Date of Filing:13/06/2016

   Date of Order:02/03/2017

ORDER

BY SRI.SYED ANSER KHALEEM, PRESIDENT

1.     This is the complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant in person against the Opposite Party (herein referred in short as O.P) alleging the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and praying for direction to the O.P to waive of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harrassement suffered by the complainant.  

2.     The brief facts of the complainant are that, on 17.02.2016 at 12.40 p.m., a fraudulent transaction of Rs.5,000/- took place from credit card of the complainant at Vadafone bill desk and complainant on 03.03.2016 approached RBL bank through Toll Free No.18001219050.  The complainant states that, on 08.03.2016 though OP bank sent transaction dispute letter No.116/545382322586355 to fill all the details and the same was sent back to manager card service, RBL bank limited Gurgon (Haryana) on 15.03.2016. Further states that on 17.03.2016 lodged police complaint and on 03.03.2016 credit card was blocked. Further complainant states that, he has not made any transction with the credit card services and the OP bank not made any investigation about the phone calls made by staff members of the O.P. bank in respect of Mobile Nos.72920-99858 and 96435- 56402 and alleges that, the bank is protecting their staff members who is hand in glove with Shruthi Agarval who made endless calls and usuing both Vodafone numbers and making transaction of Vodafone bill desk on 17.02.2016  for Rs.5,000/- The bank failed to investigate the matter and recredit the amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant account. The complainant states that her wife who has no basic knowledge about the computer but the OP is demanding money from the complainant.  Hence this complaint.

3.     Upon issuance of notice to O.P., but O.P appeared through his counsel and filed its version. In the version it is conteded that, the relationship between the complainant and OP is debtor and creditor and hence complainant is a not consumer.  The OP contended that when the complainant brought to the knowledge of the bank about the alleged online fraudulent transction took place on his credit card dated 17.02.2016 for a sum of Rs.5,000/- and advised him to lodge police complaint in order to probe the transaction. The O.p bank also submitted that after investigation it was found that the alleged transaction took place on credit card of the complainant and thus the payment liability remained with the complainant himself. The transaction in question was online transaction and the complainant had registered himself to the online facility available on the website of the O.P. bank. The complainant himself admits to have received One Time Password on his mobile and using such one time password had completed the transaction. Hence contended that complainant has levelled false and baseless allegations against the bank    and he is bound by the implied card membership agreement having accepted that in the event of any dispute regarding the validity of any purchase made by him whatsoever, the card holder is responsible to pay such expenses incurred on card completely to the bank and bank will not be liable for the same.  Further contended that, if complainant failed to pay the alleged dues such unpaid dues attract interest and other charges accumulated to his card account accordingly.  As per the statement of account dated 14.9.2016 the complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.10,156.78 towards his card account. On other grounds O.P bank prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      In order to substantiate the case of the parties and both parties filed their affidavit evidence and also heard the arguments.

5.      On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following points will arise for our consideration are:-

                (A)   Whether the complainant has proved

                     deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?

(B)  Whether the complainant is entitled to

     the relief prayed for in the complaint?

(C)   What order?

6.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT (A) & (B):      In the Affirmative.

POINT (C):       As per the final order

for the following:

REASONS

POINT No.(A) & (B):-

7.     On perusing the pleading of the parties it is not in dispute that the complainant is having credit card facility with the O.P bank.  Further it is not in dispute that Rs.5,000/- was withdrawn towards online transaction from the credit card belonging to the complainant. The allegation of the complainant is that since 11 years he had not utilized any online transaction or made any other transactions.  If such being the case, how Rs.5,000/- fraudulent transaction took place. 

8.     Per-contra, O.P contended that, the complainant received the one time password on his mobile and he is having CVV Number etc., and once OTP number is approved the transaction is completed and as per the implied card membership agreement having accepted that in the  event of any dispute regarding the validity of any purchase made by him whatsoever, the card holder is responsible to pay such expenses incurred on card completely to the bank and the bank will not be liable for the same. Further contended that as per the statement of account dated 14.9.2016 complainant is due to pay a sum of Rs.10,156/- towards his card account as the complainant failed to pay the alleged dues i.e. regarding Rs.5,000/- from the credit card transactions. 

9.     It is worth to note that the O.P himself admitted in his version that when the fraudulent transaction took place the complainant approached the O.P bank and the O.P bank advised the complainant to lodge police complaint.  On perusal of endorsement issued by the concerned police dated 17.3.2016 bearing NCR No. 240/2016 it clearly reveals that against the fraudulent transaction the complainant lodged the police complaint about the fraudulent transaction. The complainant being the senior citizen made several correspondences between the O.P bank to investigate the matter. The complainant seriously alleged in his complaint that, by using Vodafone two numbers i.e. 72920-99858 and 96435-56402 the O.P bank not made any investigation about the said phone calls and protecting its staff members and it is  hand in glove with one Shruthi Agarwal who made end less calls using the both above said phone numbers. It is pertinent to note that, the O.P did not whisper anything about the allegation made against their staff and no evidence is placed about their investigation about the phone calls and particularly the fraudulent transactions.  The bank being the public institution has to safeguard the money kept in deposit by its customers as well as the security of credit card transactions. In the absence of the material what measures the bank has taken to safeguard the interest of customers obviously the said circumstances is pointing towards negligent act of the O.P bank. Further O.P bank did not answer or provide any rebuttable evidence to show that the complainant has transacted many more times except this trasaction in particular. Hence, we inferred that on the basis of the available evidence on record there is a fraudulent transaction took place in respect of the credit card belonging to the complainant.  Further in the version itself the O.P contended that when the complainant failed to alleged dues i.e. Rs.5,000/- which attract interest and as per the statement of account the complainant is due to a sum of Rs.10,156.78 towards his card account and this contention of the O.p is very clear that they have once again made the complainant to suffer by demanding more amount without making any bona-fide attempts to investigate the matter and nor assisted the police to find out the culprit.  In these back drops of facts we are of the considered opinion to reach to conclusion that the complainant proved deficiency in service on the part of the O.P bank. Under the circumstances, we hereby direct the O.P to waive of the amount of Rs.5,000/- including the interest on the above said amount and claiming the amount of Rs.10,156.78 as stated in their version and it will meets the ends of justice.  It is worth to note that, complainant aged about 72 years and in this ripen age due to act of O.P bank complainant was made to approach this Forum by filing this Complaint and hence O.P is liable to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the proceedings and it will meets the ends of justice. Accordingly we answered these points in the affirmative.

POINT (C):

10.   On the basis of answering the Points (A) & (B) in the affirmative, we proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

  1. The complaint is allowed in part with cost.

2. The O.P i.e. RBL Bank Ltd., represented by its Authorized Signatory is hereby directed to waive of the amount of Rs.5,000/- including the interest on the above said amount and waive of the claiming the amount of Rs.10,156.78 from the complainant.

  3. Further O.P. is hereby directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards cost of the litigation expenses.

4.   The O.P is hereby directed to comply the order of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

 (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 2 Day of March 2017)

MEMBER                 MEMBER                PRESIDENT

*Rak