By Sri. MOHANDASAN.K, PRESIDENT

The complaint in short is as follows: -

1.    The complainant has got an account with the first opposite party. On 24/09/2018 at about 12 hours the first opposite party called the complainant to the branch office and told him that his account is being duly maintained and the transactions are appreciated by the bank, the complainant is entitled to avail a credit card and assured that the complainant can avail benefit up to Rs.50,000/- without any interest for a period of 50 days and the complainant is liable only to pay a small interest in case exceeding 50 days. The complainant submitted that he is an uneducated person and thereby expressed his reluctance to avail the credit card.  But the opposite party instigated the complainant stating that the credit card will be useful for the complainant in an emergent situation like hospital cases and the facility is normally available for one person among thousands and for the said purpose high education is not necessary and the benefit can be availed for any member of his family.   Impressed by the persuasion of the first opposite party, the complainant availed the credit card. 

2.      The complainant never utilised the credit card for 3 months but it appeared started to receive letters and withdrawal of amount from the account of the complainant after a period of three months.  The letters received by the complainant were in English language and so he approached the manager of the first opposite party and then the manager told the complainant that he received letters due to non-availing insurance protection of SBI Card and informed that the insurance cost is 2000/- rupees.  Accordingly, on 06/03/2019 as per instruction of the Bank manager he approached one of the employees of the first opposite party and remitted Rs. 2500/- towards the insurance. He awaited till evening on that day for getting cancelled his SBI card.  Thereafter also the process of debiting money from the account and receipt of letters continued.  The complainant alleges the insurance   amount was paid not at the request of complainant, but according to the advice of the first opposite party.

3.   The complainant submit that he approached the Bank manager with the grievance but he responded towards the complainant in arrogant manner. He advised the complainant to meet one Paveesh who is an employee of the bank and the manager wrote his name and phone number on reverse side of bank pass book.    The complainant approached Mr. Paveesh and he told the complainant that, it is not possible to cancel the SBI card, but the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 5000/- to cancel the credit card.   It is also stated that the amount already remitted Rs. 2500/- was not credited to the account of complainant.  But it has to be remitted towards another account and he provided the number to the complainant.   Thereafter the complainant approached the Bank manager and then the Manager said to the complainant that the amount remitted was right but if he remits to another account, he will lose the money.   Due to the bitter experience the complainant stopped all the transactions and he was not interested to approach the opposite party again for the said purpose.

4.   Meanwhile on 12/09/2020 the complainant received a phone call from 6399735162 revealing the entire address particulars of the complainant and introduced that he is making call from the bank and enquired whether the complainant is required to cancel the SBI card.  The conversation was in Hindi language and the complainant is submitted that the person who was present on 06/03/2019 while the transaction was took place before the first opposite party was aware of the fact that the complainant is known Hindi language. He enquired why the complainant wanted to cancel the credit card and it is not a better card etc.  The complainant responded that he is losing money from the bank account and that is the reason for cancelling the credit card.  Then he was informed that he will receive four-digit number and that is to be   given to the said person. On 01/12/2020 the complainant received a call from 8714991916 and enquired whether the complainant remitted the amount in the bank account.  At that time on enquiry, it was found that some amount has been withdrawn from his account and the bank manager assured that he is prepared to enquire about the loss of money from his account.   Thereafter the complainant approached the police station, lawyer, bank and ombudsman on several times.   Meanwhile the complainant continued receipt of phone calls from credit card demanding to remit interest.   

5.    The complainant submitted that the credit card of the complainant has been misused by somebody without his consent and knowledge.   The complainant was called assuring that the credit card will be cancelled. He alleges the bank officials alone knows the details of the complainant and the request for cancellation of credit card.  There is no chance to know the request of complainant to cancel the credit card by a person who is availing from Bengaluru.  Hence the complainant alleges there is collusion between the bank and the credit card agency. 

6.     The complainant approached the Bank manager to redress his grievance and at that time he advised the complainant to approach the police.  Thereafter also the agent of the credit card regularly called the complainant demanding remittance of interest.  At last, the Bank manager instructed the complainant to remit 41,000/- rupees on 31/03/2021 and accordingly the complainant remitted the amount and the first opposite party issued a receipt for the same. Moreover   the first opposite party assured that there won’t be any issue for the complainant and the entire balance interest due will be written off.   Also assured that he will be given clearance paper within 20 days thereafter.   But the complainant did not receive clearance paper even though he approached several times the first opposite party. The complainant submits that even thereafter the complainant is in receipt of phone calls without any break. The complainant further submitted that even after the remittance of said amount of Rs. 41,000/-, no document is given to the complainant as assured at the time of remittance of Rs. 41,000/-.  The complainant submitted that he suffered a lot of inconvenience and hardship. He alleges that he lost more than 50,000/- rupees and sufferings for the last three years, because of availing a credit card from the opposite party. Hence the complainant prays for compensation of Rs. 2, 00,000/- from the opposite parties. 

7.     On admission of the complaint notice was issued to the opposite parties and on receipt of notice the opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.

8.   The opposite parties denied the entire averments and allegations in the complaint.

9.     The first opposite party contented that the State Bank of India is body corporate constituted as per State Bank of India Act 1955 and they do not issue any credit cards and hence the credit card referred to in the complaint is not one issued by the first opposite party. The first opposite party denied the averments in the complaint that on 24/09/2018, the opposite party called the complainant to the bank and the opposite party issued a credit card and further promised that by using the SBI Credit card he can avail an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for 50 days without any interest. The credit card in the complaint is one issued by SBI Cards and payment services limited which is a separate registered company constituted as per companies Act and having its registered office at Gurugram, Haryana and registered at ROC Delhi.  State Bank of India and SBI cards and payment services limited are separate legal entities and SBI of India cannot be held liable for deficiency in service, if any, on the part of SBI cards and payment services limited.  It is further contended that SBI cards and payment services limited is a necessary party in the proceedings since they issued the credit card to the complainant.

10.   The first opposite party denied the allegations that the complainant is an uneducated man and he was compelled by the bank staff for availing the credit card facility. The credit card issued to the complainant is by SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited and so if the complainant is having any grievances pertaining to the use /operations etc. of his SBI Credit card and for the cancellation of the credit card etc., the complainant has to approach SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited which is a different company.  If the complainant is having any complaint with regard to the deficiency in service by SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited (SBI card), the complainant has to make the complaint against SBI Cards payment Services limited and not against the first opposite party.   A complaint against first opposite party which is a separate legal entity is not maintainable and so they are unnecessary party in these proceedings.     

11.   The first opposite party submitted that they are not competent to state anything regarding the contention of the complainant that he has not used the credit card up to 3 months of availing the credit card and started receiving letter and thereafter amounts were debited from his bank account.  All the facts are within the direct knowledge of the SBI Card and Payment Services Ltd and they are competent to  offer explanation on that aspect. The opposite party admitted that the account of the complainant reveals certain debits from the account towards payment of SBI credit card dues.  The said debits are not  debited manually, but they are automatic debits. It is submitted that while applying for credit cards, the persons applying for the card usually submit auto debit/ECS mandates towards the payment of the credit card till by debiting his bank account and the automatic /ECS debit occurs in their bank account based on such mandates.  The opposite party denied the averments that the complainant had approached the branch Manager, SBI and on advice of the branch manager Rs. 2500/- was paid on 06/03/2019 is in correct and the allegations are without merits.

12.    The opposite party denied the allegations that the branch manager of the bank had behaved badly with the complainant.    It is further denied the allegation that the branch manager SBI had given a mobile number of an important staff of State Bank of India by name Paveesh etc. for availing service.The allegation that the complainant received a phone call and had a talk with the said person are not matters with in the knowledge of the opposite party.  The opposite parties submitted that as per the complaint, the complainant had provided OTP number to some third party thereby facilitated some fraudulent activities relating to credit card.    So the submission of the opposite party is that if a customer loses money on account of revealing of secret credentials relating to his account or card, the customer alone is responsible for the same and he cannot make any claim against the bank or another service provider as the case may be.  A customer providing PIN number or OTP number or other secret credentials to another person’s, ignorant the warnings in this regard   being issued by RBI /Banks /other service providers and as a results   losing money can only be considered as being careless and the customer only has to bear any loss if any caused. 

13.  The opposite party denied the contentions that the credit card was used without permission or consent of the complainant.  The factual details relating to the use of the credit card as matters which can be explained by SBI cards and Payments Service Limited.  The opposite party denied the allegations that the bank has colluded with credit card agency   and committed fraud.

14.  The opposite party admitted the contention that complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 41,000/- has been remitted with the respondent on 31/03/2021 towards payment to SBI credit card number 4377487814282758, which is the card issued to the complainant by SBI Cards and Payments Limited.   But the payment was not done as per instruction of Branch manager of SBI and that the branch manager had informed the complainant that there will be no issues to him thereafter and that he was assured that the interest payable to the bank shall be waived.   It is also denied   the averment that the Branch manager had informed the complainant that clearance papers will be given to him by the bank within 20 days. Since the credit card is not issued by the first opposite party and so no amount is payable by complainant to the opposite party bank.   There was no occasion for any of the bank officials to make such a representation to the complainant. Actually, the remittance has been done by the complainant representing that he has settled   his SBI card dues with the card issuing company and is remitting Rs. 41,000/- towards the settled amount.  The first opposite party cannot issue any clearance letter for the dues payable to SBI Cards and Payments and Service Limited which is a different company.

15.  The opposite party submitted that the complainant though approached the Police and ombudsman he has not produced any papers relating to such step taken by him.  The opposite party contended that the complainant has not produced the statement of account issued to him by SBI cards and Payments Services Limited.   The production of credit card account statement would establish that the card is issued by the said company and not by the SBI and also reveal the transaction effected by the complainant using his credit card.  Hence the complainant approached this Commission suppressing the   true facts.

16.  Hence the prayer of the first opposite party is that the first opposite party is un necessary party to the proceedings and so the proceedings against the bank has to be dismissed with cost to the first opposite party.  As per decision in Revision Petition No. 3750/2010, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission on 15/06/2020 clearly stated that State Bank of India being a separate entity cannot be held liable for the deficiency of service alleged by its credit card holders on the part of the SBI Cards and Payments Service Limited.

17.    The second and third opposite parties also filed version in tune with the first opposite party.  According to them the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in the eye of law and so liable to be dismissed.  The complainant approached this Commission with distorted and in correct version of the facts and thereby have attempted to misguide and mislead the Commission.  The opposite parties submitted that   the transactions happened are secured 3D transactions and the said issue does not fall within the purview of Consumer Protection Act due to the facts mentioned so as to maintained in this complaint before the Commission.  The opposite parties denied the averment that the incident took place on 24/09/2018.   According to them the SBI credit Card bearing No 4377487814282758 was availed by the complainant on 11/08/2018 (Card account opened).  The same was allowed at the request of complainant by submitting application along with the KYC documents.  The version of the opposite parties is that while they had issued the credit card to the complainant, had inter alia agreed to averred by the terms and conditions given in the welcome booklet which describes about the card charges/various features.

18.       The opposite party specifically denied that allegations of the complainant that after three months the complainant started to receive letters and subsequently on 06/03/2019.  The complainant met the opposite party regarding the same is denied in toto.  The credit card was availed by the complainant at his own discretion along with the annual fee at his choice and further it is also a fact that he has got availed auto debit /SSP, authorisation, authorising the opposite party to auto debit the due amounts on failure to pay the said amounts with in the stipulated due dates. The complainant has made payments lesser than the amount due and sometimes no payment at all.   The same can be noticed from the monthly statement sent to the complainant registered communication address given by the complainant at the time of availing of the aforementioned credit card.  The opposite parties denied the averments in the complaint that he met the branch manager and the branch manager responded arrogantly. It is admitted that complainant is in receipt of monthly statements, but never raised any complaint or dispute on statements as per the clause mentioned in every monthly statement that content of the statement is deemed to be correct if no error is reported within 20 days of the receipt of the said documents. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant has never approached the opposite parties for card cancellation as per due process.  According to opposite party the due process for cancellation of credit card is as follows: “SBICPSL may also restrict, terminate or suspend the use of the card holder account at any time without prior notice, if SBICPSL reasonably believe it necessary for business or security reason and / or at the request of any law enforcement agency, and/or any Government authority and or under the laws and regulations which apply to SBICPSL & its customer.  SBICPSL can suspend the facility on the Credit Card, if the Card holder defaults on the payment due or exceeds the credit limit extended.   The card must not be used after the Agreement ends or while use of card account is suspended”. 

19.       The opposite party denied the averments regarding the incident took place on 12/09/2020. The submission of the opposite party is that the complainant never approached the opposite parties  on the said issue and further as admitted by the complainant, the said incidents are discussed with some unknown persons.  The complainant herein has requested for card closure on 08/04/2021 however the card is already closed due to non-payment on 02/02/2021. But the complainant has to pay the total outstanding to get the card closed, till then the same remains inactive for usage but liable towards the due amount.    

20.     The submission of the opposite party is that   a complaint regarding the credit card usage by some unknown person does not fall within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act as per deficiency in services as per the Consumer Protection Act Section 2(11) of the relevant Act. Hence the only remedy available for the complainant is to approach the low enforcement authorities on the said dispute and not before this Commission. The mere card closure means card to be inactive for usage but liability towards the outstanding amounts rest with complainant. It is submitted that in the MITC (Most Important Terms and conditions) booklet issued to the complainant at the time of availing of the aforementioned card. As per card holder agreement,  “Every card holder is issued a personal identification number or a password (PIN) to enable use of the card for accessing his/her card account on the ATM and internet and also for availing any privilege, benefit or service that may be offered by SBICPSL on the card.  The PIN will be communicated to the card holder entirely at his /her risk, who shall not disclose the PIN to any person and shall take all possible care to avoid its discovery by any person.’’ The complainant herein never raised complaint with the opposite party but approached this Commission after the lapse of 3 years and the complaint is barred by limitation.  The opposite parties specifically denied   the averments made by complainant or payment of Rs. 41,000/- on the credit card account towards settlement of the card account.   The said payment is made in card account towards the due amount of Rs. 84,579.52/- as per statement dated 02/04/2021 that the opposite party will initially issue a settlement letter informing the payment structure or the settlement made and accordingly payment will be made. A mere written statement on the receipt of the acknowledgement, payslip is not a valid settlement letter and same cannot be stated /admitted as a settlement letter also. Moreover, the payment slip is not pertaining to the opposite parties and so the same stands void abinitio. Hence the prayer is to dismiss the complaint with cost to the opposite parties.

21.   The complainant and opposite parties No.1 and 2 filed affidavits and documents.  The documents on the side of complainant marked as Ext. A1 to A7. Ext. A1 is copy of payment receipt of Rs. 41,000/- towards SBI Kooriyad branch with endorsement of the branch manager dated 31/03/2021.  Ext. A2 is photocopy of bank pass book of the complainant maintained with State Bank of India, Kooriyad branch.  Ext. A3 is copy of CD to reveal the conversation between the first opposite party branch manager and with the daughter of the complainant. Ext.A4 is copy of letter issued from the office of the banking ombudsman dated 10/03/2021. Ext. A5 is copy of complaint filed by complainant before SHO, Vengara.  Ext. A6 is copy of   receipt issued from Vengara Police station to the complainant dated 08/12/2020. Ext. A7 is copy of CD to reveal the conversation between the first opposite party branch manager and with the daughter of the complainant. The document of the first opposite party marked as Ext. B1 which is the copy of order in revision petition No. 3750 of 2010 of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission dated 15/06/2020.

22.   Heard complainant and opposite parties. Perused affidavit and documents. The following points arise for considerations: -

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
3. Relief and cost?

23.      Point No.1: -

         The first opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable since the State Bank of India and SBI Cards and payments services limited are two different entities and so they are not responsible for the defective service from the side of SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Limited.  The opposite party further submitted that as per decision of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in the matter of revision petition No. 3750/ 2010, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission have no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint in the matter.

24.     We have gone through the submission of the opposite parties.   It can be seen that SBI Credit Card is a joint venture of the State Bank of India and GE capital.  Hence the submission of the opposite parties that they are separate entities and no any sort of relation in between is not acceptable and credit card is a product of the joint venture of the opposite parties. 

25.      The issue in the matter of revision petition No.3750/2010 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not similar with this complaint and so the said decision is not applicable to this complaint.  In the above cited decision the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and State Consumer Disputes Redresssal Commission had directed the State bank of India to publish in the newspapers, its position, inter alia, in respect of the use of its logo by SBI cards and payments services private limited. It is very important to note that the issue was brought before the District Forum by the director of consumer affairs and fair business practices, Government of West Bengal, against State Bank of India and SBI cards and payments services private limited seeking compensation for deficiency of service on their part for rendering services to several credit card holders.   The District Commission and thereafter the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission found the matter in favour of the complainant.   But in the revision petition, the National Commission found that Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission have no power to pass an order against State Bank of India directing to publish in the newspapers, its position inter alia, in respect of the use of its logo by SBI cards and payments services private limited.  The said decision did not state that a complaint against the SBI or a complaint against SBI Credit Card is not maintainable before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. So, the finding of NCDRC is with respect to the direction given to the State Bank of India to publish or to take steps to identify the separate entity of opposite parties.  In this complaint the complainant did not seek any direction against the first opposite party to publish to or to take any steps to identify the separate entity of the first and second opposite parties.

26.      In this complaint the complainant is the customer of the first opposite party who is a banking institution. The complainant approached the second opposite party at the instance of first opposite party for a credit card service and for the second opposite party recovered appropriate charges as per terms of credit card service.  Hence it can be seen that the opposite parties are service providers as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and any claim on account of deficiency in service the complainant is entitled to approach the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the Consumer Commission has got authority to entertain the complaint.   Hence, we find that the complainant is a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act 2019 and this complaint is maintainable against opposite parties before this Commission.  The Consumer Protection Act 2019 Section 100 specifically stated that “the provision of this act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law or the time being in force’’. 

27.Point No.2: -

        The complainant is the account holder of the first opposite party which is evident from Ext. A2 the pass book issued by the first opposite party.  The grievance of the complaint is that the complainant was called to the first opposite party bank and informed that he is competent to avail a credit card with a facility of 50,000 Rupees with duration of 50 days.  Even though the complainant was reluctant to avail credit card the first opposite party persuaded and convinced the complainant to avail the credit card.  But within 3 months, though he had not used the credit card started to debit amount from his account by the second opposite party and so he approached directly the first opposite party and submitted his grievance before the first opposite party.    The manager said to him that he is receiving letters due to non-availing insurance coverage and as per his direction the complainant remitted Rs. 2500/- on 06/03/2019 and he waited up to evening to get his credit card cancelled.  But he could learn that his credit card was not cancelled. Thereafter, again complainant contacted the manager of the first opposite party and then he instructed the complainant to contact one Mr. Paveesh, who is responsible employee of the credit card and moreover the manager wrote his name and telephone number on the reverse side of his bank pass book.  Ext. A2 reveals the endorsement “SBI card: Paveesh 8089600464”. The complainant approached the said person and he again directed the complainant to remit further amount of Rs.  5000/- and accordingly the complainant again approached the branch manager.   But   there was no result for his efforts.  The complainant also approached the Police as directed by the first opposite party and filed a complaint.  Ext.A5 is the copy of complaint and Ext. A6 is the copy of acknowledgement for receipt of petition issued by   Sub Inspector of Police, Vengara dated 08/12/2020.  The complainant submitted that he approached the first opposite party, the bank through whom the complainant approached for the credit card but there was no proper service or interference from the side of first opposite party to redress the grievance of the complainant.  It is also relevant to mention that the complainant approached Banking Ombudsman which is evident from Ext. A4 dated 10/03/2021.  As per Ext.A4, the ombudsman did not admit complaint stating that the complainant is liable to file a written representation to the bank and in the absence of the same the complaint was rejected.  Hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission as last resort. The complainant submitted that he approached the Bank, then the representative of Credit card Mr. Paveesh, the Police and the Ombudsman, but no proper remedy was availed to him.

28.        In this complaint, Ext. A1 the pay in slip with endorsement issued by the State Bank of India, the first opposite party which negate the entire contentions of the first opposite party. Ext. A1 disclose the payment of Rs.  41,000/- into the account No. 4377487814282758 dated 31/03/2021.  The endorsement therein is as follows: - “SBI Card dues settled for amount Rs. 41,000/-. Settlement letter will be issued by SBI card within 20 days”, which is signed by the manager of the first opposite party.  There is no explanation from the side of first opposite party regarding the issuance of such a receipt stating the settlement of Credit Card dues.  At the same time, the first opposite party submitted that the complainant remitted the said amount of Rs. 41,000 /- towards payment to SBI Credit Card No. 4377487814282758.  The opposite party denied the allegations of the complainant that the said payment has been made as instructed by Branch Manager of SBI and also denied that they assured there will be no issues to the complainant after the payment of above said amount. The opposite party denied the allegation that the Branch manager had informed the complainant the clearance papers will be given to the complainant by the bank within 20 days.  The submission of the opposite party is that the credit card is not issued by the first opposite party and so no amount is a liable to pay by complainant to the bank and there were no occasions or need for any of the bank officials to make such representations to the complainant.  According to the first opposite party the remittance has been done by the complainant representing that he has settled his SBI card dues with the card issuing company and remitted Rs. 41,000/- towards the settled amount.  But the complainant in addition to Ext. A1, produced documents Ext.A3 and A7 which are copies of CD recorded conversation between the first opposite party and the daughter of the complainant.  The complainant produced written version of the conversation also which is as follows: -.

“Bank Manager: Hello ബാങ്കിൽ നിന്നാണ്. SBI   യിൽ നിന്നാണ്.

  Arathi      : ആ സാർ പറയൂ.

  Bank Manger    : 41000 തന്നെ settled ചെയ്യാം എന്നാൽ അടുത്തത്  അതി¨Ê   receipt

                                full  settlement  കിട്ടാന്‍ 15 ദിവസം പിടിക്കും, ഇന്നിപ്പോ ഇങ്ങനെ 

                                      അടിച്ചതി¨Ê receipt തരാം.

 ആരതി                  : 41000 ¨Ê   യോ ?.

Bank Manager    : അതെ.

Arathi                   : അപ്പൊ അത് അടച്ചാല്‍ close ആവും എന്നത് ഉറപ്പായോ?

Bank Manger      : അതെ!

Arathi                     : അപ്പൊ അതി¨Ê     പ്രൂഫ്‌?

Bank Manager   : നിങ്ങള്‍ അതി¨Ê closure- ¨Ê Amount അടച്ചതി¨Ê receipt seal വെച്ച്

                                തരും.

Arathi                   :  ഇനി 41,000  അടച്ചാലും 83000 fraud  എടുത്തല്ലോ, അതെ പിന്നെ എന്ത്

                                       ചെയ്യും?

Bank Manger      : അതെ write off ചെയ്യും. ബാക്കിയുള്ള തുക. എന്നിട്ട് ആ തുക ബാക്കിയുള്ള  

                                തുക എഴുതി തള്ളിയിട്ട് ഒരു Letter നിങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് കിട്ടും ഒരു 10,15 ദിവസത്തി

                                നുള്ളില്‍

Arathi                    :  OK.അപ്പൊ 41000 മാത്രം അടച്ചാല്‍ മതി. അത് കഴിഞ്ഞാല്‍ clear

             ആവില്ലേ?

Bank Manager     : close ആവും

Arathi                    : OK ഞാന്‍ പറയാം.

Bank Manager     : ശരി.

  Hence it can be seen that the submission of the first opposite party is not correct but against facts and truth. The above referred Exts substantiate the case of complainant that the first opposite party assured the issues will be settled on payment of Rs. 41,000/- in favour of the credit card account of the complainant. It can be seen that the complaint herein availed credit card through the service of first opposite party. The second and third opposite parties have no case that they are providing service to the customers from their exclusive service providing centre.   There is no tangible service centre to the second and third opposite parties except in the given address, but they are providing online service.   The complainant produced   photocopy of bank account pass book and also a CD of conversation on behalf of the credit card service centre. Ext.A2 is copy of the pass book of the complainant which is maintained with first opposite party. The complainant approached with grievance of unauthorised debiting of amount from his account without his knowledge and consent and then the first opposite party endorsed there in the reverse side of pass book a phone number with credit card service person namely Mr. Paveesh.    But the first opposite party and opposite parties No.2 and 3 are curiously silent on the said persons and the relation between SBI cards. The endorsement in the pass book is made by the manager of the first opposite party and it is as follows: -“SBI Card: Paveesh, 8089600464”.   The complainant approached him and disclosed all his grievance regarding the credit card service.    The complainant also submitted that he had approached the first opposite party on 06/03/2019 with his grievance and then the response from the first opposite party was that the intermittent communications from the side of credit card was due to non-availing of insurance coverage for the credit card.  According to the complainant as per the instruction of the first opposite party he remitted 2500/- rupees towards the insurance protection on the same day and he waited up to evening to get cancelled his credit card.  But there was no result for his attempt.   If that be so, it can be seen that the complainant approached the first opposite party with the complaint of debiting money from his account in due time but thereafter also the process continued. The document Ext.A3 and A7 reveals the conversation on behalf of the credit cards with the complainant.   It shows that there are oral instructions to the complainant on behalf of credit card regarding the transaction and liability of the complainant towards the credit card.  Hence though there are instructions from the Reserve Bank of India and the opposite parties regarding the non-disclosure of credentials it is very vital to note that a laymen like complainant is naturally have chance to attend to the communications like revealed in Ext. A3 and A7 without scrutinising the veracity of the phone call. In this complaint,   the opposite parties contended that the complainant disclosed his credentials to a third party and so the complainant is not entitled for any relief.   

29.     But the facts reveals that the act of the opposite parties caused all the miserable to the complainant.   The complainant submitted that he was called from the first opposite party and persuaded to avail the credit card of the second and third opposite parties against the reluctance of the complainant.  Thereafter without utilising the service of the credit card up to 3 months the opposite parties debited amounts from the account of the complainant.  The complainant duly approached the first opposite party through whom he availed the credit card demanding the closure of credit card.  But the first opposite party failed to provide service to the consumer/customer to cancel the credit card.  The first opposite party is being the intermediary to avail the service of credit card to the complainant is also responsible to provide service to cancel the credit card then and their when the customer approach for the same. In this complaint   though the complainant approached the opposite party duly but there was no proper service from the   opposite parties. 

30.    It is   a fact that the transaction is   result of today’s technology driven world which require abundant care and caution during the online transactions.   The credit card fraud incidents are very common in the matter of banking transactions. So, the Reserve Bank of India is highly concerned of protection of interest of bank customers and their account.  The RBI guidelines mandate that the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transactions be credited to the card holder’s account within 10 working days from the date of reporting without waiting for settlement of insurance claim.  As per the guideline of Reserve Bank of India, the customer will have zero liability of a fraudulent transactions if there is contributory fraud or negligence on the part of the bank irrespective of whether or not the transactions is reported by the customer.  It is also relevant that the customer is also liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorised transactions if cases were the loss is due to negligence by a customer.  A customer is barred from sharing the payment credentials with third party and the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorised transaction to the bank.    Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorised transaction shall be gone by the bank.  At the same time the Reserve Bank of India has said that burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions shall line on the bank.   

31.   In this complaint, Ext.A1 to A7 definitely establish the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties failed to establish negligence on the part of the complainant.   Attending a message received in his mobile phone and also attending to a telephonic call cannot be treated as lack of care on the part of complainant. Particularly, in this complaint the complainant approached the first opposite party duly and disclosed the entire facts to the opposite party and thereby requested in person to cancel his credit card.  But the first opposite party failed to provide the service duly to the complainant, but collecting the information by the opposite parties happened to share   with external parties and thereby resulted misguiding the complainant.  Hence the complainant cannot be held liable for disclosure of any credentials of the transactions.  The oral communication on behalf of the second and third opposite parties also amounts misleading fact led to cause loss to the complainant. So, the Commission find that there is deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. It is also relevant to mention that the complainant was not received proper information regarding the terms and conditions of the credit card either from the first opposite party or from the other opposite parties.  It is relevant to mention that credit card transaction involved various technical issues and so the customer/card holder is also responsible to keep credentials of the transactions.   Hence conveyance of risk factors/responsibilities to maintain credentials are to be properly conveyed to the complainant/credit card holders.  In this complaint the first opposite party who instigated the complainant did not reveal the terms and conditions of credit card service and thereafter the second and third opposite parties claimed that the terms and conditions as a booklet was unilaterally served to the complainant along with credit card. In short, it can be seen that the complainant was not properly informed the terms and conditions of the credit card service. Hence we find that there is deficiency in service on the side of  the opposite parties, but the  first opposite party  is being the  State Bank of India with whom the complainant  has got account  is primarily  liable to reimburse the complainant and also liable to pay  compensation  on account of  deficiency in service. 

32.Point No.3: -

       The complainant filed the complaint seeking refund of Rs. 50,000/- and also compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- from the opposite party.  The complainant produced Ext. A2, the copy of pass book of the account number 57039216049 maintained with the first opposite party to show the transactions. The complainant filed a consolidated statement of withdrawal of money from the account towards credit card account.   As per the consolidated statement it can be seen that the credit card deducted an amount of Rs. 11329/- from the account of the complainant.  In addition to that the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 41,000/- towards credit card as per Ext. A1.  Hence a total amount of Rs. 52,329/- has been transferred into the account of credit card.  The consolidated statement reveals the transaction from 24/09/2018 up to 28/12/2020.   It can be seen that the complainant approached the first opposite party on 06/03/2019 duly to inform the transactions from the credit card account without the knowledge and consent of the complainant. The complainant submitted that  he requested to  cancel the  credit card account  and he waited  up to evening  on the  said date, but the account was  not closed  and no  service was provided by the first opposite party to cancel the  credit card of the complainant  considering his request and grievance. Hence, as per the direction of the Reserve Bank of India, a customer will have Zero liability in respect of a fraudulent transaction if there is contributory fraud or negligence on the part of the bank, irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer.   So as per the transaction details the credit card deducted an amount of Rs. 1887/- up to 06/03/2019 from the account of complainant i.e, the date on which the complainant reported his complaint and approached for closing the credit card account. If that be so the credit card has received an amount of Rs. 50,442 /-from the complainant. Hence, we find that the claim of complainant for refund of Rs. 50,000/- from the opposite party is genuine one.   At the same time Ext. A3 and A7 reveals further that some amount has been credited through the credit card without the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant submitted in the affidavit that he lost Rs. 22,000/-, 23735/-, 1500/-,3000/- and Rs. 5000/- respectively from his account towards no be kick, broker technology, Paytm. India .com which are unfamiliar to the complainant.   But the complainant failed to produce proper document to establish the same and so the commission is not inclined to consider the said claim of the complainant.  The complainant further prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of financial loss, mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused due to the deficient service on the side of opposite parties.  It can be seen that the complainant was compelled to approach the first opposite party on various occasions and thereafter on direction from the first opposite party, the complainant approached the police and registered a complaint as per Ext. A5 and A6 and also approached the Ombudsman as per Ext. A4.  But all the effort of the complainant was futile. It can be seen that the complainant like an uneducated person happened to have an account with the first opposite party and due to the defective service opted to avail a credit card of the second and third opposite parties which is a joint product of the first opposite party itself subjected for inconvenience, hardship, harassment and financial loss for which the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation.   The Commission find that the first opposite party caused inconvenience and hardship and financial loss to the complainant as per the documents in this complaint.  Hence the first opposite party is liable to pay compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant and also liable to refund. Rs.50,000/- towards the amount debited from the account of the complainant on account of credit card.  The complainant is also entitled cost of Rs. 10,000/-.

33.   In the light of the above facts and circumstances, complaint stands allowed as follows: -

1. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant on account of amount credited from the account of the complainant towards the credit card account.
2. The first opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 1,00,000/-(Rupees One lakh only) on account of deficiency in service and thereby caused inconvenience and hardship to the complainant.
3. The first opposite party is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant as cost of the proceedings.

      The first opposite party shall comply this order within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the complainant is entitled 12% interest per annum for the above entire amount from the date of order to till payment.

Dated this 27^th day of February, 2024.

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of the complainant                      : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the complainant                    : Ext.A1 to A7

Ext. A1: Copy of payment receipt of Rs. 41,000/- towards SBI Kooriyad branch 

                with endorsement of the branch manager dated 31/03/2021. 

Ext. A2: Photocopy of bank pass book of the complainant maintained with State

                Bank of India, Kooriyad branch. 

Ext. A3: Copy of CD to reveal the conversation between the first opposite party

                branch manager and with the daughter of the complainant.

Ext.A4: Copy of letter issued from the office of the banking ombudsman dated

               0/03/2021.

Ext. A5: Copy of complaint filed by complainant before SHO, Vengara. 

Ext. A6: Copy of   receipt issued from Vengara Police station to the complainant

                dated 08/12/2020.

Ext. A7: Copy of CD to reveal the conversation between the first opposite party

               branch manager and with the daughter of the complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party                          : Nil

Documents marked on the side of the opposite party                        : Ext. B1

Ext. B1: Copy of order in revision petition No. 3750 of 2010 of National Consumer

                Disputes Redressal Commission dated 15/06/2020.