Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/172/2024

CAPT KANWALJIT SINGH GHUMAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

23 Oct 2024

ORDER

    STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

    U.T., CHANDIGARH (Additional Bench)

 

Appeal No.	:	172  of 2024
Date of Institution	:	25.04.2024
Date of Decision	:	23.10.2024

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

          Capt. Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman, R/o H.No. 2015, Sector 79, Mohali.

 

                                                                              ... Appellant/Complainant

 

                                                 V e r s u s

 

1.       Manager HDFC Bank, Sector 38D, Chandigarh.

2.       Managing Director, Revanta Multi State CGHS Ltd Regd. Office 16/14. Major Bhola Ram Enclave, Pochanpur, Sec-23, Dwarka, New Delhi.

 

                                                                            …Respondents/Opposite Parties

                                           

BEFORE:       MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

                      MR. PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

Argued by:     Capt. Kanwaljit Singh Ghuman, appellant in person.

Sh. Bhawan Deep Jindal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Respondent No. 2 Ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2024.

 PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

This appeal is directed against the order dated 01.04.2024, renderedby the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh(hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. Lower Commission”), vide which, it dismissed the Consumer Complaint bearing No.540 of 2020.

2.           For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.
3.          Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant that one Mr. Shukla introducing himself as HDFC Bank representative in Real Estate matters visited the complainant in Dec., 2019 and informed that DDA Approved Special Scheme has been launched for Ex-serviceman and for that he was doing the demand survey. It was averred that on his request, the complainant agreed to participate in demand Survey. The said person, filled some online form in the office of the complainant and got his signatures and other documents, but no money transaction was made. It was also averred that on receipt of monthly credit card statement on 18.12.2020, the complainant noticed fraudulent transaction of Rs.40,000/- in favour of Easebuzz Pvt. Ltd., Pune dated 16.12.2019, which he had not done. He lodged the complaint with HDFC Bank, Sector 38, Chandigarh and he was informed by the OP Bank that the Bank would reverse the entry within one week and thereafter, received another email from the Bank on 27.12.2019 that the disputed amount has been suppressed. He was also informed to contact the merchant and submit the cancellation documents to them and as such, he sent mail to the merchant as per search from credit recipient with copy to HDFC Bank. The complainant also reported the matter/complaint to Cyber Crime Cell, Chandigarh Police. However, the OP Bank instead of making reverse entry showed the fraudulent transaction amount as due amount in his credit card account and imposed penalties. Hence, the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.
4.          In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, the OP No.1 HDFC Bank pleaded Mr. Shukla was never employee of the OP Bank nor the alleged survey was conducted by the Bank. It was averred that there was no involvement of any official of the OP Bank in such activity/survey. It was stated that as per the statement of account for the month of Dec., 2019, the alleged transaction for an amount of Rs. 40,000/- was executed on 16.12.2019, hence, it had been recorded in the Credit Card Bill for the month of Dec., 2019. It was mentioned that the complainant had shared his credentials i.e. Credit Card Number and the CVV number and it was upon entering personal credentials, the transaction had been authorised for an amount of Rs.40,000/- at Easebuzz Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that upon the entering the credit card details and CVV number, the complainant had received the secret OTP i.e. One Time Password for authenticating the transaction over the Easebuz Pvt. Ltd., for a sum of Rs.40,000/- over his registered email id and Phone Number, hence in such a manner the above said transaction was made in a secured manner. It was further submitted that the transaction had taken place on 16.12.2019 and the OP Bank intimated about the said transaction to the complainant over his registered mobile number by way of message immediately upon making the said transaction, and hence it was incorrect that the complainant was not aware about the said transaction and the complainant came to know about it later on from the statement of credit card. It was asserted that the said transaction had been done over the secured mode i.e. after entering into the OTP so issued upon the registered mobile number and address of the complainant. The complaint had been lodged after 6 days of the transaction and the complainant had failed to place on record the reason for the delay in making the complaint. It was stated that the complainant raised the dispute for the very first time only on 23.12.2019 about the alleged fraudulent transaction of 16.12.2019, whereas as per circular dated 06.07.2017, the complaint regarding fraudulent transaction was required be made to the bank within 3 days. It was denied that the OP Bank ever informed the complainant about the reversal of said amount. Denying all other allegation and pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.1 prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
5.          The OP No. 2, despite availing numerous opportunities, did not file its written version, due to which the defence of OP-2 was ordered to be struck off vide order dated 15.12.2021.
6. On appraisal of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced on the record, Ld. District Commission dismissed the Consumer Complaint of the complainant as noticed in the opening para of this order.
7.          During the present proceedings also, despite service OP No.2 failed to appear, hence it was proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 24.07.2024.
8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ complainant.
9. We have heard the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the evidence and record of the case with utmost care.
10. The core question that fall for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it.
11. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
12.           On a perusal of the records we find that pleadings of the parties reveals that the complainant/appellant himself stated in the complaint that he allowed one Mr. Shukla, who introduced himself as HDFC Bank official, to fill some online form in his office, who also got his signatures which clearly shows that the complainant/appellant failed to take due care while permitting someone to go through his personal details etc. without confirming his correct identity. Further, it is observed that the complainant/appellant also failed to place on record documentary evidence to establish that he reported the alleged fraudulent transaction to the bank immediately or within stipulated period of 3 days. Accordingly, the complaint was dismissed by the Learned District Commission and this Commission is of the view that the order passed by the Learned District Commission-II does not require any interference or modification, and hence the appeal stands dismissed.
13.  Keeping in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the impugned order passed by the Ld. District Commission, dismissing the above Consumer Complaint is based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law on the point, does not suffer from any illegality, and do not need interference of this Commission.  Resultantly, the appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.
14. All pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.
15. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, forthwith.
16. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion and the District Commission be sent back immediately.

 

Pronounced

23^th Oct. 2024

 

                                                                                                                                     Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/- [PREETINDER SINGH]

MEMBER

‘Tanvi’