…Opposite parties……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
PRESENT: Complainant in person.
Sh. Rakesh Kumar alongwith J.S.Yaduvanshi, counsel for opposite parties Nos.1 & 2.
Opposite parties Nos.3 to 6 as proforma opposite party on dated 07.02.2022.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant was
an account holder having account No. 909010034978822 and also a credit card holder ending 2451 (MY JON) of opposie party bank, branch office, Sector-7A and was a resident of House NO. 2823, Sector-7A, Faridabad but just before 10/12 days of this incident, complainant shifted to House No. 2053, Sector 64C, Faridabad. On 1.12.2021 (the day of occurrence), at about 1.20 p.m. complainant received a call from some Rajiv Malhotra of (opposite party) Axis Bank Credit Card Department of mobile No. 7408239587 and he asked complainant to redeem her credit card points but during call within seconds, network of complainant’s mobile was collapsed and within seconds, it came back. As the caller was from Axis Bank, complainant, on suspicion, just blocked her Axis Bank credit card but just after blocking her credit card, complainant received a message of debit of Rs.37,000/- from her credit card on her registered mobile No.9466695376 Complainant try to contact the customer care service of opposite party bank but their both numbers 18604195555 and 18605005555 were not in service. Therefore complainant wrote a mail to customer care canter of opposite bank for which complainant’s service request No. was SAK0000081608 and case ID No. was 211202937742. Then the complainant went to concerned police station on the same day, but failed to lodge her complaint due to the question of jurisidciton. The complainant also try to contact on the paid number of opposite park customer care but in vain. On 2.12.2021, the complainant lodged a complaint with the concerned police station and also with the opposite party bank. The complainant also wrote mail to the nodal officers of the opposite party bank credit card but they did not help the complainant rather send parrot like mails to the complainant without going through the case. Thereafter, the complainant wrote a mail to the Principal Nodal Officer of the opposite party bank on 16.12.2021 and also sent reminder to PNO of opposite party bank on 20.01.2022 and again on 26.1.2022 on which PNO of opposite party bank revert the mail of complainant on 27.1.2022 and held her responsible for this transaction despite the fact that the complainant did not receive any message or link for this transaction on her registered mobile. Finding no way, on 3.1.2022 the complainant wrote a mail to the Banking Ombudsman but no rvert was received by the complainant from thee. The complainant sent all the required document son 21.01.2022 i.e. on the same day to the Banking Ombudsman. The Principal Nodal Officer of the opposite party bank did not reply the mails of the complainant till 26.1.2022 despite the fact that as per RBI guidelines, the Nodal Officer will revert the mail of the consumer within three working days till date despite the fact. From the automatic mail of the PNO, just after the mail, the complainant was received the reply form PNO that the within three working days, the Nodal Officer with would reply the mail of the complainant. The complainant also sent third reminder to the PNO on 27.01.2022 and equested for admitting her claim, rather than requested for declared the illegal transaction amount of Rs.37,000/- as disputed till the decision of the case. In this way the opposite party bank officials failed to discharge their official duty and caused harassment to complainant. Nodal Officers level 1 and 2 held the complainant responsible for this transaction without going through the facts and despite repeated requests of the complainant that she did not give any detail or OTP et. Of her card to anyone. Even the complainant did not receive any message or link for that transaction on her mobile phone but they sent parrot like mails to complainant and did not support the complainant in any way. Even the officials of the opposite party bank did not support the complainant. The complainant was requested to take the application of deactivate auto debit of complainant’s credit card but the officials of the opposite party bank refused to do so, then the complainant moved the application for deactivate the auto debit of her credit card in New Friends Colony bank branch of opposite party bank. The complainant also requested the opposite party bank officers to declare amount of Rs.37000/- as disputed till the final decision of the case(illegal transaction, but the opposite party bank did not help the complainant. Before this incident, complainant was harassed by the opposite party bank credit card department. In April 2021, a Privilege Master card was issued ot the ocmplainant without her consent and a sum of Rs.1750 (1500 joing fe+250 as GST) was debited from the account of the complainant. After making sevral requests, lastly the PNO (Principal Nodal Officer) of opposite party bank refunded the amount of Rs.1750/- of complainant in November 2021 after about 8 months despite the fact that the privilege card was blocked just after issuance. After blocking the privilege card by the complainant, the opposite party bank credit card issued two Aix Bank flip Card sin the name of the complainant (one after one) which were later on blocked by the complainant and then the disputed his JON card ending 2541 was issued in favour of the complainant by opposite party bank. The aforesaid act of opposite party amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite party to:
a) amount of Rs.37000/- be declared as disputed amount as this was a very big amount for the compainant.
b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
c) pay Rs. 5,000 /-as litigation expenses.
2. Opposite party put in appearance through counsel and filed written statement wherein Opposite party refuted claim of the complainant and submitted that on 01.12.2021 the complainant received a call from some Rajiv Malhotra of the Axis Bank Credit Card Department from his mobile No. 7408239587 was Credit Card Fraud number and same was displayed as Spam on true caller app. Further after receiving call from that number for the redemption of her credit card score, the complainant shared the OTP number with the so called Rajiv Malhotra and in the mean while Rs.37,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. After receiving the message the complainant blocked her credit card. It was further submitted that hundreds of times banks, credit card and insurance companies were warning their customer not to share the credit card details/personal informaiton and OTP with unknown persons as theses institution never asked any of their customers to share such information on phone calls. It was submitted that the disputed transaction was done under ‘secured electronic commerce enviornment’ and was validated by CVV and date of birth. The OTP was generated and as SMS was receive dby the card holder on her registered mobile number and she must have shared the said OTP with the unknown person namely Rajiv Malhotra. Furthur it was submitted that after deduction of Rs.37,000/- the complainant approached the opposite party bank and informe dthe abvoesaid version with the officials of the bank and she admitted her mistake for sharing the personal information and OTP, the complainant herself was at fault, therefore, the said amount of Rs.37,000/- could not be declared as disputed. It was submitted that the OTP issued to the cardholder would be known only to the cardholder and was for the personal sue of the cardholder. The same were nontransferable and strictly confidential. Opposite party denied rest of the allegations leveled in the complaint and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. The parties led evidence in support of their respective versions.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.
5. In this case the complaint was filed by the complainant against opposite party– Axis Bank and others with the prayer to: a) amount of Rs.37000/- be declared as disputed amount as this was a very big amount for the compainant. b) pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . c) pay Rs. 5,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A – affidavit of Harshan Kaur,, Ex.C1 to C4 – photocopies of credit card, Ex.C5 –Service request of customer care, Ex.C-6 – transaction alert @axis bank, Ex.C-7 – copy of police complaint, Ex.C-8 – complaint to bank, Ex.C-9 - Cardholder dispute form, Ex.C-10 Credit card statement of month of December 2021, Ex.C-11 – transaction report, Ex.C-12 – copy of pass book.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated and
opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party Ex.RW1/A – affidaivt of Rakesh Kumar Manager of Axis Bank Ltd., Ex.R-1 –SE details, Ex.R-2 – Statement.
6. During the course of arguments, the complainant herself stated that she has committed big mistake by sharing OTP number with one Rajiv Malhotra .On 01.12.2021 the complainant received a call from some Rajiv Malhotra of the Axis Bank Credit Card Department from his mobile No. 7408239587 was Credit Card Fraud number and same was displayed as Spam on true caller app. Further after receiving call from that number for the redemption of her credit card score, the complainant shared the OTP number with the so called Rajiv Malhotra and in the mean while Rs.37,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant. After receiving the message the complainant blocked her credit card. Hundreds of times banks, credit card and insurance companies were warning their customer not to share the credit card details/personal informaiton and OTP with unknown persons as theses institution never asked any of their customers to share such information on phone calls. The disputed transaction was done under ‘secured electronic commerce enviornment’ and was validated by CVV and date of birth. The OTP was generated and as SMS was received by the card holder on her registered mobile number and she must have shared the said OTP with the unknown person namely Rajiv Malhotra. After deduction of Rs.37,000/- the complainant approached the opposite party bank and informed the abovesaid version with the officials of the bank and she admitted her mistake for sharing the personal information and OTP, the complainant herself was at fault, therefore, the said amount of Rs.37,000/- could not be declared as disputed. During the course of arugments, counsel for the opposite party has also placed on record letter dated 02.08.2022 vide Annx. X to show the debit transction message is also delivered to the customer to her registered mobile number.
7. After going through the evidence led by the parties, the Commission is of the opinion that no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been proved. Resultanly, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 16.08.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
