Rajasthan

StateCommission

FA/768/2014

Prasant Sangulu s/o Suraj Parkash Shangulu - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBICards Pvt. Ltd.through Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 Sep 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 768/2014

 

Prashant Shunglu s/o Suraj Prakash Shunglu r/o 114 Indira Colony,Bani Park, Jaipur.

 

Vs.

 

SBI Cards Pvt.Ltd. State Bank House, 11 Sansad Gali, New Delhi through Manager & ors.

 

Date of Order 30.9.2015

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

Mr.Liyakat Ali- Member

 

Complainant-appellant present in-person

Mr.Abhishek Jain counsel for the respondents

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

This appeal has been filed against the judgment of

2

 

learned DCF Jaipur 1^st dated 18.7.2014 by which the complaint was dismissed.

 

Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that the complainant was holding a credit card no. 5101-2869-2559-2802 issued by the SBI Cards Pvt. Ltd. This card is stated to have been stolen on 15.7.2011 while the complainant was traveling from Jaipur to Delhi. He came to know of the theft of his three credit cards and a camera in the night of 15.7.2011 and he lodged a police report and blocked his credit cards but a transaction of Rs. 30,000/- on his SBI Credit card had been conducted before the card was blocked. The complainant has disputed this amount and filed a consumer complaint which was dismissed.

 

We have heard the complainant present in-person and we find that there has been certain gaps in the story narrated by the complainant. He is said to have traveled on 15.7.2011 by Train No. 09721 starting at 6.00 a.m. from Jaipur. He reached Delhi Cantt. Railway station at 10.00 a.m. As per FIR Anx.2 lodged by him he had stated that in the night he found that a camera

 

 

3

 

and his three credit cards were stolen. This shows that he is not

sure as to when the theft took place. He reached Delhi at 10.00 a.m. and came to know about the theft only in the night of 15.7.2011 as stated by him. Though the FIR was lodged on the same night and he might have informed the banks about the loss of his credit cards but transaction on his card was done on 15.7.2011. Thus, before he informed the bank to deactivate his card on 15.7.2011 the transactions have already been conducted. Thus, the bank might have blocked the card in the night of 15.7.2011. The time of giving information to bank is not on record. However, a letter Anx.5 dated 21.7.2011 addressed by the Manager Customer Service to the complainant shows that loss of card was reported on 16.7.2011 but this is also not reliable as the last four digits of card is given as 6496 where as the last four digits of the lost card were 2802. The complainant as per the police report and the facts stated in his complaint has stated that his card had been used for transaction of Rs. 32,000/- before it was actually blocked. Thus, if he came to know of the loss of card on the night of 15.7.2011 and after that he informed the police and bank but before that the transaction had been carried out in the day time. As per the terms and conditions

 

 

4

 

the opposite parties are not responsible for the transaction carried on before the card is actually blocked.

 

During arguments the complainant has argued that as per the regulations, the bank was to with-hold the amount of disputed transaction for 48 hours. However, the complainant was not able to show any provisions or regulations regarding this whereas the learned counsel for the opposite parties has drawn our attention to rule 7.3 which states that the bank will not be responsible for any transaction incurred on the card prior to the time of reporting of the loss of the card.

 

In view of this we find that the learned DCF has arrived at a correct decision. However, we accept the prayer of the complainant with regard to providing him the necessary details which he had asked the bank through e-mail dated 25.7.2011 in which he had asked the bank of location of Life Style Creations, New Delhi where the card was used and bank account and details of the bank and machine number through which withdrawals were made. This information should have been provided to the complainant.

 

However, the appeal is dismissed with the direction that

5

 

 

the bank shall provide the above information to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.

 

 

(Liyakat Ali) (Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Member Member

 

 

nm