In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.270/2011
1) Mr. Gautam Kr. Chakraborty,
‘SETU’, Flat no. 9,
189, Dum Dum Park, Kolkata-700055. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited,
234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kollata-700020, P.S. Bhawanipore.
2) SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited,
DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12th Floor, Block-2,
Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.
3) The Group General Manager, IRCTC Ltd., (eastern Region),
3, Koilaghata Street, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 14 Dated 07/11/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant against the o.ps. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a credit card holder of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and he found on 18.12.10 more or less 26 online transactions were made between 15.12.10 and 18.12.10 using his credit card and complainant immediately brought into the notice of o.p. nos.1 and 2 through available means as provided by o.ps. and further transaction through the credit card in question was blocked subsequently by o.ps. and he was informed the same by o.p. nos.1 and 2 and those transactions were made through his card by utilizing his date of birth and visa secured password and afterward he lodged a complaint at Laketown P.S. on 6.1.11. As per complainant, the statement dt.16.1.11 was received by complainant, was fictitious and those transactions were not at all performed by complainant. After repeated requests complainant did not receive any details of those fraudulent transactions from o.p. nos.1 and 2. Moreover, complainant has stated that it was within his knowledge that o.p. no.3 viz. The Group General Manager, IRCTC Ltd. (Eastern Region) has also failed to give particular information to complainant regarding the fraudulent transactions with o.p. no.3 for which amounts were debited from the account of complainant. Ultimately complainant has to receive repeated letters for repayment of the transaction in question by o.p. nos.1 and 2 and he has not prayed for any specific relief against o.p. no.3. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. no.3 had entered his appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against him and prayed for dismissal of the case. O.p. nos.1 and 2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter has been heard ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. As o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not appear before this Forum even after valid service of notice and as a result of which the evidence of complainant has remained unchallenged testimony and the same has not been rebutted by o.p. nos.1 and 2. Therefore, all the documents filed by complainant and evidence on affidavit are considered as true. Considering all the facts and circumstances we are of the opinion that o.p. nos.1 and 2 had committed deficiency in rendering service and complainant has to suffer tremendous mental agony and harassment for the inaction of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against o.p. nos.1 & 2 and without cost against o.p. no.3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly and/or severally directed to reverse the amount in relation to dues raised for to the transactions in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
