vv

     SRI MARUTHI VADDAR

       MEMBER

This is a Complaint  filed  v/s35 of CP Act 2019 by the complainant Varadaraju S.C R/o Yadavagiri Mysuru against the opposite party Industrial Bank Mysuru City alleging deficiency of service praying this commission to pass an order  to direct the opposite party to pay the debited amount of Rs. 35,500/- along with an interest at the rate of 15% per annum & Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses and such other relief as this Hon’ble commission deems fit to grant in the above circumstances of this complaint in the interest of justice and equity.

1. Brief facts of the complainant’s case is as here under:-

1. It is stated in the complaint that, the complainant is a customer of the opposite party bank.  Opposite party has made a phone call to the complainant and offered a credit card.  The complainant accepted for the same and received the credit card bearing No. 5244804396752008 and 5244804724350251.  After receipt of the credit card issued by the opposite party the complainant did not used the credit card.  But after four months the complainant received the phone call from the bank and asked for the details from the complainant and subsequently the complainant received the message that the amount has been credited through online to two phone numbers of ALPHONE MOBIKWIK 15.8 bearing mobile No. 7429639102 of Rs. 13,500/- on 18/07/2020 and RAZ/HARI OM SAI SEWAT bearing mobile No. 8728947942 of Rs. 22,000/- on 6/8/2020.
2. It is further stated that the complainant not at all availed loan through credit card.  The Opposite party sent the messages stating that the complainant has to pay the loan amount and made phone calls many times.  Due to the Act of the opposite party the complainant suffered lot of mental agony and sufferings.  So on the basis of the messages and phone calls the complainant gave complaint to the manager Indusind Bank on 17/9/2020 and on 15/8/2020 gave complaint to the Indusind Bank consumer care disputes Forum credit card.  The complainant was also given complaint to the Karnataka State cyber crimes on 16/9/2021 and the same was registered as RH MYS/CEN PS/GP/1267/2021 and the FIR was registered by the police till today the complainant has not received any amounts to his account.  Due to the negligence on the part of the opposite party and no fault of the complainant the CIBIL score of the complainant decreasing and same cannot be compensated in any manner.  The complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and hence it is deficiency of service.  After issuing notice this complaint has been filed.
3. After registration of this complaint, notice was issued to the opposite party and in pursuance of the notice, opposite party appeared through its counsel and has filed written  version contending that the above complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The opposite party bank is a banking company registered under the provisions of companies act 1956 and is owned by the public at large and the funds are mobilized from public by way of shares and fixed deposits besides the company also borrows funds from other financial institutions providing various financial and banking services to its customers.  The complainant had applied for credit card and after due diligence, opposite party had issued the credit card No.5244804396752008 on 2/7/2020.  The complainant was accorded with the credit limit of Rs. 2,35,000/-.  Since the date of issue, the complainant was using the credit card  without any issue, what so ever on 11/8/2020, a complaint was received from the  complainant herein reporting ad disputing two transactions on his credit card.
4. It is further contended that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant opposite party bank blocked the credit card with immediate effect.  Both SMS triggers were sent in respect of the successfully completed transactions and further conducted a detailed audit into the credit card related dispute.  The said transactions are found to have been completed in a secured environment with two factor authentications as required over the third party websites.  The OTP had been sent to the registered mobile No. 9035904306 of the complainant on 6/8/2020 & 18/7/2020 which was duly delivered and verified at RAZ/HARI OM SAI SWEAT ROHTAK and ALPONE MOBIKWICK SYSTEM.  On the same day opposite party has also sent a message upon successful completion of the transaction performed over the credit card.  The said transactions were authorised transaction authenticated by using one time password which was sent to the complainants mobile no. 9035904306 which can exclusively accessed by the complainant whereby the opposite party has lawfully an rightfully billed the said transacted amount to his credit card account bills.
5. The opposite party further contended that a monthly statement of credit card is also sent to the registered email id of the complainant.  As per  the term and conditions of credit card, it is the sole responsibility of the card holder to safeguard the confidential informations.  The most important terms & conditions regarding the credit card is also hosted on the banks website for reference of the general public, then the liability towards the subject transaction vests with the complainant and cannot be contested as unauthorised transaction.  The opposite party had advised the complainant immediately to lodge a police  complainant as per the mandatory process enabling the authority to investigate into the unauthorised transactions that have taken place in the complainant credit card, accordingly the complainant had lodged complaint before the cyber crime police station.  The police department had sent notice U/S 91 & 102 of Crpc via email dated 16/09/2021 directing the opposite party to direct to freeze the beneficiary account and further directed the opposite party to furnish the details such as transaction IP address, date and time various other details with regard to the disputed transaction and the opposite party bank had shared all the required details with the police department via email dated 22/09/2021.  The transaction undertaken by the complainant, in his credit card were fully system based automated transaction without requiring any manual interventions from opposite party bank based on two factor authentication for usage of credit card and online by way of requiring to insert the CVV number and OTP sent to the registered mobile number of the complainant.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint in limine with exemplary costs in the interest of justice and equity.
6. The complainant filed his affidavit evidence and the same was taken as Pw1 and got marked the documents as Ex.P1 to P9.  On the other hand opposite party has also filed its affidavit evidence and got produced some documents.
7. Hence the arguments of the complainant side.  Perused the materials placed with the pleadings.

8.  Now the points that arise for the consideration of this commission are;

1. Whether the complainant proves the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and thereby he is entitled to the reliefs as sought?
2. What order?

9. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

   Point No.1:-  Negative

   Point No.2:- As per  the final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

10. Point No.1: To prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and reiterated the averments of the complaint in his affidavit.  It is the case of the complainant that the opposite party had made a phone call to the complainant and offered a credit card the complainant accepted for the same and received the credit card bearing No. 5244804396752008 and 5244804724350251.  The complainant did not used the credit card but after four months the complainant received a message,  the amount has been credited through to two numbers of ACPHONE MOBIKWICK 15.8 bearing mobile no. 7429639102 Rs. 13,500/- on 18.07.2020 and RAZ/HARI OM SEWAT bearing mobile no. 8728947942 of Rs. 22,000/-  on 06.08.2020.  But as per opposite party the complainant applied for credit card and after due diligence opposite party had issued the credit card No. 5244804396752008 on 02.07.2020. The complainant was accorded with the credit limit of Rs. 2,35,000/-.  Since the date of issue the complainant was using the credit card without any issue on whatsoever, on receipt of the complaint opposite party bank blocked the credit card and sent SMS triggers in respect of the successfully completed transactions and further conducted a detailed audit into the credit card related dispute.  The said transactions formed to have been completed  in a secured environment with two factor authentications as required over the third party websites.  The OTP has been sent to the registered mobile no. 9035904306 on the complainant on 06.08.2020 and 18.07.2020.  On the same day opposite party has sent a message upon successful completion of the transaction performed over the credit card.

11. It is further contended by opposite party that as per the terms and conditions of the credit card, it is the sole responsibility of the card holder to safeguard the confidential information.  The opposite party has advised the complainant to lodge a police complaint as per the mandatory process enabling the authority to investigate into the unauthorised transactions that have taken place.  As per the police complaint the opposite party has shared all the necessary information with regard to the disputed transaction.  The transaction undertaken by the complainant in his credit card were fully systematised transaction without requiring any manual interventions from opposite party bank.

12. Based upon the rival contentions of both parties and the pleadings and documents , it is noticed that the complainant has obtained credit card of the opposite party on 02.07.2020 with a credit card limit of 2,35,000/-.  But on 11.08.2020 the complainant made a complaint disputing two transactions dated 06.08.2020 and 18.07.2020.  But he made written complaint on 17.09.2021 as per Ex.P3 requesting the opposite party to take action for the unauthorised transactions.  But he filed the complaint before the cyber police on 16.09.2021, though the transaction took place on 06.08.2020 & 18.07.2020 but he kept until 16.09.2021 on that date the police complaint was given.  He gave the notice to opposite party on 24.02.2022 as per Ex.P5.  The opposite party has also sent message to close the credit card account as it is not closed for a long time.  Inspite of the direction given by the bank the complainant ha not closed his credit card account. Hence suspicion arises about the conduct of the complainant.  He is suppressing some time facts before this Hon’ble commission.  He has not approached the commission with clean hands.  Hence he is not entitled for the relief as claimed in his complaint.  Hence the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed consequently, we answer this point in negative.
13.  

12. Point No.2:- From the above said reason, we proceed to pass the following

                           :: ORDER ::

The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Supply the free copies of the order to both parties.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 24^th  April, 2023)