District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.277/2021
Date of Institution: 01.06.2021.
Date of Order: 14.11.2023.
Yunush Khan son of Shri Gulam Mohammad, R/o House NO. 89/01, Nichalla Mohalla, Near Madina Masjid, Village & Sub Tehsil Dhauj, District Faridabad, Haryana.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
M/s. Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd., Branch: Near 1-2 Chowk, NIT, Faridabad – 121001 through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer.
…Opposite party……
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.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Abdul Waheed, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Jitender Kumar Gumbar, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
The facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant
availed the credit card facility of the opposite party bearing No. 4166 4455 0104 1635. On 10.05.2021, the complainant received telephonic call from mobile NO. 9776770949 and introduced said caller to be Executive of Kotak Mahindra credit Card Branch and allured and told the complainant that due to proper and regular payments made by the complainant, the complainant decided to increase his credit value, but the complainant refused for the same by he had no faith on such caller, then the said caller disclosed the sixteen number of credit card and the complainant being layman believed upon him and then said caller demanded email ID of the complainant and the complainant narrated the same, then the complainant received message from Kotak Mahindra/opposite party regarding debit/deduction of Rs.34,999/- from the said credit card. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party on its customer care number and narrated the fact and on the advice of executive of opposite party, the complainant blocked the said credit card. The complainant personally visited the branch of the opposite party for his grievances, but the officials of the opposite party told the complainant firstly report the matter to the police and then to make complaint to the opposite party. Accordingly, the complainant reported the matter to the police of P.S.Cyber on 11.05.2021 vide acknowledge NO. 21305210078454 and submitted the said report to the opposite party alongwith application with a request to refund the said amount. The aforesaid act of opposite parties amounts to deficiency of service and hence the complaint. The complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to:
a) pay/disburse the above said amount of Rs34,999/- which had been illegally deducted from the account of above said credit card of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a.
b) Not to charge/impose any penalty on the said fraudulent transaction.
c) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment .
d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-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 the complainant had come before this Commission with unclean hands and had concealed true and correct facts to distort and misrepresent true and correct facts and circumstances because it was the complainant who either made a purchase through his credit card or the complainant shared the details of the credit card, CVV and OTP for the purpose of transaction. The said transaction was OTP/CVV based transaction hence, the OTP/CVV was only within the knowledge and possession of the complainant and the complainant had never alluded that the complainant was not having the knowledge of CVV/OTP information. Hence, the complainant was liable to reimburse the opposite party bank for said transaction. 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 parties–M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank with the prayer to: a) pay/disburse the above said amount of Rs34,999/- which had been illegally deducted from the account of above said credit card of the complainant alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. b) Not to charge/impose any penalty on the said fraudulent transaction. c) pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment . d) pay Rs. 11,000 /-as litigation expenses.
To establish his case the complainant has led in his evidence, Ex.CW1/A– affidavit of Yunush Khan, Ex.C-1 - copy of credit card, Ex.C-2 - message of recent purchase,. Ex.C-3 – complaint details,, Ex.C-4 – letter to Kotak Mahindera Bank,, Ex.C-5 – email dated 13.05.2021, Ex.C-6 - letter.
On the other hand counsel for the opposite party strongly agitated
and opposed. As per the evidence of the opposite party – affidavit of Mohanmmad Arif Authorized Representative having its branch office at Plot No. 7th floor, Sector-125, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, Ex.RW-1 – Authority letter,
6. The complainant had availed credit card facility from the opposite party bearing NO. 4166 4455 0104 1635. The impugned transaction was a OTP/CVV enabled transaction and could have been completed only upon submission of the vital/confidential detail i.e credit card number, expiry date, CVV and the One Time Password (OTP) and not otherwise. Keeping in view of the above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties concerned free of costs and file be consigned to record room.
Announced on: 14.11.2023 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
