Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/761/2022

NARINDER SINGH DUNGRIYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDIABULLS CUSTOMER FINANCE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

DEVINDER KUMAR

05 Jul 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	761 of 2022
Date  of  Institution	:	02.11.2022
Date   of   Decision	:	05.07.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Narinder Singh Dungriyal son of Sh.Hukum Singh Dungriyal, aged about 47 years, r/o H.No.267, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Indiabulls Customer Finance Limited, SCO No.42-43, 2^nd Floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Branch Manager.

2]  Dhani Loan and Services Limited, earlier Indiabulls Customer Finance Limited, Registered Office at M-62 & 63, First Floor, Connaught Palace, New Delhi 110001 through its Managing Director.

   ….. Opposite Parties

 

 

BEFORE:  SMT.SURJEET KAUR     PRESIDING MEMBER 

                    SH.B.M.SHARMA                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  : Sh.Devinder Kumar, Counsel for complainant

              Sh.Kamal Mor, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

 

PER B.M. SHARMA, MEMBER

 

         The complainant’s case precisely is that he obtained Dhani Freedom Card from OPs and after completion of requirements, was issued Credit Card No.3006412011 by the OPs. It is stated that the complainant was regular in making due payment of said credit card.  However, in the months of November & December, 2021, the complainant received debit message about transaction from his credit card for an amount of Rs.79,850/- whereas he had not done any such transactions (Ann.C-1). The complainant reported this matter to the Manager of the OPs as well as personally visited the office of the OP No.1, who assured to investigate the matter and to do the needful. It is alleged that the OPs instead of investigating the matter and taking legal action against the culprits, directed the complainant to deposit the outstanding dues of fraudulent transactions so as to avoid financial charges and to save his CIBIL Score.  It is also stated that the recovery agents of the OPs started calling the complainant and also visiting him and forcing him to make payment.  Left with no alternative, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.28,687/- to the OPs till Oct., 2022, though the receipts were not issued by them only for some payment (Ann.C-2 to C-4).

         It is submitted that the complainant vide email dated 2.9.2022 requested the OPs to provide complete address of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in whose account the said amount was transferred and also to provide the name & address of the person whose liability was discharged from the credit card of the complainant (Ann.C-5).  The complainant vide letter dated 7.9.2022 (Ann.C-7) also fulfilled the requirements of the OPs by furnishing details, as desired for by the OPs, vide email dated 2.9.2022 (Ann.C-6).  However, the OPs despite sending reminder dated 1.10.2022  (Ann.C-8) failed to provide the complete information i.e. address of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in whose account the amount has been transferred and the name & address of person whose liability was discharged from the credit card of the complainant.  It is also stated that the complainant got information that his CIBIL Score was adversely affected due to unlawful act of the OPs. Hence, this complaint has been preferred alleging the said act & conduct of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 & 2 have filed joint written version and admitted the issuance of Credit Card in question to the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant also availed loan/credit limit facility on his credit card after furnishing necessary documents.  It is also stated that the said transactions were not fraudulent transactions and the same were valid transaction having been performed by the complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic One Time Password delivered at his registered mobile number.  It is also submitted that the complainant paid bills by using the card in question as there are many bill payment transactions are shown on statement (Ann.R-3).  It is pleaded that the complainant has put a false and baseless story to put cap on his own wrongs. It is also pleaded that the complainant is liable to pay the due amount against the loan as per terms & conditions of the agreement.  Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the documents on record including written arguments.

 

5]       Admittedly, the complainant was issued Dhani Freedom Credit Card No.3006412011 by the OPs.

6]       The grouse of the complainant mainly is that some fraudulent transactions took place from his above said credit card in November & Dec., 2021 and when the same was reported to the OPs, they, instead of investigating the matter, forced the complainant to pay the amount.  It is also the grouse of complainant that the OPs failed to supply him complete details of the agency in whose account the said amount was transferred as well as name & Address of the person whose liability was discharged from the amount of complainant through said fraudulent transactions.

 

7]       To this the stand of the OPs is that the said transactions were not fraudulent transactions, rather valid transactions performed by the complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic One Time Password delivered at his registered mobile number and that the complainant paid bills by using the card in question as there are many bill payment transactions shown on statement (Ann.R-3).

 

8]       We do not find merit in the contentions of the OPs.  The OPs, a financial institution, whenever reported about fraudulent transactions by its customer, is legally bound to investigate the matter in detail and then fixed the liability, which has not been done by the OPs in the present case. The OPs nowhere stated to have investigated the matter of fraudulent transactions so reported by the complainant nor placed on record any such evidence, if some enquiry had been done. The stand of the OPs that the alleged transactions were not fraudulent transaction, without carrying out any investigation, is not fair & justified.

 

9]       The plea of the OPs that the said transactions were valid transactions being performed by the complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic One Time Password delivered at his registered mobile number, cannot be taken as a final word, especially in the absence of a valid investigation carried out at their end.  Needless to mention that in the present era of advanced digitalization where most transactions are being made through online mode, the unauthorized transactions on a customer’s card has become a growing concern and the possibility of unauthorized/fraudulent transactions without getting OTP or phone having been hacked to get access of OTP by fraudulent means, cannot be ruled out, but in any case the investigation must have been carried out by the financial institution on getting information of fraudulent transaction from his customer, which has not been done in the present case.  Furthermore the OPs neither disclosed the complete details of the agency, account number and name of person, in whose account the amount of the transactions in dispute was credited and whose liability was discharged from the credit card of the complainant, despite having been so requested by the complainant vide communication Ann.C-5 & C-8, which too has not been denied or disputed by the OPs.  

 

10]      Further the details of payment annexed by complainant as Ann.C-1 which too is admitted by the OPs, shows that during a short period of 15 days i.e. from 18^th November to 2^nd December i.e. 14 payments of electricity bills, 3 to 4 in a day, have been made through the credit card of the complainant, which clearly appears to be surprising & unreasonable, as a prudent person is not expected to carry out same transaction i.e. payment of electricity bills again & again 3 to 4 times on a day on regular basis, as reflected in the statement, thus establishing the contentions of the complainant for there being fraudulent transactions.  The possibility about carrying out the disputed/fraudulent transactions in question by an internal official of the OP Company (a Limited Firm) having access to their system, can also not be ruled out.

 

11]      Not only this, the OPs, who are in possession of all documentary proof & details of the disputed transactions, prefer not to bring the details of the agency, account number and name of person, in whose account the amount of the disputed transactions was credited, particularly when there is a specific plea of complainant in this regard in the complaint, for the reasons best known to them, which leads to an adverse inference against them. Therefore, the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs is writ large, which certainly has caused loss and harassment to the complainant.

 

12]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to generate a new Statements of Account in respect of the credit card account of the complainant, for the months of November & December, 2021, showing the transactions made from said account to discharge the liability of third party/person/agency unknown to the complainant and to refund the amount thereof to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment & mental agony undergone by him due to their deficient services, along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to correct the status of the complainant in respect of the Credit Card No.3006412011 by removing any adverse remarks or liability and get it updated with CIBIL Authority by sending necessary communication at their end.

         This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/- apart from above relief.  

         Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

Announced

5^th July, 2023               

                                                                                                           Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER