In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly, At Chinsurah.
Case No. CC/33/2022.
Date of filing: 09.03.2022. Date of Final Order: 12.11.2024
- Sri Bijoy Kumar ,
Son of Late Balak Ram,
Resident of Punjabipara, Naldanga Basti,(East)
P.O. Bandel, P.S. Chinsurah,
Dist. Hooghly- 712123.....................……complainant
vs
1. SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.
(SBICPSL) DLF Infinity Towers.
Tower-C, 12th Floor,
Block-2, Building-3,
DLF Cyber City,
P.O. Infinity Towers.
Gurgaram, Haryana- 122231.
2. The Nodal Officer,
(SBICPSL) DLF Infinity Towers.
Tower-C, 12th Floor,
Block-2, Building-3,
DLF Cyber City,
P.O. Infinity Towers.
Gurgaram, Haryana- 122231 ........................…..opposite parties
Before: President: Shri Debasish Bandyopadhyay.
Member: Debasis Bhattacharya.
Member: Babita Chaudhuri.
FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT
Presented by:-
Babita Chaudhuri, Member.
Brief fact of this case:- :- This case has been filed U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that on the basis of the application of the complainant for SBI Credit Card at SBI Bandel branch, one SBI Card bearing no.47264290-5977300 was issued to the complainant and it was send to the complainant through courier service on 26/06/2019 and subsequently when the complainant collected the SBI card it was found that a claim of Rs.45000/-was made by SBI Card on account of ‘Draft for easy money’+ 1229.98 for GST & other charges.
The complainant mentioned his mobile no.8981589428 at the time of applying SBI Credit Card but before activating the said credit card no OTP massaging was sent to the said mobile number of the complainant and the complainant received a phone call from the no. +91247108873 on 21-08-2021 and it was asked to the complainant to make quick payment but till then said credit card was not activated and as without activating said credit card Rs 46,229,98/- was deducted from the account of the complainant.
The complainant submitted a written complaint before the ops and the complainant also put a representation before the ombudsman and the complainant send an Advocate notice to op.no.1 for said problem and he also applied before the State Public Information officer of SBI to get information to know how without issuing OTP his credit card was activated and why Rs.45000/- was deducted from his account and after receiving the application as per R.T.I. the Regional Manager of SBI replied that information sought for are not readily available.
Therefore, by purchasing a SBI credit card the complainant suffer financial loss, mental agony and harassment and as inspite of knowing every doors complainant does not get any relief he compelled to file this case before the Commission.
The complainant therefore prays:-
An order of compensation amount of Rs.2, 00,000/-for mental and physical harassment of the Complainant.
Direction upon the ops to returned the said deduction amount of Rs.46, 229.98/-at the SBI account being no.20009675170 of SBI Bandel branch, Hooghly.
An order of litigation cost of Rs.1,000,00/-
Any order relief or reliefs which your forum shall fit and proper.
Defense case:-. The opposite party nos. 1 & 2 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and it is submitted that the op no. 1 & 2 had received application from the complainant for simply save card however, during the verification call by the executive of the op no.1&2and the complainant had given consent for card upgrade to SBI signature card and the same was delivered to the complainant on May 22, 2019 and based on complainant’s request the op no. 1 &2 has taken the card downgrade request and the card was delivered on June 29, 2019. It is submitted that the complainant himself is not aware about the credit card and has submitted the application without reading and applying his mind.
It is submitted that on 19.06.2019 op.no1 &2 received request through IVR by the complainant for change of mobile number from “8981589428”to”9088991129” and as per process, post validating the card no, card expiry date number and post that new mobile number was updated in his SBI card account and complainant has also register his online account on 19.06.2019 post validating his SBI Card details and dynamic OTP delivered on his number “9088991129”.
It is further submitted by the op nos.1 & 2 on investigation it is found that transaction dated 28.06.2019 amount of Rs.45,000/- was done through SBI Card mobile application post validating user authentication and confirmation message was send on register mobile no. of the complainant. Therefore, the allegations made by the complainant are baseless and the said transaction was performed in a secure manner. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed, with cost.
Issues/points for consideration
On the basis of the pleading of the party, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
- Whether the complainant is the consumer of the opposite party nos. 1 & 2 or not?
- Whether this Forum/ Commission has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief which has been prayed by the complainant in this case or not?
Evidence on record
The complainant and Op no.1&2 filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and written version and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and ops in their written version.
Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyer of the complainant
Complainant filed written notes of argument. As per the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of complainant is to be taken into consideration for passing final order.
Argument as advanced by the ld. Advocate of the complainant heard in full. In course of argument ld. Lawyer of complainant has given emphasis on evidence and document produced by complainant.
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
The first three issues/ points of consideration which have been framed on the ground of maintainability and/ or jurisdiction, cause of action and whether complainants is a consumer in the eye of law, are very vital issues and so these three points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly at first.
Regarding these three points of consideration it is very important to note that the opposite parties after receiving notice have only filed W/V and have not filed any petition on the ground of non maintainability of this case. This District Commission after going through the materials of the case record finds that the complainant is residing at P.S. Chinsurah, District, Hooghly which is lying within the territorial jurisdiction of this District Commission. Moreover, this complaint case has been filed with a claim of below 50 lakhs and this matter is clearly indicating that this District Commission has also pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case. Moreover, u/s 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, this District Commission has jurisdiction to try this case. On close examination of the pleadings of the complainants it also transpires that there is cause of action for filing this case by the complainant side against the opposite parties. Moreover after going through the provisions of Section 2 (1) (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 it appears that this case is maintainable and according to the provision of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Complainant is a consumer in the eye of law.
All these factors are clearly depicting that this case is maintainable and complainant is consumer of the opposite parties and this District Commission has territorial/ pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try this case and there is also cause of action for filing this case by the complainant against the opposite parties. Thus, the above noted three points of consideration are decided in favour of the complainant.
The point no. 4 is related with the question as to whether there is any deficiency in the service on the part of the opposite parties or not? The point no. 5 is connected with the question as to whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief in this case or not. These two points of consideration are interlinked and/ or interconnected with each other and for that reason these two points of consideration are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly.
For the purpose of deciding the fate of these two points of consideration and for the interest of getting answers of the above noted questions, there is necessity of scanning the evidence on affidavit filed by the complainant and there is also necessity making scrutiny of the documents filed by the complainant of this case.
For the purpose of arriving at just and proper decision in respect of points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 this District Commission finds that there is necessity of making scrutiny of the evidence given by the complainant and ops. In this regard it is important to note that the ops have filed written version and Evidence on Affidavit to disprove the case of the complainant. On close examination of the evidence given by the complainant’s side it is revealed that the complainant has categorically described his case in the evidence and the evidence given by the complainants is also supported by documents. The op no.1 &2 have filed written version which is supported by some documents, after peruse the said documents of ops it is found that one letter send by Assistant Vice President- Customer Service to Office of Banking Ombudsman, C/O. Reserve Bank of India, Kolkata-700001, dated 15.04.2020, there is clearly mentioned that Ops send SMS to the complainant in mobile no. (i.e. 918584014548), which was wrong as because the register mobile no. of the complainant is (9088991129) It is further mentioned that Saving A/C no. of the Complainant which written by the ops (i.e. 918584014548) instead of Saving A/C no. 20009675170. It is further notice that in bank transaction of the complainant being Saving A/C No. 20009675170, there is no entry of said amount of Rs.45, 000/- between 27.06.2019 to 27.07.2019. Thus, there is some vital mistake on the part of ops. So, deficiency in service on the part of the ops. Therefore, after going through the materials of this case record this District Commission finds that there is no reason to disbelieve the case of the complainant side. It is also transpires that the complainant has proved his case by way of adducing evidence in connection with the points of consideration nos. 4 and 5 which have been adopted in this case.
All the above noted factors are clearly reflecting that the complainant is entitled to get relief in this case which has been prayed by this District Commission.
In the result it is accordingly
ORDER
that the complaint case being no. 33 of 2022 be and the same is allowed on ex parte with cost.
The opposite party No.1 &2 are jointly and or severally directed to refund the amount of Rs. 46, 229.98/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Ops are also directed to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for harassments and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5, 000/- in favour of the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
Complainant is at liberty to put the final order into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.
