Khushi Ram s/o Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o H.No.88/23, Sector-1, Swaraj Nagar, Near Mata Gujri Gurdwara, Kharar, District SAS Nagar, Mohali.

              Complainant

Vs.

1.   ICICI Bank Ltd., having Regd. Office at Landmark, Race Course Circle, Vadodara – 390007, through its Chairman and Managing Director.

2.   ICICI Bank Ltd. (Credit Card Division), Sector-9, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

3.   Infinity Retail Ltd. (Croma) TATA, 201, Akruti Centre Point, Next to Marol Telephone Exchange, MIDC, Andheri(E), Mumbai – 400093, through its Director.

4.   Credit Information Bureau India Limited, HOECHST House, 6^th Floor, 193 Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai, through its Director.

 Opposite Parties

BEFORE:   SH. RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU    MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. Kamal Satija, Counsel for Complainant.

           None for Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

           Sh. Rahul Khanna, Authorized Agent for Opposite Party No.3.

           Sh. Animesh Sharma, Counsel for Opposite Party No.4.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.          Concisely put, the Complainant is having Credit Card bearing no. 4629864393906005, issued by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and is using the same for the last 5-6 years and was regular in honouring the payments of the bills raised against the said credit card by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2. On 09.02.2012 at about 5:22 PM, when the Complainant was at his home, to his utter surprise, he received an SMS alert, on his mobile phone, that his aforesaid credit card had been used at Croma (A TATA Enterprise) i.e. Opposite Party No.3 for Rs.37,999/-. Immediately, the Complainant called up the Customer Care of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 and informed about the aforesaid transaction made illegally from his credit card. While blocking the credit card, the customer care executive assured the Complainant that the matter would be investigated into and the amount of Rs.37,999/- added to the bill would be reversed in the next bill. The said transaction was shown in the bill for the month of December, 2012. However, in the next bill for the month of January, 2013 the same was reversed, upon which the Complainant heaved a sigh of relief. The Complainant claims that reversal of the amount wrongly charged was just an eye wash, as the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 again charged the said amount to his bill raised for the month of March, 2013. Since the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 started pressurizing the Complainant to make the aforesaid payment of Rs.37,999/- he got served a legal notice upon the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties have neither made the reversal of the amount nor have replied to the said notice. Alleging the aforesaid acts of OPs as deficiency, the Complainant has now preferred the present complaint before this Forum.

2.          Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.          Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 filed joint reply while admitting the factual aspects of the case pleaded that the card could have been used by the Complainant or any other person to whom the Complainant may have handed over for the purposes of usage. It was the bounden duty of the Complainant to take adequate precautions for the purposes of the safety of the credit card including precautions in respect of any alleged unauthorized use. Answering Opposite Parties claim that upon receipt of a request for cancellation, the card was, immediately, blocked and an interim credit, pending a final decision, was given to the Complainant. Subsequently, when the amount was found to be payable, the same was reinstated in the account of the Complainant. It is denied that the card has been misused, because as per the reply of Opposite Party No.3, the physical card was presented for the purposes of making a purchase. As the credit card was utilized for the purposes of making a purchase, the amount was rightly demanded by the answering Opposite Parties from the Complainant. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.          The Opposite Party No.3, in its reply while pleaded that this may be a case of cloning of credit card i.e. creating the duplicate credit card and misusing the same and in such a case, the answering Opposite Party, being a retailer engaged in trading of goods and services, is nowhere responsible with regard to the misuse of credit card and the sole responsibility in terms of security vest with the credit card issuing bank. However, answering Opposite Party uses all possible measures to avoid any such fraud and accordingly, as a part of its corporate policy, collected relevant Photo I.D. (PAN) from the person who was using the said credit card during the course of transaction (Annex A). The identity of the person as per the I.D. proof submitted to the answering Opposite Party, using the card was same as mentioned on the Credit Card being used for the transaction. Further, the answering Opposite Party has also received approval of the transaction from the ICICI Bank while the said credit card was swiped on the EDC machine at the retail store (charge slip Annex B). Denying all other allegations, Opposite Party No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.          Sh.Animesh Sharma, Advocate, appeared on behalf of Opposite Party No.4 and suffered a statement on 31.07.2013 to the effect that he do not wish to file reply to the complaint, since Opposite Party No.4 is only a proforma party.

6.          The Complainant also filed separate rejoinders to the written statements filed by the Opposite Parties No.1&2 and 3, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statements by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

7.          On 11.10.2013, when the case was fixed for arguments, none appeared on behalf of opposite parties No.1 & 2. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4 (8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Act (as amended upto date) even in the absence of Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.

8.          Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

9.          We have heard the learned counsel for the opposite parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4. 

10.        The Complainant has preferred the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on account of a credit card transaction that happened at one of the retail outlets of Opposite Party No.3 at Delhi and the credit card issued by Opposite Party No.1 and 2 to the Complainant was claimed to have been used by the person who purchased a Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (mobile phone) worth Rs.37,999/- on 9.12.2012. The Complainant having received an SMS about such a transaction and being in the physical possession of the said credit card, reported the matter to the Opposite Party No.1 & 2 and against this intimation, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 reversed the entry and credited the same against the credit limit of the card.  

11.        The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 after investigating the matter, again claimed the amount from the Complainant through its bill dated 14.4.2013 (Annexure C-4).

12.        The Opposite Parties No.3 while contesting the claim of the Complainant has claimed that it may be the case of cloning of credit card i.e. creating a duplicate credit card and misusing the same and in such a case the Retail Store is nowhere responsible and the sole responsibility in terms of security vest with the credit card issuing bank. Hence, the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 while claiming the amount again from the Complainant after its investigations did not reveal about the status of the card that was used for the transaction in question at the Delhi Retail Outlet of the Opposite Party No.3.

13.        We feel that the vital link between the user of the credit card at their Delhi Retail Outlet of the Opposite Party No.3 and the recovery of credit from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 also includes the identity proof of the person producing such credit card and his/ her signatures, comparable to the identity proof produced by him/her. In the present case, the documents brought on record by the Opposite Party No.3 are Annexure-A (PAN Card) of one Mr. Ajay Singh, which date of birth 25.9.1981, bearing his signatures and Annexure-B (copy of transaction slip) on which the signatures of the purchasers are found appended. It is also important to mention here that the photocopies of the credit card in the custody of the Complainant tendered as Annexure C-9 bears his signatures on its reverse. On comparison of these signatures, it is clearly established that the person who produced the Credit Card at the time of purchase while signing on the transaction slip had appended a different signatures than the signatures on the PAN card and also the signatures used to authenticate the copy of the PAN Card. Both these signatures do not match the signatures of the Complainant as appended at the reverse of the Credit Card.

14.        At this stage, the reply of Opposite Party No.3 as mentioned in Para 8 is relevant, wherein it is mentioned that Opposite Party No.3 uses all possible measures to avoid any such fraud and accordingly, as a part of its corporate policy, collected relevant Photo I.D. (PAN) from the person who was using the said credit card during the course of transaction (Annex A). The identity of the person as per the I.D. proof submitted to the answering Opposite Party, using the card was same as mentioned on the Credit Card being used for the transaction. However, the aforesaid reply of the Opposite Party No.3 in no manner satisfy its actions at the time of the sale of the mobile handset at his Delhi Retail Outlet for the reason that the signatures on the identity proof submitted to Opposite Party No.3 do not match the ones which are found appended on the credit card being used for the transaction. Hence, we feel that the actions of the Opposite Parties are totally contrary to the claims they have made through their reply. Had the executive, dealing with its customers, at the point of sale, been vigilant enough to compare the documents being produced, and also the signatures, there was no reasons that a questionable transaction could have happened. We also feel that an organization of such a repute did not investigate the matter in the right manner as all such outlets also have their own in-house surveillance devices to capture the profile of persons visiting their premises, from where the actual identity of the person making such transactions could be of future use. The Opposite Party No.1 & 2 have failed to conclusively investigate the matter to its logical end, as the identity of the person, brought on record by the Opposite Party No.3, could have been vital to locate the main person, who had made the purchase. Hence, Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 not having done its part of duty towards the Complainant were errant and deficient in rendering proper service by recovering the amount that was already credited at the first instance, and still remained outstanding against the credit card account of the Complainant. 

15.        The Complainant has also arrayed CIBIL as Opposite Party No.4. However, we feel that there is no relation of his being consumer qua it. But, at the same time, it cannot be denied that the bad credit history of the Complainant that exists in the account of the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, could be detrimental to his future dealings, with other financial institutions. Accordingly, we direct that on receiving instructions from Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 about the credit card statement, the Opposite Party No.4 should, within 30 days, make necessary changes on receipt of such instructions and clear the name of the Complainant being shown in the negative list maintained by it. With these instructions, the present complaint qua Opposite Party No.4 stands disposed off.     

16.        In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3, and the same is allowed, qua them. The Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 are, jointly & severally,  directed to:-

[a]  To reverse the amount of Rs.37,999/- along with any other penalties that it had attracted till date in the credit card account of the Complainant and intimate Opposite Party No.4 about the clearance of adverse outstandings against the Complainant; 

[b]  To pay Rs.10,000/-on account of deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation;

17.        The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% p.a. on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] of para 16 above, from the date of this order, till it is paid, besides reversing the amount of Rs.37,999/- and payment of cost of litigation of Rs.7,000/-.

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

Announced

25^th October, 2013                           

Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER