Case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant signed relevant form of a credit card of OP Axis Bank to a representative of a said bank at Central Kolkata Branch. Thereafter the complainant received the first bill for February, 2020 related to the credit card which was required to be paid within 30^th March, 2020 at an amount of Rs. 3,000/- as ‘entry fee’ plus Rs. 540/- as GST. Immediately after receiving such bill the complainant requested the related bank to cancel the credit card. Thereafter another bill was generated at an amount of Rs. 4,349/- with due date marked as ‘immediate’ contained the unpaid amount of various other charges arising out of it. It is further stated that since no action was taken on the earlier representation of the complainant, she sent an e-mail on 25^th March, 2020 to the customer care center of Axis Bank and further requested them to cancel the credit card immediately. Thereafter the complainant sent another e-mail on 26^th March, 2020 with the same request to the branch office of the Axis Bank. Thereafter, on 3^rd July, 2020 the bank responded. It is further stated on 07.07.2020 that the complainant received a phone call on her husband’s mobile phone from the representative of the Axis Bank and in order to cancel the said credit card the complainant shared the OTP came into her mobile with the representative of the Axis Bank and in this process from her bank account an amount of Rs. 79,285/- was debited. After deduction of such amount the complainant informed to the concerned bank about the transaction and subsequently to the police authority. It is further stated that after such incident the bank authority did not do anything to recover the amount debited from her account though the complainant knew that the directive of Reserve Bank of India  that sharing an OTP in case of fraudulent transaction does not call for revewal. It is stated by the complainant that thereafter neither the bank did anything towards the fraudulent act and nor they refunded the debited amount. Finding no alternative the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the OPs to refund the amount of Rs. 94,058.62/- and to cancel the credit card along with compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

The sole OP filed W/V, denying and disputing all the material allegations leveled against him, stating that having received the copy of complaint petition they observed that complainant has been deceived by any other person or group of persons tending to fraudulent action and they further stated that fraud or fraudulent action is not triable or cannot be tried under the provision of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The OP has further stated that the annual charges of credit cards vary from one card type to another which depends upon the customers availing which types of card and it is entirely for the customer’s choice for opting the same and the facility extended after the complainant fully aware of the terms and conditions had opted for it. The OP has further stated that the customers are informed and warned regularly in form of messages and other medium of advertisements not to share OTP, CVV, password or pin related to their banking account to anyone including the bank officials. The OP further stated that according to card member agreement as provided by Axis Bank the customers are warn not to disclose any ATM code to any person. In case of any fraudulent act through sharing OTP the bank shall be under no liability in respect of any loss or damage arising. It is further stated by the OP that in her petition of compliant the complainant admitted that she shared OTP where the OP was in no way collect or involve in the said issue of false transaction and in the matter of cancellation of credit card, they stated that until and unless the complainant pay the outstanding dues of the card charges this part cannot be mitigated and as such the OP has no deficiency in providing service. Accordingly, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the case.

Points for determination

1. Whether this case falls under the purview of Consumer Protection Act, 2019?
2. Whether the OPs are deficient in providing service to the complainant?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Point no. 1

Admittedly the complainant shared the OTP.

As per Consumer Protection Act, 2019 a complaint shall be entertained where there is defects in goods and deficiency in service on part of the OPs but in this instant case consumer disputes arises out of a fraudulent act through sharing OTP by the complainant which is not under the purview of Consumer Protection Act 2019 and as such cannot be decided by this Commission.

As this commission has no power to entertain this complaint case there is no need to discuss other points.

As such, the complaint case does not succeed.

Hence, it is,

              Ordered

that the complaint case being no. 207 of 2020 is hereby dismissed without cost.

The complainant is at liberty to sue at the proper court of law.

Let a plain copy be given to the parties free of cost as per CPR.

Dictated and Corrected by

[HON'BLE MRS. Sagarika Sarkar]
MEMBER