O R D E R <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops is, that he is a credit card holder having credit card issued by the Op. That he was regularly doing transactions under the card and was making payments regularly as and when he received statement. On 18/02/2009 he received a statement which reflected 8 transactions amounting to Rs.19,904.51. That he did not do those transactions and therefore is not liable to pay that amount. Then he made a complaint to the Ops bringing to their notice about these transactions and requested for enquiry in this regard for which, Ops gave evasive answers. Then he immediately stopped using his credit card and he found that those 8 transactions were made through internet. Then the Ops promised him that they will take an early action in the matter to enquire into and take necessary action. That despite several approaches with the Ops in connection with 8 transactions referred to above, the Ops did not take any corrective step. Then he further sent letters to the Ops on 18/07/2009 sent a statement reversing a sum of Rs.12,710.17, out of the earlier claim of Rs.18,817.51. After such a reversal, Op started sending further statement claiming Rs.9,179.04. Then he got a legal notice served on the Ops on 29/12/2009 to reverse that Rs.9,179.04 as he has not made any purchases but the Op has not done and therefore, prayed for a direction to the Op to withdraw the statement claiming Rs.10,202/- vide statement dated 19/02/2010, to stop sending claims statement and to award compensation as prayed for.<br /> <br /> 2. This forum had ordered notice to Ops No.1 and 2 who have appeared through their advocate and filed version interalia contending that the complaint is mis-conceived and frivolous one. This Op admitted to had issued credit card to the complainant and contended that as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India regarding dispute on the billing/statement, the card holders within 60 days from the date of receipt of bill/statement in the event of they not agreeing with the transactions may complain to them to enable them to enquire into issues. Issue of credit card is a tripartite contract where the complainant, the card issuing bank and the merchant are involved and merchant is not made as a party in this complaint. The complainant has admitted that card is mis-used. Card amount in part was reversed, to have good relationship with the customers. As stated by the complainant card was mis-used in the internet therefore, it is not by them as such there is no truth in the allegations of the complainant. That on receipt of the complainant from the complainant they conducted investigation with the merchants and has created an amount of Rs.12,710.17 to the account of the complainant on 17/10/2009 even then the complainant was due Rs.18,817.51. Thereafter, the complainant was still due Rs.6,107.34 and when he did not discharge that liability, further statement was sent to the complainant and Ops denying the liability and deficiency have prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of the enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant along with the complaint has produced statement of his credit card account and copies of letters he had addressed to Op. OP has produced a copy of terms and conditions of credit card and a copy of statement of account of the complainant dated 13/07/2009. Counsel for both parties have filed their written arguments.<br /> <br /> 4. On consideration of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has caused deficiency in his service in making demand for payment of the amount due under his credit card though he had not made such transactions.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the affirmative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: The fact that the complainant is using credit card provided by the Op and he was having regular transactions making payments due under the credit card promptly is not denied by the Op. Further, the complainant has contended that for the first time he received a shock on 18/02/2009 when he received a monthly statement from the Op calling upon him to pay Rs.19,904.51 in respect of certain transactions made and stated to had informed the Op that he has not done such transactions and even gave a complaint to the Op for enquiring into. The Op has also not denied this approach by the complainant soon after he received the monthly statement and demand for payment due under that statement. The complainant has produced copies of the letters dated 23/03/2009, 25/04/2009, 23/05/2009 then a copy of the legal notice he got issued on 29/12/2009 and another notice dated 13/07/2009. In all these correspondences, the complainant repeatedly appealed to the Op that 8 transactions noticed in the statement dated 18/02/2009 were not done by him and requested the Op to look into this discrepancy and to give relief to him. The Op it appears did not respond to the complainant by sending any reply as what action he initiated to enquire into the genuineness of these transactions and to redress the grievance of the complainant. The Op has not denied receipt of these letters and legal notices. Therefore, the uncontroverted statement of the complainant and the correspondences he made with the Op proves that soon after he received the monthly statement dated 18/02/2009 he took up the matter with the Op without much delay and apprised them to enquire into the illegal transactions done under his card. As per the facts placed before us, the Op found to had not positively responded to this plight of the complainant. Op in his version has stated that they had conducted investigation into the use of the credit card with the merchants and immediately had credited an amount of Rs.12,710.17 to the account of the complainant. On 17/07/2009 even though the complainant was due Rs.18,817.51 and stated had after reversing that entry, the complainant was still due Rs.6,107.34. This admission of the Op clearly indicate that they had when enquired by way of investigation with the merchants, had credited an amount of Rs.12,710.17. That means to say the OP found that transactions done under the credit card of the complainant in question were not done by the complainant but were done by some one and therefore the Op gave credit of Rs.12,710.17 a partial relief to the complainant. The Op has not disclosed the out come of their investigation however, has given credit of Rs.12,710.17 which is indicative of the fact that the transactions in question were done by a fictitious person without the knowledge of the complainant. The Op after having come to know that fictitious transactions only gave credit of partial amount and not the whole amount and still demanded Rs.6,107.34 from the complainant. It is not the case of the Op that in the course of their investigation with the merchants they found transactions worth Rs.12,712,17 were done by some miscreants and other transactions worth Rs.6,107.34 were done by the complainant therefore they did not credit the entire amount to the account of the complainant. In the absence of details of the investigation, we find no justification in the act of the Op in giving credit of partial amount and still demanding the remaining amount from the complainant. The Op if had found no truth in the allegations of the complainant they would not have given partial credit to the account of the complainant. The Op it looks is not justified in still demanding Rs.6,107.34 from the complainant. Despite the fact their investigation revealed that 8 transactions referred to by the complainant in the monthly statement dated 18/02/2009 were not done by him but were transacted through internet.<br /> 7. When a customer of the Op having a credit card finds some mischievous transaction or transactions through his card number brings to the notice of the bank it is their duty to take up the matter with all earnestness and conduct investigation into the claim and they should try to protect the interest of the customer by taking all precautions and to give relief to such customers who have suffered at the hands of some miscreants. In the case on hand the complainant cannot be compelled to pay cost of the transactions done without his knowledge and if he is not at fault. When the Op has authority to waive such charges and when exercises such a authority it ought to have give full relief to the complainant but only given relief partially without assigning any reason, which amounts to deficiency in their service. Therefore, the subsequent demand of the Op to the complainant to pay the balance amount in our view is improper and cannot be allowed. Therefore, the claim of the Op to pay Rs.10,202/- as claimed in the subsequent bill is erroneous and is unsustainable. As the result, we hold that the complainant is entitled for the relief of exonerating him from paying Rs.10.202/-. With the result, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is allowed. Op is hereby restrained from recovering Rs.10,202/- vide their statement dated 19/02/2010 and they shall desist from issuing such statement and we quash that claim of the Op.<br /> <br /> Under the circumstances of the case, both parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />