Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/22/2024

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI CREDIT CARDS - Opp.Party(s)

AJAY SINGH PARMAR

02 Aug 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/22/2024
Date of Institution	:	02/01/2024
Date of Decision	:	02/08/2024

 

Rajesh Kumar Verma son of Sh. Gopi Chand residence of House No.1053, Sector 28-B, Chandigarh (SAMP Himachal Bhawan-East Sector 26, Chandigarh)

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. S.B.I. Credit Card, through its Principal Officer, 10^th Floor, DLF Infinity Tower C, Block-2, Building 3, Gurugram, Haryana-122002.
2. S.B.I. Credit Card, through its Incharge, SBI Bank SCO No.2915-2916, 3^rd Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ajay Singh Parmar, Advocate for complainant
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for OPs (defence of OPs struck off).

 

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by Rajesh Kumar Verma, complainant against the aforesaid opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs).  The brief facts of the case are as under :-

1. It transpires from the allegations, as projected in the consumer complaint, that the complainant is having two credit cards issued by the OPs i.e. card ending with 6572 (hereinafter referred to as “1st Card”) and another credit card ending with 1909 (hereinafter referred to as “2^nd Card”).  On 13.2.2023 at 11.51 a.m., complainant had received a message (Annexure C-3) on his mobile that transaction of ₹1,07,230.20 from his 1^st card has been declined and the card has been blocked.  Immediately after three minutes from the said message, another message (Annexure C-4) was received at 11.54 a.m. that an amount of ₹1,07,230.20 debited/spent from his 1^st Card.  Prior to that, no message was received by the complainant.  Similarly, on the same day at 11.43 a.m. another message was received by the complainant with respect to 2^nd card to the effect that transaction of ₹1,12,336.40 has been declined and the card has been blocked, but, after three minutes i.e. at 11.46 a.m., another message was received by the complainant that an amount of ₹1,12,336.40 has been spent/debited from his 2^nd card.  Immediately after receiving the messages, complainant reported the matter to the OPs and lodged complaint with them and had also filled the transaction dispute forms dated 14.2.2023 (Annexure C-6 & C-7) for both the credit cards. Not only this, complainant had also lodged FIR (Annexure C-9) with the Police and also served a legal notice on the OPs, but, with no result. In this manner, aforesaid transactions are fraudulent regarding which complainant had already intimated the OPs and the same had been committed by the fraudster due to the negligent and deficient services of the OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2. Pursuant to the notice issued by this Commission, OPs put in appearance, but, as they failed to file reply within the stipulated period, therefore, their defence was struck off vide order dated 10.4.2024.

2. In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered/proved evidence by way of affidavit and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that the complainant was having two credit cards of the OPs i.e. the 1^st Card and 2^nd Card, as mentioned above, and with respect to the same two messages were received on 13.2.2023 i.e. pertaining to the 1^st card at 11.51 a.m. (Annexure C-3)  stating that the transaction of ₹1,07,230.20 has been declined and card blocked and another message pertaining to 2^nd card at 11.43 a.m. (Annexure CX) stating that transaction of ₹1,12,336.40 has been declined and card blocked and three minutes later, two further messages were received on the aforesaid cards i.e. at 11.54 a.m. stating that ₹1,07,230.20 has been spent/debited from 1^st Card  and at 11.46 a.m. stating that ₹1,12,336.40 has been spent/debited from 2^nd Card, as is also evident from Annexure C-4 and Annexure CY respectively, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the aforesaid transactions had taken place due to the negligence of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the consumer complaint, as is the case of the complainant.
   2. Perusal of Annexure C-3 clearly indicates that at the first instance on 13.2.2023 at 11.51 a.m. message was received by the complainant on his mobile with regard to 1^st Card stating that transaction of 1,07,230.20  has been declined and the card has been blocked and another message was received after three minutes of the first message i.e. at 11.54 a.m. that ₹1,07,230.20 have been spent, as is also evident from Annexure C-4, making it clear that the second transaction had taken place despite of the fact that the card of the complainant had already been blocked by the OPs at 11.51 a.m. itself.
   3. Perusal of Annexure CX further indicates that at 11.43 a.m. on 13.2.2023, message was received with respect to 2^nd card that transaction of ₹1,12,336.40 has been declined and the card has been blocked and immediately after three minutes another message was received to the effect that an amount of ₹1,12,336.40 has been spent from the card of the complainant, as is also evident from Annexure CY.
   4. Thus, when it has come on record that after blockage of two aforementioned credit cards at 11.51 a.m. and 11.43 a.m. on 13.2.2023, complainant had not made any request for unblocking of the said cards and despite of the blockage of the said cards, aforesaid transactions of ₹1,07,230.20 and ₹1,12,336.40 had taken place and further it has come on record that the complainant has not shared the payment credentials to any third person, it is safe to hold that the aforesaid unauthorized electronic banking transaction had taken place due to the negligence of the OPs even as per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines dated 6.7.2017, especially when the entire evidence led by the complainant is unrebutted by the OPs.
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OPs are directed as under :-

1. to refund the amounts of ₹1,07,230.20 & ₹1,12,336.40 to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% per annum (simple) from the respective dates of debit i.e. 13.2.2023 onwards.
2. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
3. to pay ₹7,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

5. This order be complied with by the OPs, jointly and severally,  within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amounts mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.
7. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

02/08/2024	Sd/- [Pawanjit Singh] President
	Sd/- [Surjeet Kaur] Member
	Sd/-
	[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member