Order-21.
Date-27/07/2016.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Complainant’s case, in short, is that he holds a credit card under OPs1 & 2 being no.4317575209964403. In SBI Card Statement dated 05-07-2014 the complainant suddenly came to know the transaction made through Moments Deal Rs.7,989/- for which he did not purchase any goods or receive services against such transactions. He lodged a complaint to SBI, Nodal Officer, on 11-07-2014 regarding the alleged transaction dated 13-06-2014 and he also submitted a Dispute Form on 04-08-2014. The OPs, however, in reply on 05-11-2014, confirmed such transaction regarding such transaction of Rs.7,989/-. It is the case of the complainant that he did not purchase any goods or receive service against such transaction. Hence, this case.
OPs have entered into appearance and contested the case in filing written version contending, inter alia, that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant. It is stated that it is a false statement that the complainant was unaware of said transaction dated 13-06-2014 and he came to know about the same on 05-07-2014 after receiving the statement. It is alleged that no transaction over internet is possible without generating one time password by the card holder. From the investigation it is revealed that the complainant had full knowledge about the said transaction as the said transaction was a fully secured one and while doing so he revealed his CVV no. and also his date of birth which is absolutely not possible for anyone else to reveal. Moreover, the card holder receives an SMS in his registered mobile regarding the one time password. The said OTP is treated as signature of the card holder in made transaction. Since, all the formalities were performed by the complainant in the said transaction it is baseless for him to raise the dispute. These OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Point for Decision
- Whether the OPs have put up a gesture of deficiency of service?
- Whether the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice?
Decision with Reasons
We have travelled through the documents on record, filed from the respective sides including SBI, Kolkata Card, Monthly statement dated 05-07-2014. From such statement it appears that on July, 2014 a transaction was made with Moment Deals amounting to Rs.7,989/- for N. Chandra Sinha, being the complainant in this case. Moment Deals is impleaded as added OP3 in this case. But none came forward from the side of the added OP3 to contest the case. From the documents on record it appears that there is no such company or product in the name of Moment Deals. In the website there is no address and existence of Moment deal and Moment Deal appears to be a fraudulent organization. So, the question remains how the complainant could make transaction with the company or product whose existence is questionable and which appears to be a fraudulent organization. The question also haunts us how the OPs could raise a bill of Rs.7,989/- as against the transaction with a fraudulent organization. We think that it is an unfair trade practice. The alleged transaction appears to be a fraud transaction.
It is also surprisingly how the OTP of the card holder is obtained by the concerned authority involved in the racket.
Of course, it is a deficiency of service on the part of the OPs as well.
The case as such, merits success.
Hence,
Ordered
That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.
OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.7,989/- with interest at the rate of9 percentp.a. since June, 2014 till compliance within one month from the date of this order. The OPs are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost and Rs.10,000/- for compensation for causing harassment mental pain and agony to the complainant within the stipulated period. The OPs are also directed to pay penalty of Rs.20,000/- to be paid to this Forum for practicing unfair trade within the said stipulated period.
Failure to comply with the order will entitle the complainant to put the decree into execution in a separate proceeding as mandated u/s.25 read with Section 27 of the C.P. Act.
