Order No.  28  dt.  23/04/2018

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was holder of credit card and the card altogether made online transactions of Rs.1685.40, Rs.2471.92 and Rs.6178.68 through the credit card on 1^st June,2013. The complaint thereafter made website searching in respect of the said Rozgar.com and realize that he has been defrauded by the said online transactions with Rozgar.com. The complainant thereafter contacted with o.p. bank who informed the complainant that no claim has been registered for the said online transactions and as per the instruction of the complainant the complainant registered the instruction to stop payment of the said three online transactions. The complainant was informed by the o.p. bank that no claim has been registered by three online transactions and further informed that the said amount shall not be debited with the amount of Rs.1685.40, Rs.2471.92 and Rs.6178.68 made with the website Rozgar.com, it is to be registered the said complain, the complainant received intimation from the bank that the amount was debited from the complainant and credited to the account of the o.p. Rozgar.com. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to demand he said amount of three transactions from the complainant and also paid for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-

            O.p. bank  contested the case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant availed two credit cards from the o.p. bank nos. 4564071020590007 in the name of Sumita Chatterjee and other one being no. 4564071020590106 in the name of Prasun Kumar Chatterjee. As per the complainant’s plea is that they made three online transactions with website Rozgar.com., the said transactions were valid by the Customer Internet Personal Identification  Number which is known only to the credit card holder i.e. complainants. The said transactions took place through payment gateway of HDFC bank with whom the o.p. no.-3 has the tie-up. The o.p. no.-3 known as merchant as banking parlance had entered into a contact with HDFC bank for the purpose of accepting payment by way of cards in a particular scheme. Upon the successful authorization correctness of the information provided with regard to the card, the approval for the same is sent through the same channel after getting the said information from the HDFC bank, the amount was credited in the account by the o.p. bank. From the transactions it appears that the complainant used the credit card and the amount was shown as credit in the accounts of the complainants, the said amount was credited  in the account of the HDFC bank. Since there was no latches on the part of the bank thereby the o.p. bank cannot he held responsible for the amount paid by the complainant to the op. no.-3 . On the basis of the said fact the o.p.s bank prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submission of the respective parties whether the following points are to be decided:-

1. Whether the complainants had credit card issued by the  o.p. bank?
2. Whether during the validity of the said credit card complaints obtaind the credit and asked for payment of the amount to Rozgar.com?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainants will be entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant was holder of credit card and the card altogether made online transactions of Rs.1685.40, Rs.2471.92 and Rs.6178.68 through the credit card on 1^st June,2013. The complaint thereafter made website searching in respect of the said Rozgar.com and realize that he has been defrauded by the said online transactions with Rozgar.com. The complainant thereafter contacted with o.p. bank who informed the complainant that no claim has been registered for the said online transactions and as per the instruction of the complainant, the complainant registered the instruction to stop payment of the said three online transactions. The complainant was informed by the o.p. bank that no claim has been registered by three online transactions and further informed that the said amount shall not be debited with the amount of Rs.1685.40, Rs.2471.92 and Rs.6178.68 made with the website Rozgar.com, it is to be registered the said complain, the complainant received intimation from the bank that the amount was debited from the complainant and credited to the account of the o.p. Rozgar.com. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. to demand he said amount of three transactions from the complainant and also paid for compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-

            Ld. Lawyer for the o.p.s argued that the the complainant availed two credit cards from the o.p. bank nos. 4564071020590007 in the name of Sumita Chatterjee and other one being no. 4564071020590106 in the name of Prasun Kumar Chatterjee. As per the complainant’s plea is that they made three online transactions with website Rozgar.com., the said transactions were valid by the Customer Internet Personal Identification  Number which is known only to the credit card holder i.e. complainants. The said transactions took place through payment gateway of HDFC bank with whom the o.p. no.-3 has the tie-up. The o.p. no.-3 known as merchant as banking parlance had entered into a contact with HDFC bank for the purpose of accepting payment by way of cards in a particular scheme. Upon the successful authorization correctness of the information provided with regard to the card, the approval for the same is sent through the same channel after getting the said information from the HDFC bank, the amount was credited in the account by the o.p. bank. From the transactions it appears that the complainant used the credit card and the amount was shown as credit in the accounts of the complainants, the said amount was credited  in the account of the HDFC bank. Since there was no latches on the part of the bank thereby the o.p. bank cannot he held responsible for the amount paid by the complainant to the op. no.-3 . On the basis of the said fact the o.p.s bank prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainants held the credit card issued by the o.p. bank. The complaint has also admitted that they wanted to have the credit card facility and through which they wanted to pay the amount to Rozgar.com in respect of three transactions amounting to Rs.1685.40, Rs.2471.92 and Rs.6178.68 respectively. The complainant has stated that after coming to know of the fraudulent transactions informed the CITI bank and CITI bank closed the operation of the said credit card and they are also informed that the amount was not being shown in the credit of the credit card holders i.e. the complainants. In order to corroborate the said fact the complainant could not file any document to that effect. It appears from the materials on record that the o.p. bank already transferred the amount to HDFC bank with whom the o.p. no.-3 had the tie-up and the amounts were credited in the account of o.p. no.-3. The o.p. no.-3 has not contested the case since allegation made against the bank could not be established by the o.p. bank, therefore, we hold that the o.p. bank cannot held responsible for the payment of the amount to HDFC bank. The complainant since made allegation against the Rozgar.com but the Rozgar.com has been expunged from this case. therefore, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not get any relief as prayed for.

            Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, it is ordered,

            that the case no. 654 of 2013 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.