Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/290/2015

J.R.Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Punjab National bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv.

02 Feb 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	290 of 2015
Date  of  Institution	:	02.06.2015
Date   of   Decision	:	02.02.2016

 

 

 

 

 

J.R.Sharma, R/o House No.2938, Sector 47-C, Chandigarh.

 

             …..Complainant

Versus

 

1]  Punjab National Bank, SCO No.56, Sector 26-D, Chandigarh.

 

2]  Punjab National Bank, Credit Card Processing Centre, A-37, Sector 60, NOIDA, through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

 

For complainant(s)      :     Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Advocate

 

For Opposite Party(s)   :     Ms.Anchal Thakur, Advocate

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant is having saving bank account with Opposite Party No.1 Bank and also having credit card No.0004197890000137116.  It is averred that the complainant was shocked to receive three consecutive messages from the bank for transaction of Rs.1,879/-, Rs.5680/- and Rs.25,400/- on 11.3.2015. Immediately, the complainant brought this matter to the notice of OPs and also sent an e-mail as well as gave request for blocking his card (Ann.C-1).  It is also averred that the complainant and his son communicated the Opposite Parties thereby explaining the position that these transaction have been done at Mumbai and even the card number is different (Ann.C-2 colly.).  The Opposite Parties provided the scanned copy of the transaction slips, which clearly shows that the name of the card holder is Pramod R. Joshi; the card number is ending with 7124; the signatures are also not of the complainant and even the vehicle number is also mentioned on the slip for which the amount was paid.  Then complainant received letter dated 24.4.2015 from Opposite Party No.2 vide which he was asked to mention the reason for continuation of dispute and he was asked to submit the merchant written response in his favour and it was also mentioned that in case the response is not received by 5.5.15, then the liability to pay shall be of the complainant (Ann.C-6). However, the complainant duly responded to the said letter vide reply dated 1.5.2015 mentioning that he has not done the said transactions as he was in Chandigarh; the car number on the slip is ending with 7124 digit whereas the car of the complainant ends with 7116 digit and further the name of the customer is printed as Pramod R Joshi, whereas the name of the complainant is Jeet Ram Sharma (Ann.C-7).  But inspite of all this, the Opposite Parties are asking the complainant to make the payment and inspite of lodging of complaint, they have not investigated the matter. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and admitted the complainant having saving account with the bank as well as issuance of Credit Card in favour of the complainant.  It is stated that the complainant is having one Add-on card in the name of Sh.Vishal Sharma being the Card No.4197890000137124, which fact has been concealed by the complainant and the said fraudulent transactions have taken place from the said add-on card. It is also stated the transactions in question were done on 12.3.2015 at Ravi Automobile Service in Mumbai, through the add-on Card No.4197890000137124 issued in the name of Sh.Vishal Sharma to the complainant.  It is pleaded that the OPs had already blocked the cards of the complainant on 12.3.2015.  It is also pleaded that detailed evidence and examination of witnesses is required in the present case in order to bring out the true facts on record.  It is submitted that the complainant kept on concealing the fact that he is having any add-on credit card issued by the OPs ending with Card No.7124 (Annexure R-1 and R-2). Further, the User Guide given along with the credit card clearly mentions that if the card holder does not adopt the proper procedure for resolving any dispute relating to the credit in the case of lost or misuse of the card or fraud, then the cardholder will be liable for the same (Ann.R-3). Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

         Rejoinder has also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that the OPs as made in their written reply.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

5]       It is evident from the contents of the complaint as well as documents placed on record by the complainant that as soon as he came to know about three unauthorized transactions performed on 11.3.2012, the Opposite Party Bank was advised to lock all the credit cards issued in the name of the complainant.  The complainant even filled-up Transaction Dispute Form mentioning the details of the transactions and the disputed amounts against which the advises were raised in his name. The complainant has even raised objections with regard to the authenticity of the card against which these transactions were done as these did not relate either to his card number or nor the same was in his name, but was issued in the name of one Pramod R Joshi.  Thus, claiming deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties, the complainant has sought the waiver of illegal demand of Rs.32,959/- along with compensation on account of deficiency in service and causing mental agony and harassment apart from legal expenses. 

 

6]       The Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the complainant have claimed that the complainant has deliberately not disclosed that the card under dispute was an Add-on Card which was issued in the name of Vishal Sharma and the alleged transaction has been done on this card wholly.  The OPs have further prayed that the Add-on Card was issued at the request of the complainant, which was made at the time of credit card application and that the complainant failed to take reasonable care with regard to the use of Add-on Card, thus resulting into the said disputed transaction and as the demand raised by the Opposite Parties from the complainant is only on the basis of his liabilities being the principle card holder and that all add-on cards transactions are debited from the account of the principle card holder, therefore, the demand of Rs.32,959/- was just & fair and the complainant alone was liable to pay the same. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service on their part, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        

7]       We have perused the credit card Application Form (Ann.R-2) submitted by the complainant with the Opposite Parties, wherein a request for an Add-on Card is found mentioned.  It is also mentioned that the said card be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, whose date of birth is mentioned as 26.12.1986, being Single, major Son of the Complainant and was a Student.  Therefore, from the contents of the relevant column NO.20, wherein the request for Add-on Card is mentioned, it was specifically requested that the Card be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma.  However, the details so mentioned by the Opposite Parties with regard to the disputed Add-on Card against which the unauthorized transactions were conducted, is found issued in the name of Pramod R Joshi.  This aspect has not been explained by the Opposite Parties as to how come a Card which was requested to be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, has been issued in the name of Pramod R Joshi. This information belongs only to the record of Opposite Parties, which they prefer not to disclose.  It is necessary to mention here that when the details of transaction are shared by a Merchant Establishment, with the Bank from where demand for debit entry is requested against the user of Credit Card, the details of merchandise and sale receipts are also shared with such Bank.  These sale receipts are annexed as Ann.C-3, C-4 & C-5.  It was against these transactions slips that the Opposite Parties made a debit entry in the account of the complainant without corroborating the name and number of such credit card from their own data base, wherein the card was supposed to be issued in the name of Vishal Sharma, existed.  It was on account of this oversight by the Opposite Parties that an unauthorized transaction was conducted in the first place on the basis of an add-on card, which was not issued in the name of Vishal Sharma son of the complainant and secondly, the transaction details did not match with the contents of data base of the Opposite Parties, but they preferred to advance such credit on the basis of the transaction slip which did not bear the name of Vishal Sharma. 

 

8]       Therefore, the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service, firstly, when they did not issue the Add-on Card in the name of Vishal Sharma, as requested by the complainant vide Ann.R-2 and subsequently on the second occasion while they failed to match the details of the transactions slips presented by the Merchant Establishment, which bore the name of Pramod R Joshi, who was not even remotely related to the complainant or his family member.     

 

9]      Thus, the act of the Opposite Parties in debiting an amount of Rs.32,959/- from the account of the complainant on the basis of transactions slips, which did not belongs to the complainant’s account or his Add-on Card account, amounts to deficiency in service on their part, and the mental agony and harassment that the complainant has gone through while struggling to convenience the Opposite Parties about the genuineness of his demand of wrongful transaction caused him extreme mental agony and harassment, for which he deserves to be adequately compensated.     

 

10]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed against the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

 [a] To waive off the demand of Rs.32,959/- and make necessary entry in the account of the complainant;

 

[b] To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service;

 

[c] To pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.5,000/-

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para [a] & [c] above.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

 

Announced

2^nd February, 2016                                                                

                                                                        Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                       

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.290 OF 2015

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 2nd day of February, 2016

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against the Opposite Parties.                     After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member