Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/159/2016

Punjab National Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

J.R.Sharma - Opp.Party(s)

Aanchal Thakur, Adv.

30 May 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	159 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	26.05.2016
Date of Decision	:	30.05.2016

 

1. Punjab National Bank, SCO No.56, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh.
2. Punjab National Bank, Credit Card Processing Centre, A-37, Sector 60, NOIDA, through its Manager/ Authorized Signatory.

……Appellants/Opposite Parties

V e r s u s

J.R.Sharma, R/o House No.2938, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/Complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:Ms.Anchal Thakur, Advocate for the appellants.   

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

            This appeal is directed against an order dated 02.02.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (now respondent) and directed the opposite parties (now appellants), as under:-

“[a] To waive off the demand of Rs.32,959/-  and make necessary entry in the account of the complainant;

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-”    

2.       It was further directed that the said order shall be complied within 45 days, from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the appellants shall be liable to pay interest @18% per annum, on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing the complaint till realization, apart from complying with directions given at sub-paras [a] & [c] above.
3.         Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay of 48 days (as per the office report 39 days), in filing the same (appeal), has also been filed by the appellants.
4.       Before the Forum, it was case of the respondent/complainant that he was issued a credit card, bearing no.0004197890000137116, by the appellants/opposite parties.  On 11.03.2015, he received three consecutive messages from the appellants, mentioning that he had performed three transactions, for an amount of Rs.1,879/-, Rs.5,680/- and Rs.25,400/-, which he did not perform. Immediately, notice was sent to the appellants and the credit card was got blocked. Admittedly, the above said transactions were performed at Mumbai. Scanned copy of the transaction slips, were supplied by the appellants, wherein name of the card holder was mentioned as Pramod R. Joshi. Thereafter, both the parties continued communicating with each other. When the appellants insisted upon realization of the above amount, from the respondent, he filed the consumer complaint before the Forum, which was decided in his favour, vide the order impugned.
5.       In their reply, it was specifically stated by the appellants that the respondent had got issued one add-on credit card, in the name of Sh.Vishal Sharma. Number of card was also disclosed and the transactions were conducted through the said add-on card. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
6.       In the rejoinder filed, the complainant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in written version of the opposite parties.
7.       The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
8.       After hearing Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the Forum, accepted the complaint, by observing as under:-

“7]       We have perused the credit card Application Form (Ann.R-2) submitted by the complainant with the Opposite Parties, wherein a request for an Add-on Card is found mentioned.  It is also mentioned that the said card be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, whose date of birth is mentioned as 26.12.1986, being Single, major Son of the Complainant and was a Student.  Therefore, from the contents of the relevant column NO.20, wherein the request for Add-on Card is mentioned, it was specifically requested that the Card be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma.  However, the details so mentioned by the Opposite Parties with regard to the disputed Add-on Card against which the unauthorized transactions were conducted, is found issued in the name of Pramod R Joshi.  This aspect has not been explained by the Opposite Parties as to how come a Card which was requested to be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, has been issued in the name of Pramod R Joshi. This information belongs only to the record of Opposite Parties, which they prefer not to disclose.  It is necessary to mention here that when the details of transaction are shared by a Merchant Establishment, with the Bank from where demand for debit entry is requested against the user of Credit Card, the details of merchandise and sale receipts are also shared with such Bank.  These sale receipts are annexed as Ann.C-3, C-4 & C-5.  It was against these transactions slips that the Opposite Parties made a debit entry in the account of the complainant without corroborating the name and number of such credit card from their own data base, wherein the card was supposed to be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, existed.  It was on account of this oversight by the Opposite Parties that an unauthorized transaction was conducted in the first place on the basis of an add-on card, which was not issued in the name of Vishal Sharma son of the complainant and secondly, the transaction details did not match with the contents of data base of the Opposite Parties, but they preferred to advance such credit on the basis of the transaction slip which did not bear the name of Vishal Sharma. 

8]       Therefore, the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service, firstly, when they did not issue the Add-on Card in the name of Vishal Sharma, as requested by the complainant vide Ann.R-2 and subsequently on the second occasion while they failed to match the details of the transactions slips presented by the Merchant Establishment, which bore the name of Pramod R Joshi, who was not even remotely related to the complainant or his family member.     

9]      Thus, the act of the Opposite Parties in debiting an amount of Rs.32,959/- from the account of the complainant on the basis of transactions slips, which did not belongs to the complainant’s account or his Add-on Card account, amounts to deficiency in service on their part, and the mental agony and harassment that the complainant has gone through while struggling to convenience the Opposite Parties about the genuineness of his demand of wrongful transaction caused him extreme mental agony and harassment, for which he deserves to be adequately compensated.” 

9.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/opposite parties.
10.       We have heard Counsel for the appellants, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
11.       It was noted by the Forum that when request for add-on card was submitted, name of the beneficiary was mentioned as Vishal Sharma, born on 26.12.1986. However, the dispute occurred against the transactions, which were found to have been made in the name of Pramod R.Joshi, against the said credit card. The appellants have failed to give explanation, as to how the said card was issued in favour of Pramod R.Joshi. It was further said that the debit entry qua transactions done, was made in the name of respondent, by the appellants, without corroborating the name and number of the credit card, through which the transactions were made. It was also rightly found that the transactions details did not match with the contents of the database of the appellants. We feel that the view taken by the Forum is perfectly justified.

            At the time of arguments, an attempt was made to say that somebody might have cloned the credit card issued in favour of son of the respondent. The very fact that credit card was cloned, would amount to deficiency in rendering service. When a credit card is issued in favour of a customer, it virtually amounts to an assurance that it is foolproof and except him, by using the code number, nobody else can withdraw money by using it (credit card), against his/her account. By not making their system foolproof with zero possibility of cloning of the credit card, the appellants were deficient in providing service. In view of above, no case is made out, for making interference in the order under challenge.

12.       No other point, was urged, by Counsel for the appellants.
13.        For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
14.       Since the appeal filed by the appellants has been dismissed, at the preliminary stage, as such, the application filed by them, for condonation of delay of 48 days (as per the office report 39 days), in filing the same (appeal) is also dismissed, being rendered infructuous. The application is disposed off, accordingly. 
15.       Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.       The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

30.05.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

      MEMBER

 

Rg