petitioner bank must have come to know that the transaction was disputed.  Definitely by then the payment was not authorised by the petitioner at least on the card.  Moreover, after receiving the complaint, the petitioner has itself replied vide their e-mail dated 15.03.2014 that the transaction has not been processed to the card account as on date.  We find force in the arguments of the respondent that by that time, the transaction was not processed on the credit card and therefore, the petitioner should have stopped the payment.  If payment is to be authorised by the petitioner bank in all the circumstances, then what is the need to phone up the card holder and to verify the transaction.  If the transaction was not processed to credit card even by 15.03.2014, then why did the petitioner not try to defer or stop the payment or at least should not have debited to the credit card of the complainant without any inquiry.  The inquiry of the petitioner only revealed that the transaction has been incurred on secured mode using secure login and password which could be known only to the cardholder. The petitioner did not check with the Amazon Company as to what item was purchased and on what address it was sent because that would have given the lead to make further inquiry into the question of deceitful payment.  Thus, we find that the petitioner has been deficient in its services to the consumer.

10.    We agree that the scope under the revisional jurisdiction is very limited and relates to only jurisdictional aspects and particularly when the fora below have given the concurrent findings as clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in matter of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs. United India Insurance Company, 2011 (3) Scale 654, which reads as under; 

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view that what was taken by the two Forums. The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous)  interpretation of the same set of facts. This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the Act has been transgressed. It was not a case where such a view could have been taken, by setting aside the concurrent finding of two fora.”

11.    Based on the above discussion, we find no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27.04.2016 of the State Commission, which calls for any interference from this Commission.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition No.1883 of 2016 is dismissed.