DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.1333/07
Sh. Pramod Kumar Rawat
R/o DDA Flat No.587, Pocket-B,
Phase-II, Dwarka, New Delhi-110075 …. Complainant
Versus
H.S.B.C. Bank Private Ltd.
(through the Head, Personal (Financial Services),
HSBC, Corporate Banking Division,
25, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi …. Opposite party
Date of Institution : 28.12.07 Date of Order : 25.11.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant is that he was having Credit Card No. 5177979999861348 since March, 2002 from the OP and never failed to make the payment; that the OP had raised the illegal and arbitrary bill towards the alleged transaction made through Credit Card of the Complainant on 1st April, 2006 for an amount of Rs.23044.80 and 2nd April, 2006 for an amount of Rs.13826.88 in Gulf Country; that the OP failed to take any action for tracing out the fraudulent transaction despite of the fact that he had immediately made the complaint to the OP as he had never made any such kind of transaction. Instead of conducting any investigation to find out the illegal transaction the OP was harassing him and threatening to send the goons to him; that despite making correspondence with the OP to correct the record the OP with malafide intention issued a legal notice dated 19.08.06 to him whereby demanding to pay outstanding amount of Rs.44128/- and in the event of failure they threatened to initiate legal proceedings against him. He replied the legal notice and requested the OP to credit all the amount which was illegally debited against his Credit Card but, however, all his efforts had gone in vain as the OP did not take any action; that he approached the Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance but the Ombudsman vide its order dated 02.11.2007 closed the matter directing him to pay Rs.36871.68 by December, 31, 2007 and it was further directed that if the Complainant was not satisfied with the said order he could approach the other appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Para 8 of the complaint reads as under:-
“8. That it is pertinent to mention here that before April, 2006 an amount of Rs.23.00 stood in the credit of the Complainant’s account pertaining to the aforementioned credit card, however, surprisingly the statement as issued by the Opposite Party for the period of 28th July 2006 to 26th August 2006 illegally demonstrated the outstanding of Rs.46,803.56, however it is submitted that legal notice issued by the Opposite party to the Complainant the alleged outstanding against the client shown for Rs.44,128/-, therefore, the factum of inconsistence in the stand of the Opposite party is enough testimony to demonstrate that the Opposite Party is concealing the true state of facts from you in order to cook-up its ulterior designs against the Complainant. The copy of the above said statement issued by the Opposite Party is annexed hereby and marked as ANNEXURE-CW/3 (Colly).”
Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OP, he has filed the present complaint for issuing following directions to the OP:
i. to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.67,343/- as claimed under reply made the before Ombudsman,
ii. to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as punitive damage towards the harassment and mental agony suffered by the complainant due to the acts of OP,
iii. to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
OP in the written statement has stated that the transaction effected on 01.04.06 and 02.0.4.06 for Rs.23044.80 and Rs.13826/- respectively have been made on online shopping portal (epassporte.com) and the same can be made only by such person who is aware of the details of the Credit Card and such person is the Complainant himself. It is stated that disputed transactions were made in April 2006 whereas the Complainant raised dispute qua same only on 13.09.2006 and, thus, there was a gap of about 5 months inter-se the dates of transactions and the date of dispute and the Complainant should have raised this dispute within 30 days from the date of receipt of the statement showing disputed transactions. It is stated that this fact stands mentioned in every statement and becomes amply clear even from bare perusal of Statement of Account (placed on record by the Complainant as Annexure-CW/3) wherein words “Examine your statement immediately upon receipt. If no error is reported within 30 days, the account will be considered correct” are clearly written. It is stated that such online transactions can only be done on disclosure of information like CVV details etc. which are only known to the person who is in physical possession of the Credit Card. The Complainant filed a complaint before the Ombudsman and vide its order dated 02.11.2007 the Ombudsman asked the Complainant to pay for the disputed transaction and holding him liable for the transaction. No complaint dated 27.06.2006 or 28.06.2006 was ever received by OP. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
Complainant has not filed any affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Ram Pal Gautam, Senior Legal Support Associate and Attorney Holder has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP twice.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that in the Credit Card the two transactions dated 01.04.06 & 02.04.06 for Rs.23044.80 and Rs.13826.88 respectively have been made on online shopping. The Complainant has not adduced any evidence in support of the averments made in the complaint.
In view of the above, it transpires that the above transactions were made on online shopping portal (epassorte.com) on 01.04.06 & 02.04.06 for Rs.23044.80 and Rs.13826.88 respectively. Pin No. of the card always remains within the exclusive knowledge of the card holder himself unless and until the same is disclosed to a third person, the card cannot be used by a third party. The Complainant has not filed any document to show that these above transactions were not done by him. The Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.11.2016.
