Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/72/2021

Nidhi Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Kotak Mahindra Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amit Sharma Adv.

13 Jul 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

 

Appeal No.	:	72 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	07.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	13.07.2022

 

 

 

 

 

 

Smt. Nidhi Gupta wife of Sh. Davinder Singh, aged 41 years, resident of House No.3373, Vidhan Sabha Society, Sector 49-D, Chandigarh.

 

……Appellant/Complainant.

Versus

1]      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Manager, Credit Cards Division, Plot No.153-154, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh – 160017.

 

2]      Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited, through its Director, Registered Office: 27, BKC, C-27, G Block, Bandra Kurla, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 4000510.

 …..Respondents/Opposite Parties.

 

BEFORE:  JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

              MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

              MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

 

ARGUED BY :-   

 

Sh. Amit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

Sh. Devinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents (on VC).

 

PER  RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

                This appeal has been filed by the complainant, namely, Smt. Nidhi Gupta (appellant herein), against order dated 07.07.2021 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short ‘District Commission’), whereby her consumer complaint bearing No.634 of 2018 has been dismissed by the Ld. District Commission.

2.             The case of the complainant (appellant herein), namely, Smt. Nidhi Gupta, before the Ld. District Commission was that she was issued Credit Card No.4166 4643 0430 9545 having CRN No.63494778 by the respondents - Bank.  On 12.1.2018, someone made two transaction of Rs.10,000/- each from the said credit card, for which the appellant received messages.  As per the appellant, she did not make the said transactions. The matter was reported to the respondents and the appellant also moved application for said illegal transaction before the Banking Ombudsman, RBI, Sector 17, Chandigarh on 15.1.2018 and before the Cyber Cell, Chandigarh Police on 12.1.2018. The respondents Bank, instead of resolving her complaint, started calling the appellant for making the payment, though not raised demand for the disputed transaction in monthly statements of account/bill. The appellant kept on writing email to the respondents Bank but nothing was done. The respondents Bank disbursed the disputed transaction amount in favour of the merchant in an illegal manner and vide statement of account dated 15.7.2018 raised the demand for the said disputed amount from the appellant. Alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the respondents - Bank, the appellant filed complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

3.             On the other hand, the case of the opposite parties – Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited (respondents herein), before the Ld. District Commission was that the respondents Bank raised a chargeback in the appellant’s account on good faith basis for the alleged transaction of Rs.10,000/- each done at Airtel Payment just to ensure that the cardholder should not be charged for any interest/charges on the disputed amount till final confirmation.  It was stated that the appellant was not entitled for any compensation due to the mistake of her own as the alleged disputed transaction was done through a secure mode, whose personal knowledge could only be with the cardholder and could not be shared with the third person till it was compromised at the cardholder’s end. It was further stated that the respondents had already submitted the report about the disputed transaction to the Investigating Officer of the Cyber Cell and also intimated the appellant vide email dated 2.2.2018.  It was further stated that the appellant has committed default in making regular payment to the Bank against the facilities used by her as provided against her credit card.  It was further stated that the appellant had been ignorant to pay the disputed amount. 

4.             The order of Ld. District Commission, dismissing her complaint, has been impugned by the appellant on the ground that the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate the facts rightly and lost sight of the fact that the respondents Bank failed to provide a secure ecosystem to its customers as a result whereof, illegal and unauthorized transactions have occurred from the credit account of the appellant, which in itself is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents Bank. It has further been stated that the appellant reported the matter to the respondents Bank within ten minutes of the said unauthorized transactions on her credit card, which was confirmed by the respondents Bank through email dated 12.01.2018. It has further been stated that the respondents Bank has failed to bring on record the details of the beneficiary of the unauthorized transactions. It has further been stated that it is the duty of the respondents Bank to secure the transactions and to prevent the unauthorized transactions. It has further been stated that the Ld. District Commission has failed to appreciate the fact that the Bank cannot claim any amount from the customer when a transaction is shown to be a disputed transaction. Lastly, prayer for setting aside of impugned order has been made.

5.             On the other hand, on behalf of the respondents Bank, it was argued that the order of the Ld. District Commission is based on true appreciation of facts and documents on record. It has further been stated that as per the declaration signed by the appellant with her own free will and consent, she agreed to be fully liable and authorized the respondents Bank to debit her credit card account for all spends, fees and other charges and interest etc. on her card. It has further been stated that the appellant, nowhere in her complaint, contended or averred that the respondents Bank had in any manner breached or violated any of the provisions and/or conditions of the contract. It has further been stated that Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Vishal Roadways Vs. Economic Traders, III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC) has held that the question of rendition/settlement of accounts cannot be decided in summary proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act. It has further been stated that as goodwill gesture, the respondents Bank offered the chargeback subject to the approval of the higher authorities of the Bank and after proper enquiry, it was opined that the card was not misused by any third party as the transactions of Rs.10,000/- each at Airtel Payment were done through secured mode by using second factor authentication i.e. One Time Password and for the said transaction, the OTP was sent to the registered mobile. It has further been stated that the OTP password is created by the cardholder and it is only known to her and the online transaction would not have gone through unless and until the One time Password is compromised from the cardholder end and hence, it is quite clear from the report that there have been no wrong transaction from the side of the respondents Bank and it is only the appellant who was negligent and careless and is responsible for the issue in dispute. Lastly, prayer for dismissal of appeal has been made.   

6.             After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the parties and going through the material available on record very carefully, we are of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Bare perusal of Annexures R2/2 and R-2/3 makes it abundantly clear that the disputed transactions took place, only after One Time Password (OTP) was sent on the registered mobile number of the appellant. There is nothing on record to prove that the card of the complainant was misused by any third party. It is not the case of the appellant that the card was lost or stolen. Per documents on record, it is very much established that the alleged transactions of Rs.10,000/- each were done at Airtel Payment through secured mode by using second factor authentication i.e. One Time Password. No negligence on the part of the respondents can be attributed, if the appellant herself did not take due care and caution while handling her credit card. Thus, as rightly held by the Ld. District Commission, the actual transaction had taken place only after the appellant shared the details qua OTP etc. Thus, we do not find any illegality or material irregularity in impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission. 

7.             For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, stands dismissed with no orders as to costs.

8.             Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

9.             The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

13.07.2022.

 [RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

 

 (PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

 

(RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

 Ad