Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/35/2019

Sunil Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Credit Card - Opp.Party(s)

N.S. Jagdeva

19 Mar 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                                     =======

 

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/35/2019
Date of Institution	:	24/01/2019
Date of Decision	:	19/03/2021

 

Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Manga Ram, R/o B-004/00326-04, Dashmesh Kharar, District Mohali.

…..Complainant

 

V E R S U S

 

SBI Credit Card Office, through its Chief Manager, SCO 170-171, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

…… Opposite Party

 

QUORUM:	SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                       

PRESENT:	:	Sh. N.S. Jagdeva, Counsel for Complainant.
	:	None for Opposite Party.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

 

1.         Averments are, the Complainant was using SBI Credit Card No. 5172 5268 6503 0105, which was valid upto 06/22. On 02.12.2018, the Complainant received two messages on his mobile phone at 10:20 a.m. and 10:22 a.m. respectively, that transactions of Rs.1/- and Rs.50,000/-  were made on his aforesaid Credit Card at Jodhpur (Rajasthan), upon which the Complainant ran to ATM of Canara Bank and made a transaction of Rs.100/- on his Credit Card at Kharar, District Mohali. Thereafter, the Complainant received another message showing that at 10:21 am another transaction of Rs.50,000/- was made on his Credit Card at same place. Immediately, thereafter, another message was received by the Complainant showing that at 10:22 a.m. another transaction of Rs.30,000/- was made, but the same was declined due to insufficient credit limit. Then, immediately, at 10:23 a.m. transaction of Rs.20,000/- was made at same place which was through and credit limit shown as Rs.0.00. At 10:20 a.m. the Complainant received a message that his card has been blocked due to suspected activity. At 10:34 a.m. Complainant received a message that on his request his card has been blocked, but by that time, extensive damaged had already been caused.  The Complainant, thereafter, wrote an e-mail regarding illegal transactions made at Jodhpur (Rajasthan) by using his card details; whereas, he was at Kharar (Punjab) and that the card was got blocked instantly. A formal complaint to this effect was also given by the Complainant to the Police Station City Kharar, District Mohali (Punjab), as well as Senior Superintendent of Police, Mohali. However, on getting no response from the Police Authorities, the Complainant got served a legal notice dated 22.12.2018 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party seeking its version of the case.
3.         Opposite Party contested the Complaint and filed its written statement, inter alia, admitting that the Complainant was holding the credit card in question and the transactions alleged by him in the Complaint were not fraudulent, but were valid transactions made by the Complainant by his PIN. It has been asserted that the Complainant wants to create pressure upon the Opposite Party to accept his illegal demands and the matter is under police investigation. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.
4.         The complainant has filed rejoinder, wherein he has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.
5.         Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.
6.         We have gone through the entire record and heard the arguments addressed by the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
7.         In the present case, the Complainant stated that the Credit Card was in his possession when the disputed transactions had taken place. He has further stated that the transactions had taken place remotely at Jodhpur (Rajasthan), several miles away from his actual location at Kharar, District Mohali and therefore, the reason for the fraudulent transactions must be forgery/hacking of the card or some other technical and/or security lapse in the electronic banking system through which the transactions had taken place.
8.         Per contra, the Opposite Party has merely stated that the transactions alleged by the Complainant in his Complaint were not fraudulent and were valid transactions made by him through his PIN.
9.         However, we are not satisfied with the reasoning given by the Opposite Party, in as much as, the Complainant has produced evidence in the form of Annexure C-4A to substantiate his averment that the credit card was in his possession at the relevant time.
10.         No doubt, in today’s digital age, the possibility that the credit card was hacked or forged cannot be ruled out. In the absence of any evidence that the credit card was used authorizedly, we hold the Opposite Party liable for the unauthorized transactions. Furthermore, the Opposite Party cannot rely on arbitrary terms and conditions to wriggle out of its liability towards customers and any such terms and conditions must be in conformity with the directions issued by the RBI which is responsible for safekeeping of the Banking Systems and maintaining checks and balances in the same. As per the RBI circular, zero liability will rest with the customer, where the deficiency lies in the banking system. It has come on record that the Complainant on the same date notified the Opposite Party that the transactions were unauthorized. In such circumstances, therefore, even if the deficiency was not with the Opposite Party, but elsewhere in the system, the Opposite Party will be held liable for all the unauthorized transactions which were effected on 02.12.2018 till the card was blocked on the request of the Complainant.  The aforesaid RBI circular as well decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in Punjab National Bank and Anr. V Leader Valves II (2020) CPJ 92 (NC), are both squarely applicable in the present matter. In Punjab National Bank and Anr. V Leader Valves II (2020) CPJ 92 (NC), the Hon’ble National Commission while addressing the question of liability of a Bank in case of unauthorized and fraudulent electronic banking transactions, has observed as under:-

“11. The first fundamental question that arises is whether the Bank is responsible for an unauthorized transfer occasioned by an act of malfeasance on the part of functionaries of the Bank or by an act of malfeasance by any other person (except the Complainant/account-holder). The answer, straightaway, is in the affirmative. If an account is maintained by the Bank, the Bank itself is responsible for its safety and security. Any systemic failure, whether by malfeasance on the part of its functionaries or by any other person (except the consumer/account-holder), is its responsibility, and not of the consumer.”

 

                Furthermore, a recent circular issued by the RBI vide No.RBI/2018-19/101, dated 4.1.2019 presumes in such circumstances, 'zero liability' to the customer. Thus the act of Opposite Party in raising demand towards unauthorized/fraudulent transactions, inspite of repeated correspondence by the Complainant, to our mind, amounts to deficiency in service and its indulgence into unfair trade practice.  

11.         In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint deserves to succeed and the same are partly allowed against the Opposite Party.  The Opposite Party is directed as under:-

 (i)     To waive off demand of Rs.1,30,000/- in the credit card bill of the Complainant for the month of Dec. 2018 being unauthorized transactions. 

 

(ii)     To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and for causing harassment caused to him.

 

(iii)    To pay Rs.7,000/- as litigation expenses.      

 

12.         The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by the Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @9% per annum on the amounts mentioned in sub-para [i] & [ii] above from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid, apart from compliance of direction contained in sub-para (i) above.
13.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

19^th Mar., 2021

                        Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER

 “Dutt”