DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 498 of 2008 Date of Institution: 09.09.2008 Date of Decision: 02.11.2015.
Lalit Sharma s/o Sh. Ram Avtar Sharma, r/o H.No.1176/7, Extension, U.E. Gurgaon.
……Complainant.
Versus
- H.S.B.C. Bank Limited, Main Branch, 52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Near Fountain, Mumbai-400 001 through Manager.
- H.S.B.C. Bank Limited, 96, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai, Mylapur, opposite Yellow Pages, Chennai-600 004 through Manager.
- H.S.B.C. Bank Ltd, Branch Office, Gurgaon.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. T.K.Bhatnagar, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Vikash Chauhan, Adv for the opposite parties.
ORDER SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that on the representation of the representative of the opposite parties, the complainant applied for credit card from the opposite parties and in the end of the month of Nov, 2007 he has received the same. For the first time the complainant used his above credit card in the month of Dec, 2007 for the purchase of Rs.190/- only and made its payment in Jan, 2008 at Gurgaon through cheque which got cleared from Gurgaon Branch Account of the complainant. Thereafter he used the said credit card on 16.03.2008 twice by buying petrol for a total cost of Rs.300/- only. On the very day i.e. 16.03.2008 the purse of the complainant containing the credit card along with other necessary papers and cash, was stolen in the area of Police Station, Pitam Pura, Delhi in the morning office hours of the day. While returning from Delhi when the complainant stopped at D.P. Market for purchasing cigarettes, he realized that his purse containing Rs.200/- cash, credit card and some other necessary papers have been stolen. The complainant immediately reported the matter to the SHO, P.S. Pitam Pura, New Delhi through written complaint and received its acknowledgment. In the evening of 16.03.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. the complainant informed the customer care service of the opposite parties at phone No.9910797373 and asked to block his credit card forth with. Within few minutes, one representative of the opposite party, called him back from the above said mobile number and told him that above said credit card has already been used for purchases worth Rs.40,400/- at Imperial Technologies and two other purchases (petrol) worth Rs.2800/- and thus total purchases were made for Rs.43200/-. However, after the exchange of these facts between customer care service and the complainant, the credit card in question was blocked. The complainant then requested to the caller to investigate the matter and not to bill the above purchases in his statement for payment summary. The complainant received credit card statement for the period from 12.03.2008 to 11.04.2008 showing the disputed payments of Rs.43,231.25 P. The complainant sent the representations to the opposite parties on 12.04.2008, 19.04.2008, 13.05.2008, 17.05.2008 and 18.05.2008 through emails but his grievances were never resolved. In the meantime the opposite parties vide their bills dated 10.05.2008, 11.06.2008, 11.07.2008 have raised their demands to Rs.47,321.17 P, Rs.50,342.25P and Rs.53,358.60 respectively on account of late payment charges and over limit fee. However, police lodged FIR No.1234 dated 03.08.2008. The officials of the opposite parties started threatening the complainant on account of nonpayment of the above said amount though he was not legally liable to pay the cost of unauthorized purchases. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. He prayed that the opposite parties be directed to delete the entire amount of un-authorized purchases made by thieves by misusing hius credit card including late payment fee, nonpayment charges and other ancillary charges and to issue the legally correct bill and to pay Rs.1 Lakh for harassment and mental agony. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 OPs in their written reply have admitted that opposite parties issued credit card bearing No.4476 9299 9376 4833 as per terms and conditions of the Credit Cardholders Agreement. The complainant informed the opposite parties about the alleged theft of said card on 16.03.2008 at 5:58 pm and accordingly the opposite parties immediately blocked the said card. This is an admitted fact as is clear from bare perusal of Para No.3 of the complaint “that in the evening of 16.03.2008 at about 6 pm the complainant informed the customer care services of the opposite parties”. It is further submitted that the complainant neither sent any written confirmation nor FIR being a mandatory requirement as per the credit cardholders agreement. FIR annexed to the complaint has been filed on 03.08.2008 i.e. about 5 months after the alleged theft. Since both the disputed transactions took place on 16.03.2008 at Imperial Technologies (for Rs.40,400/-) and Petrol (for Rs.2800/-) i.e. prior to the intimation by the complainant about the alleged loss of said card therefore the complainant was fully liable for the total sum of Rs.43,200/-. Accordingly, the opposite parties sent the statement for the period of 12.03.2008 to 11.04.2008 asking him to pay the amount qua said transactions. The opposite parties acted as per terms and conditions of the Credit Cardholders Agreement and thus, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. As on 17.12.2008 the complainant was liable to pay Rs.69,105.39.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available on file.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency in service on their part on the ground that the complainant allegedly lost his purse containing credit card and necessary papers and the complainant allegedly reported the matter to the SHO, P.S.Pitam Pura, Delhi and in the evening on the same day i.e. 16.03.2008 at about 6.00 pm the complainant also informed the Customer Care Services of the opposite parties and asked them to block his credit card. However, the complainant received the message on his mobile phone that his credit card has already been used for purchases of goods worth Rs.40,400/- and petrol worth Rs.2800/- i.e. total Rs.43,200/- and thus, a sum of Rs.43,200/- was debited in the account of the complainant on account of use of credit card. The complainant made several representations to the opposite parties but in vain. The complainant also reported the matter to the police, on the basis of which FIR No.1234 dated 03.08.2008, was registered.
5 However, the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant reported the matter about the alleged theft of said credit card on 16.03.2008 at about 5:58 pm and the said credit card was immediately blocked. It has also been contended that FIR was approximately five months old i.e. the same was registered on 03.08.2008 and both the transactions on 16.03.2008 to the tune of Rs.40400/- and Rs.2800/- had taken place prior to the intimation given by the complainant to the OP about the alleged loss of said credit card.
6 Therefore, admittedly the complainant lost his credit card and he intimated the matter to the opposite parties on the same day at about 5:58 pm but the disputed transactions to the tune of Rs.40400/- and Rs.2800/- had taken place by that time. There is nothing on the file that the complainant reported the matter to the OPs regarding alleged theft of his credit card and blocking the same prior to the disputed transactions total Rs.43200/-. Therefore, in absence of any such evidence we are unable to come to the conclusion that there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties because no transaction had taken place after 5:58 pm on 16.03.2008 rather the transaction had taken place prior to the reporting of loss of theft and as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the present complaint has no merit and it is dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
02.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
