BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.60/2017

DATED ON THIS THE 26^th September 2022

Present:   1) Sri. B.Narayanappa

M.A., LL.B., - PRESIDENT  

                     2) Smt.Lalitha.M.K.,

M.A., B.A.L., LL.B., - MEMBER  

                        3) Sri Maruthi Vaddar,

                                                B.A., LLB (Special)  - MEMBER

Sri MARUTHI VADDAR,

MEMBER

1.         This is a complaint instituted by the complainant Sri Rajendra Prasad Reddy, resident of Mysuru against the opposite party Bank, the Manager, Axis Bank, Mysuru directing the opposite party to rectify the issue and to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- as damages by allowing this complaint in the interest of justice and equity.   
2. The brief facts of the complaint is as here under:-

The complainant is an account holder of opposite party bank and is also a credit card holder bearing No.1647 valid upto April 2017 and that on 24.06.2016 the complainant has received a message on E-mail stating that the complainant by using his credit card bearing No.7311 did made several transactions to a tune of Rs.3,26,489/- though the complainant was not in custody of the aforesaid credit card No.7311.Infact, the complainant was at his native place from 11.06.2016 to 27.07.2016 and the said credit card was not used by the complainant at any point of time.The said credit card No.7311 has not been delivered to the complainant.Infact, there is no request of issuance of new credit card.Immediately after coming to know the said fact, the customer executive has told the complainant that new credit card was issued and bill was raised on credit card bearing No.7311 and not on credit card bearing No.1647.

It is further alleged in the complaint that after receiving the E-mail, the complainant has brought the above fact to the notice of executive of the bank over phone and E-mail and the opposite party bank informed the complainant over E-mail that the said “credit card bearing Nos.1647 and 7311 have been blocked”. By furnishing all the information, the complainant requested the opposite party bank and the Ombudsman concerned to look into the matter, to investigate and to book the culprits for having misused the credit card in the name of the complainant.In spite of several requests on E-mail, no action was taken by the opposite party to credit a sum of Rs.3,26,489/- to the account of the complainant.The opposite party is postponing the issue in question on lame excuses instead of resolving the same or to take appropriate steps, to correct the lapses on their part.On the correspondence, the opposite party has issued a new credit card though there is no request by the complainant.The opposite party bank has sent the said new credit card bearing No.7311, but the complainant has not received the new credit card No.7311 from the opposite party, the opposite party bank has also failed to clarify why they have issued a new credit card to the complainant without requests that too prior to the expiry of the existing credit card No.1647. It clearly goes to show that there is gross negligence of service on the part of the opposite party for which, the complainant suffered mental agony and also have received a legal notice dated 13.01.2017 issued on behalf of the opposite party, calling upon the complainant to remit the aforesaid amount together with interest amounting to Rs.4,08,931/- for which, the opposite party is liable to satisfy the loss incurred due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and hence, this complaint.

3. After the registration of the complaint, notice was ordered to be issued against the opposite party and in response to the notice, the opposite party has appeared through its counsel and filed written version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant for the reliefs of ratifying the issue and to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- by allowing the complaint is not maintainable in law or on facts.  The deficiency of service is not on the part of the opposite party, but it is utter negligence and fraud played by the complainant on furnishing a wrong and fraudulent mobile number in the application submitted by him for credit card.  The opposite party came to know on investigation that the mobile number furnished by the complainant in his application is not registered in his name, but it was registered in the name of one Gurushanthappa who is the complainant’s employee.  The fraudulent action of the complainant in furnishing mobile number of his employee in the application for credit card, made the present havoc, which resulted in transaction to a tune of Rs.3,26,489/-. The opposite party has admitted the allegations of the complaint para No.2.

It is further denied the allegations made in para No.3 of the complaint that as per CTL records, the opposite party found that credit card ending with 1647 (old card) was blocked on 21.06.2016 as the same was lost.A new credit card ending with four digits 7311 (new card) was replaced at the request of the complainant and it was dispatched through Blue Dart on 22.06.2016 vide Serial No.6180140 of AWBH 33473754926 (Annexure-2 Blue Dart pod of credit card). All the call extracts received reveals that call was received from registered mobile No.09342580595 for blocking the credit card and requested for re-issue new credit card (annexure-3 call log).It was carried out after validation of credentials as per the policy.The Blue Dart team had confirmed that the credit card was delivered at the given customer address on 24.06.2016 for which they had taken the DL bearing DL No.KA142001100187211 and I.D. as reference.The DL referred to above has been subsequently proved as fake DL.The same was also given to Joy Alukkas while making payment for purchase of gold ornaments.PIN was also generated through green PIN channels on 24.06.2016 at 10.45 AM using the same registered mobile number which was furnished by the complainant for issuance of credit card by validating of security questions.After delivery of the PIN, credit card No.7311 was used and a sum of Rs.70,000/- was withdrawn.Hence, there is fraud played by the complainant in collusion with third party and now claiming damages and rectification at the hands of this Hon’ble Commission.The opposite party produced the application filed by the complainant for issuance of credit card and other relevant annexure showing the bonafide on the part of the opposite party in dealing with the case.

The opposite party has denied the allegations made in para 4 to 8 of the complaint and submitted that opposite party made investigation with regard to withdrawals and furnishing of registered mobile number etc., and submitted a report requesting the complainant to file a criminal complaint before the jurisdictional police for thorough investigation and find out the real culprit.But, the complainant had failed to do so for the reasons best known to him.Hence, opposite party prays to dismiss the complaint filed by the complainant with exemplary cost in the interest of justice and equity.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as P.W.1 and got produced documents as document Nos.1 to 23.  On the other hand, the opposite party has also filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief and the same was taken as R.W.1 and got produced documents as Annexure 1 to 17.
5. Heard the arguments of both sides and perused the material placed with the record.
6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as here under:-  

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

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

      Point No.1 :- In the negative.

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

:: R E A S O N S ::

8.       Point No.1:- To prove the truth of the case of the complainant, the complainant has been examined as P.W.1 and got produced the documents as document Nos.1 to 23.  The complainant has reiterated the averments of the complaint in his affidavit.  Document No.1 is the E-mail communication dated 25.06.2016.  Document No.2 is the E-mail communication by the opposite party dated 26.06.2016.  Document No.3 is the E-mail communication with respect to the complainant has received the consumer dispute form dated 26.06.2016.  Document Nos.4 and 5 are the E-mail sent by complainant to OP dated 27.06.2016. Document No.6 is the E-mail reply from the opposite party dated 27.06.2017.  Document Nos.7 and 9 are the E-mail sent by opposite party to complainant mail address dated 27.06.2017 and 28.06.2016.  Document No.8 is the E-mail reply of the complainant to opposite party dated 28.06.2016. Document No.10 is the E-mail about progress of the problem raised in credit card.  Document No.11 is the E-mail sent by the complainant to OP dated 29.06.2016. Document Nos.12 to 14 are the E-mail sent by opposite party dated 29.06.2016, 14.07.2016 and 17.07.2016.  Document No.15 is the credit card statement dated 18.04.2016, 18.05.2016 and 18.06.2016.  Document No.16 is the E-mail by complainant to opposite party dated 17.07.2016.  Document No.17 is the undated E-mail.  Document No.18 is another E-mail by complainant dated 22.07.2016.  Document No.19 is the credit card statement dated 18.07.2016.  Document No.20 is the reliance communication bills in two set.  Document No.21 is the legal notice and rejoinder dated 26.08.2016 and 08.02.2016.  Document No.22 is the postal acknowledgements.  Document No.23 is the copy of the complaint to the Commissioner of Police dated 24.09.2016. After the affidavit of the complainant, the opposite party has also filed affidavit by way of examination in chief and got produced some documents  as Annexure 1 to 17. The opposite party has reiterated the averments of its version in its affidavit.  Annexure -1 is the credit card application form.  Annexure – 2 is the copy of the Blue Dart Customer Service.  Annexure – 3 is the call observations.  Annexure – 4 is the chart.  Annexure – 5 shipment delivered to the complainant.  Annexure – 6 and 7 are the reliance communications bill.  Annexure -8 is the copy of receivers taking courier.  Annexure -9 is the copy of the merchant investigation.  Annexure -10 is the copy of the envelop.  Annexure -11 is the green pin generation log.  Annexure -12 is the ATM transaction details.  Annexure -13 is the detail transaction.  Annexure – 14 is the debit card No.7311 using proof dated 24.06.2016.  Annexure – 15 is the driving license.  Annexure 16 and 17 are the Joy Alukkas bills.  After the affidavit of both parties, both parties have vehemently argued the matter at length, but the counsel for the complainant has strenuously argued the matter.  After perusing the pleadings and documents produced by both parties, it is noticed that the complainant is the account holder and credit card holder of the opposite party bank.  In support of his case, the complainant has produced the documents as stated supra.  The complainant has produced document No.23 along with other documents which states that a complaint before Commissioner of Police, Mysuru dated 26.09.2016 which is filed after the lapse of three months from the date of misuse of his credit card stating that he used the mobile No.9342580595 which is in the name of Gurushanthappa and he further stated that on 11.06.2016 he went to Nelluru of Andrapradesh and his mobile number was not worked in Andrapradesh and the friends of the complainant has informed that his mobile has been misused by somebody else and hence, the said Gurushanthappa and Naveen have blocked the SIM of the complainant and even though SIM was reactive on 21.06.2016 and some messages came to the mobile number of the complainant that on different dates more transactions were done by using credit card dated 25.06.2016.  As per the complainant, he came from Andrapradesh on 27.07.2016 and message was came from Axis Bank on 25.06.2016, doing transaction for Rs.3,26,489/- by using credit card.  It is noticed from the pleadings and documents produced by the complainant that he went to his native place of Andrapradesh on 11.06.2016, a known person of the complainant made use his credit card by taking duplicate SIM.  In the legal notice issued by the complainant to opposite party dated 26.08.2016, some how the complainant admitted some of the transactions, but later, he denied the said transactions as it is the typographical error in his legal notice dated 08.02.2017.  In the legal notice dated 26.08.2016, the complainant claims in the sum up of the notice that “therefore, the first of you is requested to settle the issue and also by crediting the aforesaid sum of Rs.3,26,489/- to our clients forthwith”, but in the prayer column of the complaint is different.  It is the contention of the opposite party on its version that he directed the complainant to file a criminal complaint before the jurisdictional police for thorough investigation and to find out the real culprit.  As per the opposite party, opposite party is always ready to co-operate the police investigation to find out the real culprit.  But, the complainant has not filed any criminal complaint before the jurisdictional police even after he return from his native place of Andrapradesh on 27.07.2016 and only filed complaint to the Commissioner of Police, Mysuru on 26.09.2016 and has not followed up the complaint given to the Commissioner.  He also issued legal notice to opposite party and Ombudsman only on 26.08.2016 after lapse of one month from his return from Andrapradesh.  It is an other though. Hence, by looking into the conduct of the complainant, there arose a suspicion on the complainant.  By using a credit card of a person without his knowledge and done the transactions by using PIN and mobile number is a serious offence.  But, looking into the conduct of the complainant, it is noticed that it may came to the knowledge of the complainant that somebody best known to the complainant may misused the mobile number and credit card when he went to his native place of Andrapradesh.  Hence, he has not filed any criminal case before the jurisdictional police to find out real culprit.  Mere filing of this complaint before this Commission, is not sufficient to hold that there is alleged gross negligence on the part of opposite party, viewed from the averments carved out in the pleadings and after perusing the documents, we are of the opinion that the case of the complainant is devoid of merits and it is sans merit.  Hence, we answer the point No.1 in the negative.

9. Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

1. The complaint filed by complainant is hereby dismissed.
2. Both parties shall bear their own costs.
3. Furnish the copy of order to both parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 26^th September, 2022)