Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

Disputing the decision of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata I (North) dated 22-05-2018, by which the complaint case bearing no. CC/8/2018 has been decided in favour of the Respondent, this Appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is moved by the Punjab National Bank.

Holding the Appellants squarely responsible for their inability to prevent misuse of his Credit Card bearing No. 4197891010186952 resulting in monetary loss to the tune of Rs. 20,068.68, the Respondent, Sri Samarendra Nath Sil initiated the instant complaint case.

The Respondent defended his case through an Advocate.  Both the Ld. Advocates were extensively heard at the time of hearing.  I have also gone through the papers on record minutely.

It is the case of the Respondent that on 10-03-2016, he got a phone call from the Bank.  The tele-caller wanted to know if he would like to enhance the credit limit of his card.  As the caller earned his confidence by properly narrating his secret personal details those were known only to the Bank, he did not smell any rat and in good faith, gave his consent to do the needful.  Subsequently, as per the advice of the said tele-caller, the Respondent shared some OTPs in order to enable the tele-caller complete due official procedure to facilitate enhancement of the credit limit of his card.  Later on, the Respondent found that on different dates, his credit card was unscrupulously used by anonymous miscreants to pay some unknown telephone bills. 

On the other hand, the counter case of the Appellants is that out of the total disputed sum, the credit card of the Respondent was used for payment of telephone bills worth Rs. 10,000/- on 09-03-2016.  Drawing my attention to the photocopy of OTP log, Ld. Advocate for the Appellants claimed that OTPs in respect of all the 3 disputed transactions were successfully sent to the registered mobile number of the Respondent, which has, however, been vehemently denied by the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent. 

On due consideration of the claims vis-à-vis counter claims of the parties it appears to me that in the face of overwhelming documentary proof being advanced on the part of the Appellants, I cannot give any credence to the version of the Respondent.  In case the Respondent indeed received OTPs in respect of 3 disputed transactions that took place on 09-03-2016 a day later, i.e., on 10-03-2016, he ought to prove such fact by means of irrefutable documentary evidence, which he did not do. Further, let us appreciate that, the OTPs generated through system remains valid for a very limited period of time after which the same become totally useless.  Therefore, it is hardly believable that, using the OTPs generated on 09-03-2016, someone performed unauthorized transactions on 10-03-2016.

Same is the case in respect of the disputed transaction took place on 14-03-2016.  According to the version of the Respondent, OTP generated in respect of the disputed transaction on 14-03-2016 was actually received by him on 15-03-2016.  The OTP log placed on record by the Appellants, however, belie such statement. According to the said record, no OTP was generated in respect of the Credit Card of the Respondent after 14-03-2016.  Here too, I have not come across any evidence to support the contention of the Respondent.

As regards the disputed transaction of 10-03-2016, the Respondent himself admitted that, he shared the OTP with the tele-caller.  This is totally unpardonable.  As a former Bank Manager, the Respondent must have been quite aware of the necessity of keeping sophisticated secret information like PIN, CVV, OTP under one’s sleeve.  By compromising the secrecy of his Credit Card, the Respondent himself dug his own grave which renders him totally ineligible for getting remedy as claimed for in the petition of complaint.

In the light of foregoing discussion, the Appeal is decided in favour of the Appellant Bank.  The impugned order is set aside.