CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110 016
Case No.316/2009
MR. VISHWANATH KHANNA
S-105, GREATER KAILASH-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………. COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- ICICI BANK LTD.
PLOT NO.7, COMMUNITY CENTRE,
SECTOR 8, ROHINI,
NEW DELHI-110085
- ICICI BANK LTD.
E-568, GREATER KAILASH, PART-II,
NEW DELHI-110048
…………..RESPONDENTS
Date of Order:07.08.2018
O R D E R
A.S. Yadav - President
The complainant, Mr. Vishwanath Khanna, aged 68 years has filed the present complaint against ICICI bank Ltd., OP-1 alleging that he is living a retired life. It is submitted that he was using Platinum Credit Card issued by the OP bank. It is submitted that the complainant had applied for Credit card and was allotted one Card no.4477477171315002 which is called as Preferred Credit Card. The complainant was using the card in the normal course and bills raised by the OP Bank were being paid mostly on time except one or two delayed payments. It is further submitted that the OP Bank without consent or prior approval sent another (temporary) credit card no.462960003710001 called platinum linked with the preferred card. Another credit card no.46298600003710019 was also sent to the address without the request or application. It is submitted that these new cards were sent without any request or application from the complainant. It is submitted that on 19/20-11-2008, the complainant received few SMS on his mobile regarding use of new card no. 462960003710001 for certain purchases/payments, the complainant immediately contacted the OP-1 bank and lodged written complaint dated 22.11.2008; and it was informed that the alleged transactions aggregating to Rs.75,510.15 took place between 19.11.2008 to 21.11.2008 to pay/purchase Railway tickets of various small amounts through Indian Railway Tourism and Catering (IRTC), and the complainant verified from the card statement that there were around 41 transactions having taken place with IRTC for purchasing rail tickets within two days. It is further submitted that the complainant is not aware as how confidential details of the card were used to pay these tickets as he never disclosed any details to anyone. A copy of the complaint was also endorsed to the Police Station Chitranjan Park on 22.11.2008. On the complainant’s complaint, the disputed transactions were reversed and the undisputed amount was paid to the bank by the complainant. But the complainant was being harassed by the Bank for the illegal claims and the late fees, which are not payable at all. Since the complainant received the subsequent credit cards statement in spite of the complaint, the OP-1 is responsible for negligence in service and not disclosing what action they have taken against the reported misuse of the credit card. In the prayer also, it is prayed that the OP-1 bank be directed to delete illegal and arbitrary demand of Rs.75,510.15 and further incidental late payment, financial charges levied thereon and Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and costs incurred. IRCTC was sought to be impleaded as a party by an application filed by the OP, and the same was allowed and the IRCTC was impleaded as OP-2 on 3.1.2011, with the consent of the complainant.
In reply to the complaint, OP-1 has submitted that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, as he has made a false submission that he did not use the add-on card as alleged. It is further submitted that if the complainant did not wish to avail the feature of an add-on card, he would have contacted the OP- Bank to cancel the same. The failure of the complainant to do so goes to show that he was using the said card. It has been denied by the OP Bank for want of proof that the new card was not used. It is submitted by the OP that it was the responsibility of the consumer who ought to have taken care that the card information is not shared or divulged due to carelessness, and that the steps taken by him do not exonerate him from exercising due care with respect to the card. It is denied that any assurance was given by the OP Bank to the complainant to the effect that copy of the investigation or inquiry report would be sent as alleged. It has been denied that there has been any harassment to the complainant or he remained under tremendous mental stress or that the OP Bank is responsible for any negligence in service. It is finally submitted that the prayer clause of the complaint is liable to be rejected.
Similarly, OP-3, IRCTC, has also filed its WS to the complainant and submitted that IRCTC only provided facility for the user, registered on its website, to book railway tickets online. Confidentiality between the Bank and cardholder is not known to it. The transactions through the website is successful only when the Bank has cleared it, as such the IRCTC is not connected to the case. Since the case is regarding some illegal transactions made against the credit card issued by the Bank, but the complainant has not sought any compensation from OP-3/IRCTC; the complainant has not mentioned about the details of e-tickets purchased hence the contents to that extent are denied. It is submittedthat the IRCTC is not a necessary party to the dispute.
The complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit exactly deposing on oath all the facts and allegations mentioned in the complaint.
OP-1 filed its evidence by way of affidavit of Shri Navin Trivedi, Manager, Legal and holder of Power of Attorney on behalf of OP-1 Bank, and deposed that all the charges disputed by the complainant were made on the online server of the Indian Railways website. It is submitted that the complainant has misled this forum and is only trying to get unjust gain by filing this complaint; he has nowhere stated that he had lost the card, and that it is technologically impossible that without use of the card, any purchase can be made and that it is the complainant only who has used the card and has now come to this Forum for deriving undue advantage; the claims of the complaint are wholly untenable and misconceived; the complainant has failed to establish any negligence, deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
The parties have filed their respective written arguments and reiterated the contents and averments mentioned in the complaint, written statement and evidence by way of their affidavits in support of their stand taken in the case.
We have gone through the case file carefully.
The complainant has specifically stated that he has never used any of the cards to buy railway ticket and in fact he does not know how to use the card online. More than 41 transactions were carried out during the period from 19.11.2008 to 20.11.2008. The complainant immediately reported the matter to OP on 22.11.2008 and also reported the matter to the police. Thereafter the complainant received credit card statement wherein it was found that OP bank has debited various payments of alleged transaction. But again OP demanded the aforesaid amount.
Once the complainant has made a complaint within two days of transaction then OP bank should have carried out the investigation. It is not the case of OP bank that they have carried out any investigation because no investigation report is placed on record.
Had the complainant carried out the transactions, he would not have made the complaint to police. The complainant has categorically stated that he does not know how to do online transaction. There is no reason to disbelieve him. Recently RBI have issued the guidelines vide notification No.RBI/2017-18/15 – DBR No.Leg BC 78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 wherein clause on ‘Limited Liability of a Customer’ reads as under:-
“Limited Liability of a Customer
- Zero Liability of a Customer
6. A customer’s entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events:
- Contributory fraud/negligence deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).
- Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised transaction.”
The complainant has immediately reported the matter to OP bank as well as to the police. There is no question of making any debit on the account of the complainant. The complainant is not liable to pay Rs.75,510/- or any interest on that amount.
Under these circumstances, the parties are liable to borne their own cost.
Copy of order be sent to the parties, free of cost, and thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(RITU GARODIA) (H.C. SURI) (A.S. YADAV)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
