Haryana

Ambala

CC/239/2022

Virendra Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Card - Opp.Party(s)

Shaurya Bhatia

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

                                                          Complaint case no.        :     239 of 2022

                                                          Date of Institution         :     20.06.2022

                                                          Date of decision   :               11.03.2024

Virendra Gupta aged about 37 years son of Shri Sant Raj Permanent r/o Barwa Khurd, Maharaj Ganj Uttar Pradesh-273164 presently residing at Behind Surya Jeweler, Near Indian Bank, Village Mohra, Tehsil and District Ambala (Aadhar Card no.2412 9885 1466).

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. SBI Card, First Floor, Plot No.57, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh-160002 through its Head/Chief/Incharge.
2. SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited, DLF Infinity Tower, Tower-C, 12^th Floor, Block-2, Building-3, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon-122002, through its Head/Chief/Incharge.

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.        

Present:       Shri Shaurya Bhatia, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

        Shri Manish Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OPs.   

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

 (i) To refund the amount of Rs.55,900/-, which was debited from    the SBI Credit Card of the complainant due to the negligence of the OPs alongwith uptodate interest @ 1.5% per month, till its   realization.  

                   (ii) Not to enlist the name of the complainant as a defaulter in the CIBIL list so that the complainant shall not deprived of                                getting  credit facility from other bank companies etc. on account of   negligence by the OPs.

                    (iii) To pay Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for the mental  agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

                    (iv)  To pay Rs.21,000/- as the cost of litigation.

                                                            OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.                         

2.   Brief facts of the case are that in the month April-2022 through telephonic conversation on mobile No.9992254159, the opponent No.2 induced the complainant, while offering a credit card with pre-approved offer having credit limit of Rs.61000/- per rest month, having key features and exclusive benefits, such as complimentary fraud liability cover of Rs.10000/- (fact is clear from document Annexure-C.1). The official of the opponent No.2 also demanded PAN card, Aadhar Card and also asked the complainant to update KYC through biometric process. While falling/coming under the inducement of the opponents, the complainant had applied for credit card with an annual charges of Rs.1758/- every year and the complainant completed all the formalities, including updation of biometric KYC.  After completion of formalities, the complainant received SBI Octane Credit Card after five days having card No.4155759654406822 issued in the name of the complainant valid up to 4/29 having CVV no.999 (fact is clear from copy of credit card Annexure-C.2).  After the delivery of the credit card the official of the opponent No.2 asked the complainant to download Credit Card Mobile Application from play store, which has duly been downloaded by the complainant on mobile phone make Micromax In E7446.  It is further submitted that after downloading the said app, the complainant had started the process to block all the domestic and international online transaction and after completion of the process, the opponents had issued an OTP No.794019 to manage/block the domestic and international transaction on the mobile No.9992254159 of the complainant in the form of email, fact is clear from copy of email Annexure-3. The blocking of domestic and international transactions were duly shown on the mobile of the complainant, copy of the same is Annexure.4.   It is further submitted that he(complainant) received a text message on his mobile No.9992254159 along with a link from Amex Platinum Card on 11.5.2022 for enhancing credit limit to Rs.350000/- per month (fact is clear from Annexure-5). The said link was clicked by the complainant on 14.5.2022 at about 2.30PM, after blocking all the domestic and international transactions/E commerce transactions of the SBI credit card for enhancing the credit limit and entered his SBI card details on the given link, immediately the complainant received a plenty text message from opponents on his mobile No.9992254159 regarding the OTP for the purchase at Reliance Digita of Rs.55900/- having OTP No.809602, fact is clear from document Anneuxre-6.  When the complainant received message for OTP, he smell something fishy and had neither disclosed the OTP nor entered the same, rather, the complainant immediately cancelled the said transaction, but the complainant shocked to receive an email with regard to debit of Rs.55900/- at Reliance Digita from the SBI credit card of complainant, even without entering of OTP on the link and in spite of blockage online transactions of SBI card, fact is clear from document Annexure-7.   On the same i.e. on 14.5.2022 at about 2.40PM immediately, the complainant made a call at customer care No.18601801290 and 39020202 of opponents to block his credit card from mobile No.9992254159, which was duly blocked by the customer care and thereafter, the opponents issued the opponents issued a new credit card, delivered on 21.5.2022 to the complainant having last four digits 4290, fact is clear from Annexure-8.  The complainant had also sent an email to the opponents on 14.5.2022 at the email address
3.           Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written version while taking some preliminary objections, such as the complainant has not come to this Hon’ble Commission with clean hand and had concealed the material facts; the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint; the allegations are regarding fraud, which requires leading evidence and complex issued of facts are involved, hence, the same is liable to be dismissed on this score; this Hon’ble Commission having no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint as per section 2 ( C)  of the CP Act. On merits the opponent submitted that the transaction was valid transaction, but the complainant wants to create pressure upon the opponent to accept his illegal demands. Further, it has been observed that the transaction was performed in a secured manner as the same has been validated by the card CVV and dynamic OTP over the internet/IVR.  Further submitted that the dynamic OTP was successfully delivered at the registered mobile number of the complainant. It is pertinent to mention here that any card not present (online)IVR) transaction cannot be done without confidential details of the card i.e. card expiry date, CVV wherein, answering opponents always advise their cardholders not to share their card details, i.e. card expiry date, CVV etc. to any third party. Additionally, the opponents wish to confirm for online (3D)/card not present transaction, providing enhanced level of security to all CNP transactions. The opponents denied any act of negligence, deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
4.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CA along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-25 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. xx On the other hand, learned counsel for the OPs tendered affidavit of Rashmi Arora, Authorized Representative (SBI Cards & Payments Services Limited) having Registered Office at Unit 401 & 402, 4^th floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi-110 034 as Annexure R-1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OPs.  
5.  We have head the learned counsel for the paries and have also gone through the record very carefully.

6.                 During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant, reiterated to the version made into the complaint and controverted the pleadings taken by the OPs and also submitted that in whole of the pleadings the OPs had not specifically replied the allegations levelled by the complainant, with regard to the plea taken by the complainant, such as non disclosure or sharing of OTP, disablement of domestic E commerce transactions and prayed for acceptance of complaint.

7.                On the other hand, the counsel for OPs in the course of arguments, reiterated to the version made into the written statement and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

8.                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the pleadings as well as documents, there are two moot questions,  before this commission, which requires adjudication by this Commission, firstly, whether the complaint is maintainable before this Commission, secondly, whether the OPs committed any act of negligence, deficiency as well as unfair trade practice, causing mental agony, harassment to the complainant, making the complainant entitled to the relief as to what extent and against whom?

9.                So far as first question is concerned, from the bare perusal of the documents relied upon by the complainant, the complainant obtained the facility of credit on payment of consideration to the tune of Rs.1758/- fact is not denied by the OPs, since, the they have charged charges from the complainant towards the services which they have provided, then, how the opponents can say that the complaint is not maintainable before this Commission. The OPs have also alleged, that the complaint of the complainant requires elaborate evidence, but they have not explained what type evidence it required, it is a matter of documentary evidence and the complainant had duly submitted all the documents with the OPs as well as before this Commission, so OPs have failed to inspire confidence in the mind of this Commission, regarding their objection, hence, the objection taken by the opponents, regarding non-maintainability of the complaint is overrules and the complaint of the complainant is maintainable before this Commission.

10.              Second question is concerned, the allegations levelled by the complainant have not specifically been denied by the opponents and it is principal of natural justice, since, the allegations have not denied by specific evidence, it deems to be admitted. In the present complaint in hand the OPs arounding the facts of the complainant, instead of giving the proper reply and the complainant have proved his case with documentary evidence, while giving the identification to each and every documents. The question is this, firstly, when no transaction is processed by the complainant and no OTP was ever shared by the complainant, then, how the transaction for purchase of Reliance Digita has been completed. From the perusal of G-mail dated 14.05.2022, Annexure C-7, it is evident that an amount of Rs.55,900/-, has been debited from the account of the complainant. When the domestic E commerce transactions were blocked as well as the complainant had not shared the OTP and objected to the transaction, then, why the OPs have allowed the transaction as shown for purchase of Reliance Digita, so it is clear cut case not only of negligence, deficiency in service, even it is a case of unfair trade practice.

11.              In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby allow the present complaint and direct the OPs, in the following manner:-

                   (i) To refund the amount of Rs.55,900/-, to the complainant  alongwith interest @6% per annum from the date of filing of the              complaint i.e 20.06.2022, till its realisation.

(ii) To pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

(iii) To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation expenses. 

                    The OPs are further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OPs shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 11.03.2024.

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member                      President