View 1299 Cases Against Kotak Mahindra Bank
View 1299 Cases Against Kotak Mahindra Bank
View 2748 Cases Against Kotak Mahindra
Manish Kumar filed a consumer case on 28 Jan 2021 against Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., in the DF-II Consumer Court. The case no is CC/368/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 09 Mar 2021.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH
======
Consumer Complaint No | : | 368 of 2018 |
Date of Institution | : | 27.06.2018 |
Date of Decision | : | 28.01.2021 |
Manish Kumar aged 36 years son of Sh.Rajesh Kumar, resident of House No.1083, Sector 29-B, Chandigarh
…..Complainant
1] Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., having its registered head office at #27 BKc, C-27, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400051 through its Managing director & CEO
2] Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Credit Card Operations, Kotak Infinity Towers-21, 5th Floor, General
3] Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., having its regional office at SCO No.153-154-155, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 throguh its Regional Manager.
4] Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Credit Card Operations, SCO No.153-154-155, 2nd Floor, Sector 9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager.
….. Opposite Parties
Argued by :- None for complainant.
Sh.mohinder Pal Singh, Adv. proxy for Sh.Mohit Sarin, Adv. for OPs.
PER B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he complainant was issued one Credit Card No.4147671602749099 by OP Bank, free of cost, with an assurance that the credit card is insured and in case of misuse or stolen, the entire misused money will be refunded back to complainant’s account. It is averred that on 3.5.2018 at about 12.53 pm the complainant received a SMS on his Mobile registered with OP about conversion of card point worthRs.6897/- in cash and they also sought personal details of the complainant like full name, credit card number, ATM PIN No., password, email-id, email-id password, date of birth etc. (Ann.C-1/A), which complainant disclosed under impression that the said SMS was sent by the Bank and as such also click the link sent through SMS. It is also averred that on 4.5.2018 the complainant received two message about transaction of Rs.25,000/- at Paytm and Rs.66.72 at Entropay UK. It is stated that the complainant was shocked to see transaction message and as such reported the fraudulent transaction made by unknown person to OP bank and accordingly, the credit card of the complainant was blocked (Ann.C-4). However, by the time the credit card was blocked by the OP Bank, another fraudulent transaction of Rs.59,870/- took place from the credit card account of complainant (Ann.C-6). It is submitted that the OP Bank told that since the fraudulent transaction were made by using OTP, so they cannot resolve the said issue. The complainant also reported the matter to Cyber Cell of Police Department, Chandigarh (Ann.C-12) as well as Banking Lokpal, RBI, Chandigarh about misuse of his credit card (Ann.c-13).
It is submitted that though the OP Bank credited the amount of Rs.70/-, one of fraudulent transaction, but the Bank did not credit the amount of other fraudulent transactions. It is also submitted that at the time of issuing the credit card, the OP Bank assured the complainant that if the card is misused or stolen, the same will get a cover of Rs2.50 lacs against fraudulent usage, but still they did not resolve the issue raised by the complainant. It is further submitted that negligence, security lapse and deficiency in service on the part of OPs is clear, hence this complaint has been filed.
2] The OPs No.1 to 4 have filed joint reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant himself was negligent while using the said credit card as he himself has admitted that he disclosed all his personal details to a caller posing himself to be the employee of bank, the said aspect clearly shows that the complainant was negligent and once all his personal details were disclosed, hence the OPs are not liable for any such loss. Further the transactions which have been disputed by the complainant were done by using secure mode i.e. by sending One time Password to the registered mobile number of the complainant, the complainant has never disputed that he has not received any OTP before the said transactions were done. It is averred that the complainant was intimated vide Ann.C-17 that since the transactions were done using the secured mode, hence the claim raised by the complainant is not justified. Pleading no deficiency in service and denying other allegations, the OPs have have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3] Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in complaint and controverting that of OPs as made in their reply.
4] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
5] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the OPs and carefully perused the entire record.
6] The perusal of the record reveals that the complainant himself admitted in Para No.6 & 7 of the complaint that he has disclosed his personal details like full name, credit card number, ATM PIN No. password, email-id, email-id password, date of birth etc. to someone and also clicked on the link received by him through SMS and thereafter the fraudulent transactions took place. The complaint himself remained negligent and careless in disclosing his personal details to someone, so the OP Bank cannot be made liable for his fault.
7] From the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Therefore, the present complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs.
Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced
28.1.2021 Sd/-
(RAJAN DEWAN)
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
(B.M.SHARMA)
MEMBER
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.