DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA

C.C.No. 133 of 29-5-2019

Decided on : 1-6-2023

Vijay Kumar Sharma aged about 40 years, S/o Tarsem Lal Sharma, R/o Quarter No.D-126, Thermal Colony, Bathinda.

........Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India M.S.C Branch Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

2. C.G.M State Bank of India Sector 17 Chandigarh.

3. General Manager, State Bank of India, Card Correspondence Department, DLF Infinitive Towers C, 10-12 Floor, Block-2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon 122002.

.......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986

QUORUM

Sh. Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member

Present :

For the complainant : Sh. Amit Gupta, Advocate.

For opposite parties : Sh. O.N Goyal, for OP No.1.

Opposite party No.2 deleted. Sh. Pankaj Singla, for OP No.3.

ORDER

Lalit Mohan Dogra, President

1. The complainant Vijay Kumar Sharma (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, ( Now C.P. Act, 2019 here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this forum (Now Commission) against State Bank of India (here-in-after referred to as opposite party).

2. Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that the complainant is having saving account No.00000561533970 with State Bank of India M.S.C Branch Bathinda and he is operating the said account as per his needs requirements. In the month of May, 2018, the complainant has received a phone call from the bank and the concerned person making call asked the complainant to have a Credit Card, but the complainant was interested in getting the Credit Card and as such the complainant refused to get any Credit Card.

3. It is alleged that although the complainant has not showed any interest for getting any Credit Card, but inspite of that the complainant received a mobile call from Madam Kanta from her mobile No. 70568-73340 compelling the complainant time and again to get an Credit Card and called the complainant to submit the documents for getting Credit Card and in the month of July 2018 the bank issued the Credit Card to the complainant. Thereafter the complainant on dated 07.08.2018 received a call from mobile No.90051 66025 and asked the complainant to get the said Credit Card activated. Thereafter the complainant received a message regarding transaction of Rs.20,000/- and then regarding transaction of Rs.19,500/- from the Credit Card of the complainant and debiting the said amount in the account of the complainant. In s this manner a transaction of Rs.39,500/- was shown to have been done by the complainant on 07.08.2018.

4. It is further alleged that debiting the said amount of Rs.39,500/- in the account of the complainant is totally wrong, illegal and without any basis as the said transactions were not made by the complainant, rather some person of the bank or some other miscreant has misused the said Credit Card in an illegal manner and by misusing the ATM Pin of the complainant's Credit Card. On coming to know about the said illegal transactions the complainant several times approached the opposite party No.1 and requested them to look into the matter and to deposit the said amount of Rs.39,500/ in the account of the complainant, but with no effect. Even the complainant several sent emails to the opposite party No.1 and it head office, but all with no effect. The said transactions were not done by the complainant and the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount of Rs.39,500/-, but the opposite party No.1 is not hearing the requests of the complainant and is putting the matter of in one way or the other. As such the opposite party No.1 is causing harassment to the complainant without any fault on the part of the complainant and as such there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.39,500/ on account of the illegal transactions illegally made from the Credit Card of the complainant and is also entitled for Rs.50000/- as damages on account of the harassment and humiliation caused by the opposite parties to the complainant and entitled for costs of this forced litigation.

5. The complainant alleged that the complainant several times approached the opposite parties and requested them to do the needful and to meet the claim of the complainant, but with no effect. Even the complainant also got issued a legal notice dated 07.09.2018, through his counsel Shri Ravinder Sharma, Advocate Bathinda calling upon the opposite party No.1 to meet his claim, but with no effect and the opposite party No.1 did not pay any heed to the said legal notice also. There is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party No.1 and the opposite party No.1 has failed to give the services.

6. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to refund of Rs.39,500/- on account of the illegal transactions illegally made from the Credit Card of the complainant and is also entitled for Rs.50,000/- as damages on account of the harassment and humiliation caused by the opposite parties to the complainant.

7. Upon notice, opposite party No.1 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the complaint is not maintainable against the opposite party. The complainant has not come with clean hands before this hon‘ble court and has supressed the material facts. There is no deficiency on the part of opposite party. The complaint and affidavit has not been properly verified as per order 19 Rule 3 CPC. The complaint is liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties.

8. On merits, opposite party No.1 has pleaded that he has no locus standi to file the present complaint against the opposit parties and liable to be dismissed. The complaint is replied that the complainant was himself interested in getting credit card from the Bank and he submitted the requisite documents to the Bank for getting credit card. On the basis of which the credit card was issued to the complainant. All the other averments are denied.

9. In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant on 30.5.2019, the name of opposite party No.2 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

10. Upon notice, opposite party No.3 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply raising legal objections that the Complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law, as the Complainant has not come before this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before this Honible Forum, thereby, have attempted to misguide and mislead the Hon'ble Forum. In fact, the Complainant has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Forum. The Complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action arose in favour of the complainant and against the answering respondents to file the present complaint and hence, the complaint under reply is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The case pertains to allegations of fraudulent transactions which required leading of evidence of both the parties and complex issues of facts and evidence are required so same can't be tried by this Hon'ble forum. The Complaint under reply is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no prima facie case has been made out against the answering Respondents.

11. It has been pleaded that it is evident that the Complaint has been filed by the Complainant with some oblique motives in an endeavor to force the answering Respondents to accept certain illegal demand of the Complainant, which the answering Respondents the otherwise not liable. The complaint does not qualify the ingredients of a valid Complaint as envisaged in Section 2 (c) of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986. It is respectfully submitted here that, the complainant is bound by the jurisdiction set forth in the agreement executed between himself and Sed Cards and payment Service (P) Ltd. This is matter of record that, as per card holder agreement there is an arbitration clause, which stipulates that in all events of dispute/difference between the card holder and the Sed: Cards, the same shall be resolved by appointment of a sole arbitrator and the opposite party shall have the powers to appoint the arbitrator. As such this learned forum is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions which were supplied to him along with a book let through a welcome kit before the complainant had made any transaction through the credit card.

12. On merits, the opposite party No.3 has pleaded that it is the complainant who used the said card and filed the fivolous complaint to harass the answering respondent. It is the complainant who approached the answering respondent for the purpose of card facility.

13. It is further pleaded that it is matter of record that transactions happened over the card account of the complainant. Further with regard to the transactions alleged by the complainant the said transaction was not fraudulent transactions as alleged, as transactions was valid transaction and same was duly informed to the complainant as well but complainant wants to create pressure upon the respondent to accept his illegal demands. Further It has been observed that the transaction has been performed in a secured manner as the same has been validated by your card CVV and dynamic One Time Password (OTP) over the Internet/IVR. Further, it is important to mention here that, the dynamic One Time Password (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 respondent always advise their cardholders not to share their card details i.e. card expiry date, CVV etc. to any third party. Additionally, we wish to confirm that SBI Card has implemented Dynamic OTP as an additional factor of authentication for Online (3D) /Card not present transactions (CNP) providing enhanced level of security to all CNP transactions. Hence, considering all of circumstances as mentioned above, the liability towards the same is of the complainant only.

    Transactions details: -

OTP SMS Details:-

Transaction SMS Details:-

14. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 29.5.2019 (Ex. C-12) and documents (Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-11).

15. In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, the opposite party No.3 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Puneet Babbar Dated 5.8.2019 (Ex. OP-3/1) and documents (Ex.OP-3/2 to 3/15).

16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.

17. It is admitted fact that the complainant is account holder with opposite party No.1 and was issued credit card by opposite party No.3 and amount of Rs.19500/- and Rs.20,000/- were withdrawn from his account on 7.8.2018.

18. The contention of the counsel for complainant is that the said amounts were withdrawn fraudulently from the account of the complainant. However, a perusal of file shows that although, the said amounts were withdrawn on 7.8.2018. However, the complainant failed to get his credit card hotlisted immediately by giving intimation to the bank as per prescribed manner.

19. A perusal of file shows that the complainant intimated opposite parties on 17.8.2018 through e-mail for the first time regarding said transactions meaning thereby that the said complaint was lodged after considerable gap of time on account of which opposite parties were not able to take any action. As far as the plea of the complainant is concerned that the complainant never made any transaction as alleged in the statement of account has also no force as the detail shows that the complainant received all the OTP on his registered mobile number and if the complainant shares his OTP with some other person in that case the bank cannot be held liable in any manner.The transactions disputed by the Complainant were secured transactions i.e., transactions were incurred on secure merchant web site and were authenticated using card credentials as well as the MSC password (Master Secure Code) which is confidential and known to the Complainant only. It is also the categorical assertion made by the Opposite Parties that the Complainant is doing online transactions. For making any online transaction using the credit card, one must know these passwords and other details which are known to the complainant only but not with others unless it is shared by the Complainant. Without knowing the password and the card details, no one can make online transaction. Therefore, the above transactions might have been done either by the Complainant or with his knowledge and information some other person might have done the above transaction. It is a known fact that the passwords and PIN numbers could not be disclosed to any third party, either to the staff of the Bank of to the merchant establishments under any circumstances or by any means of voluntarily or otherwise. The card holder’s account would be debited immediately with the amount of the transaction which is processed through secured code. Looked from any angle it is the fact that the details of the card is known only to the Complainant alone provided if he shares the information with third party. The secured transactions were done either by the Complainant or through somebody who have nexus with his credit card details. We cannot find fault with the Opposite Parties relating to the fraudulent transactions, since all the details regarding the credit card is with the Complainant only and thus information cannot be revealed to any other person which are confidential. Under these circumstances, the Complainant failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties From the facts and circustances and evidence on record, it is fully established that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party bank. Accordingly, the complaint being meritless and ordered to be dismissed. No order as to costs. Complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.A copy of this order be communicated to be parties concerned free of costs. File be consigned to the record.

20. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

21. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    Announced:-

    1-6-2023

    ​(Lalit Mohan Dogra)

    President

     

     

    (Shivdev Singh)

    Member