ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in not refunding  Rs.6,000/- which was debited from her account on account of fraudulent transaction by using her credit card as there was no negligence on her part in withdrawal of the amount and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is a account holder with OP and also having a credit card issued by the bank. There was a fraudulent transaction in her credit card and a sum of Rs.1,040.70 was  transacted and withdrawn on 30.07.2021. A sum of Rs.7,284.90 on the same day and further a sum of Rs.104.07 on the same day was withdraw by three separate transaction said to have been carried by Paytm Noida UTT.  She checked the mobile app and found that the said transaction were not carried out by her. The same was intimated to the bank and requested the bank to block the card and the same was blocked.  After lodging the complaint, executive of the OP informed her that they will carry out internal investigation at their end to find out as to whether it is a fraudulent transaction.  he did not receive any update within three business days from the OP. She sent emails in that respect for which OP has informed that those are the transaction carried out on the OTP enabled transaction and has refused to re-credit the said amount. She has not at all received any OTP in respect of the said transaction nor any message regarding carrying out the said transaction.  She has filed a complaint before the Cyber crime police and that there is zero customer liability on her part and that the OP is liable to refund the entire amount which they did not do it and hence there is unfair trade practice and violation of circulars of the RBI and hence prayed the commission to allow the complaint and direct the OP to credit the said amount to her account. 

3.     Upon the service of notice, OP appeared before the forum and filed the version contending that the complainant is their customer having credit card facility. The said transactions are OTP enabled transaction and the complainant alone is responsible for the negligent approach adopted in approving the transaction. There is no deficiency on the part of OP and the use of the card could not have been carried out by any other person other than the complaint as without putting the confidential details of the card which was only with the complaint, the transaction could not have taken place. On their investigation it was found that it was not a fraudulent transaction whereas it is a valid transaction carried out by the complainant by using the One time password provided by the bank to the complainant. Now the complainant is shifting the burden and blame on the OP.  Though she states that she has filed the complaint before the Cyber crime police, no details, reference number, email ID, cyber crime official details have not been furnished. 

4.     The transaction were made through online transaction by using credit card. As soon as the information was given to them, they blocked the card.  The complainant has utilized the public money through credit card wherein she has agreed to the most important terms and conditions while issuing the credit card and now she has to repay the said amount as it is a public money. Complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs claimed and hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.

5.     In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2 :    IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

7.     On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it is not in dispute that the complainant provided with credit card facility and according to the complainant the same was misused by fraudulent means by transacting through her credit card on three occasions on 30.07.2021 to the extent of Rs.8,429.67. Immediately after she came to know the withdrawal or transaction she informed the same to the OP and requested for blocking the card which act was done promptly by the OP.

8.     Though it is informed that investigation would be done in respect of re-crediting the amount upon the complaint regarding fraudulent transaction and further the contention of OP that the transaction has been carried out by using the OTP, OP has not placed the investigation report and also the OTP details said to have been sent to the complainant at the time of carrying out the credit card transaction as per the circular which the RBI has issued. The burden is on the bank to prove that the transaction is genuine and carried out by the card holder. There is no attempt made by the OP either in providing investigation report to hold that the transaction has been carried out by the complainant herself and that they have provided the OTP for all the said three transactions.  Further it is to be noted here that the said transaction are carried out by Paytm Noida UTT.  In view of the zero liability on the customer as per the directions of the RBI when the transaction is reported to the bank within three working days, OP ought to have paid the amount and ought to have carried out the investigation and find out whether the transaction is a genuine one carried out by the card holder or it is a fraudulent one and in case it is a genuine one to recover the same from the card holder and in case the fraudulent transaction has taken place neither with the negligence of the customer nor with the negligence of the bank but due to the defect in the system. OP is bound to refund the said amount. Hence not refunding the said amount inspite of complaining within three days to the OP under zero liability of the customer amounts to deficiency in service. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and complainant is entitle for Rs.6,000/- which she has claimed in the complaint and OP is directed to set off the said sum along with accrued interest thereon in the bill as prayed.  OP is also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE AFFIRMATIVE and pass the following:

ORDER

1. The complaint is allowed with cost.
2. OP i.e. M/s RBL Bank Ltd., represented by its branch manager/authorized signatory is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant and also to pay Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses. The said Rs.6,000/- to be adjusted against her credit bill dues.
3. OP is further directed comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.
4.   Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the same will be weeded out/destroyed.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the acknowledgment issued by station house officer, CEN Crime Police Station.

Ex P2: Copy of the letter issued by the complainant.

Ex. P3: Copy of the transaction details.

Ex P4: Copy of the SMS details.

Ex P5: Copy of the report.

Ex P6: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex P7: Fraud transaction details.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1: Syed Yaseen Taj Rana, Asst. Legal Manager and authrorized representative of OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the Power of attorney.

Ex R2: Copy of the credit card application with terms and conditions.

Ex R3: Copy of the transaction

Ex R4: Copy of the Account summary

Ex R5: Copy of the disputed request.

MEMBER         MEMBER       PRESIDENT

RAK*