Date of filing: 05.10.2021
Date of Disposal: 14.06.2023
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF JUNE, 2023
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO: 396 /2021
PRESENT:
-
SRI.RAJU K.S,
SMT.REKHA SAYANNAVAR,:MEMBER
Dhananjay Belavigi,
#4, 2nd Cross, Belagere Road,
Varthuru, Bangalore City,
- V/s -
1) Representative Authorized Signatory,
Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Kotak Infinity, 5th Floor, Zone II,
Bldg No.21, Infinity Park,
General AK Vaidya Marg,
Malad (E), Mumbai-400097.
(Rep. by Sri. Mahabaleshwar G.C, Advocate)
2) Authorized Signatory,
Manager, Federal Bank,
Rontak Branch, IFSC-FDRL0001654,
No.5, Subhash Road, Opp all
India Radio, Company Bagh, Rohtak,
(Rep. by Sri. Vinay Paul T.K, Advocate)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI. SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
01. The complainant party in-person has filed this complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 seeking for a direction to opposite party to resolve the issue and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation to the complainant and such other relief as this Commission deems fit in the circumstances of the case.
02. It is not in dispute that, opposite party No.1 had issued credit card facility to the complainant. It is the further case of the complainant that, someone had fraudulently got transferred a sum of Rs.181,222/- from his credit card account and later on a sum of Rs.64,548/- has been credited by way of reverse to his account. In this regard complainant had lodged a criminal complaint on 29.09.2021. Further the amount has been transferred from the credit card account to the account maintained by opposite party No.2-Bank. Further the complainant had reported the fraud incident within 03 days to his opposite party No.1 – Bank. But opposite party No.1 did not give any explanation with regard to the fraud transfer. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and had filed this complaint.
03. It is the further contention of opposite party No.1 that, since the amount has been transferred to the account maintained by opposite party No.2 the complaint against opposite party No.1 is not maintainable. Further opposite party No.1-Bank had acted fairly and in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI. Hence there is no fault on the part of opposite party No.1 thereby sought to dismiss the complaint.
04. It is the further contention of the opposite party No.2 that, the complaint was filed with an sole intention to harass opposite party No.2. Further the complainant is not even a account holder with opposite party No.2 and the complainant is a customer of opposite party No.1. Further the complainant did not follow the guidelines issued by the Banks. Further the customer shall be liable for the loss accrued due to unauthorized transactions. Hence, it is sought to dismiss the complaint.
05. To prove the case the complainant (PW.1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief. The working Manager of opposite party No.1 (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.1 document. The Assistant Vice President (Legal) of opposite party No.2 – Bank (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R.2 to EX.R.8 documents.
06. Counsel for opposite party No.1 has filed written arguments.
07. Heard the complainant.
08. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitle for the
relief sought ?
(3) What order ?
09. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:-
POINT NO.1:- In affirmative
POINT NO.2:- Partly affirmative
POINT NO.3:- As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
10. POINT NO.1:- PW.1, RW.1 and RW.2 have reiterated the facts stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief.
11. On perusal of the credit card account statement, the transaction details from 21.06.2021 to 20.07.2021 produced by the complainant, it appears that, on 24.06.2021 in total 05 transactions been took place. According to the complainant the said 05 transactions were not done by them and it was a fraudulent one. Further it also appears that, on 26.06.2021 a sum of Rs.59,767/- has been credited to the credit card account of the complainant by way of reversal in the above transactions.
12. Further on 29.09.2021 the complainant had lodged a complaint before Whitefield Police, Cyber Crime. Further complainant has also produced a letter issued by opposite party No.1-Bank stating that, on 24.06.2021 the compliant regarding unsettled fraud transaction on Kotak Credit Card has been registered and it is also intimated to the complainant by the Bank that, if the amount transferred gets reversed it would be up dated to the complainant within 10 working days and if not the Bank would raise a charge back for the same. Hence it appears that, on the same day the complainant had raised a complaint with opposite party No.1-Bank about the fraudulent transaction. On perusal of Ex.R.6 letter addressed by the complainant to the Nodal Officer, Kotak Mahindra Bank, the complainant sought to freeze the beneficiary account against fraudulent transaction. EX.R.8 is the statement of account.
13. It is the contention of the complainant that, since within 3 days he has informed to the Bank with regard to the fraudulent transaction as per RBI guidelines and the Bank is responsible for the same and the complainant cannot be charged for the said fraudulent transaction. On perusal of the RBI guidelines produced by the complainant, it appears that, in DBR.No.Leg.BC.79/09.07.005/2017-18, dated: 06.07.2017 in Clause-6 with regard to the “Zero liability of a customer” it is stated that, “(ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorized transaction”.
14. In the case on hand, the amount has been transferred to the account maintained at opposite party No.2-Bank. Hence as per Clause-6(ii) of RBI guidelines the customer has zero liability with regard to the said transaction. It is the contention of the complainant that, even though it was reported about the fraudulent transaction the opposite party intentionally did not respond for the same and has failed to provide good service. It is the contention of the complainant that, opposite party No.1-Bank has demanded for the charges pertaining to the said fraudulent transaction. As per RBI guidelines the customer has zero liability on the fraudulent transaction if it was reported within three days.
15. On perusal of the record it appears that, it was reported within three days. Hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.1. Accordingly we answer the point in affirmative.
16. POINT NO.2:- The complainant claimed to resolve the issue. We feel in view of the RBI guidelines stated above, the opposite party No.1 cannot recover the fraudulent transaction amount from the complainant. Further the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation. Even though the complainant had informed the opposite party No.1-Bank about the fraudulent transaction immediately, opposite party No.1-Bank did not resolve the issue later claimed charges in respect of the said fraudulent transfer. Hence it caused mental agony to the complainant and the act of the opposite party made the complainant to approach this Commission. Hence the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony caused and for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Accordingly we answer this point partly in affirmative.
17. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
01. The complaint is allowed-in-part.
02. The opposite party No.1 is directed not to charge on the fraudulent transaction to the complainant and opposite party No.1 shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost.
03. The opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case opposite party No.1 fails to comply the order within the above said period, the above said amount of Rs.15,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of order till realization.
04. Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
05. Applications pending, if any, stands disposed-off in terms of the aforesaid judgment.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcripted and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced in the Open Commission on 14th Day of JUNE 2023)
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainant side:
Sri. Dhananjaya Belavigi, the complainant (PW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief.
Documents produced by the complainant side:
1) Copy of Beneficiary details
2) Copy of Case Report
3) Copy of Letter dt.17.08.2021
4) Copy of letter dt.06.07.2017 issued by RBI
5) Copy of FIR
6) Copy of police complaint
7) Copy of legal notice
8) Copy of email letter dt.24.06.2021
9) Copy of Credit card monthly statement
Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side:
Smt. Vinutha Gaonkar, Legal Manager in opposite party No.1 – Bank (RW-1) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for the Opposite Party No.2 side:
1) Authorization letter dt.01.04.2022 – Ex.R.1.
Witness examined for the opposite party No.1 side:
Smt. Harsha.P, Assistant Vice President in Opposite party No.2 – Bank (RW-2) has filed affidavit in the form of her evidence in chief.
Documents got marked for the Opposite Party No.2 side:
1) Letter of authorization – EX.R.2.
2) Copy of cyber crime IRU Ahmadabad – Ex.R.3.
3) Copy of notice u/s 91 & 102 of Cr.PC. – Ex.R.4.
4) Email letter dt.20.08.2021 – Ex.R.5.
5) Copy of letter dt.20.08.2021 – Ex.R.6.
6) Copy of letter dt.08.03.2022 – EX.R.7.
7) Copy of statement of account – EX.R.8.
- REKHA SAYANNAVAR) (RAJU K.S) (SHIVARAMA. K)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
KNMP
