Date of filing:      27.12.2018

                                                                                                                                 Date of disposal : 28.11.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                 .…. PRESIDENT

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.ICWA(Inter),B.L.,                                        ....MEMBER-II

 

RBT/CC. No.66/2022

THIS MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022

(CC.No.48/2019 sent from DCDRC, Chennai North)

 

Mr. K.Sampath Kumar,

No.1. 2nd Main Road,

Kasturibai Nagar, Adyar, Chennai 20.                                               ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

Standard Charted Bank, 

Rep. by its Manager,

Head Customer Care Unit,

Credit Card Division, 

No.19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.                                         .......Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                             :   M/s. Siva Associate.

Counsel for the opposite parties                      :   M/s.B.DhanaSekaran, Advocate.

                         

This complaint has been filed before DCDRC, Chennai (North) as CC.No.66/2019 and transferred to this commission by the order of the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai and taken on file as CC.No.48/2022 and this complaint coming before us on various dates and finally on 08.11.2022 in the presence of M/s.B.DhanaSekaran, Advocate counsel for the opposite parties and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,   PRESIDENT.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service in allowing the alleged unauthorised transaction in the complainant’s account along with a prayer to pay a sum of Rs.4,92,993/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with 12% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and direct the opposite party not to claim or charge any interest or penalty from the complainant for the unused amount. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

Complainant served as a senior most IAS officer in Tamil Nadu Government and on the request of the opposite party bank the complainant had availed the credit card facility form the opposite party bank vide Credit Card No.4196 0749 4321 2759. As per the terms the used amount to be repaid within a stipulated period, and he never misused the said card and also he never defaulted and amount which was used by him.  More than 18 years he was using he said card without any disputes.  Complainant was the customer of the opposite party and they are charging the fees for their service provided to the complainant.  In the above circumstances on 29.08.2017 some unauthorized persons hailed from Mumbai, Noida and Gurgan had hacked the complainant’s credit card account and looted a sum of Rs.92,993/- on the same day with different merchants, nearly about 16 transactions took place on the same day but he had not receive any OTP, SMS from the bank to the disputed transactions and he never shard his PIN number or any other secrete details about his credit card or OTP details to the any third persons.  The bank was only the responsible person for the said unauthorized transaction, since without sending any OTP the opposite party bank allowed the said unauthorized transactions with the said unknown persons, without consent and knowledge of the complainant.  The opposite party had allowed the said fake transactions and also the bank did not monitor the suspected transactions.  When the complainant came to know about the said unauthorized transactions and fake transactions, immediately he contacted and approached the opposite party bank at Adayar and also at Bangalore and narrated the entire facts, after that the complainant‘s credit card was blocked and sent by post a new card to the complainant. The opposite party was continually torturing the complainant to pay the unused amount.  But they did not take any steps to dispose the fake transactions happened only between the opposite party and the unknown hackers and also the opposite party was trying to escape from their own fault and also they were safeguarding their officers.  As required by the opposite party the complainant gave a complaint as report for the disputed transaction amount, after receiving the said complaint dated 09.09.2017 from the complainant the opposite party did not take any steps to settle the said fake transaction issues and they gave very evasive replies again on 15.03.2018 and 08.05.2018 and 28.05.2018 and till date the complainant made number of complaints and issued legal notices but the opposite party wantonly avoided to cover up their own mistakes and negligence. The complainant never approach the merchants directly or indirectly and he don’t know about the head and tail of such unauthorized person, more over the opposite party only had permitted to use the said fake transaction by the hackers without any enquiry and also without consent and knowledge of the complainant. From 29.08.2017 to till date the opposite party was claiming the interest on the disputed amount of the unauthorized transactions which was not at all used by the complainant.  In addition to that when the dispute was pending on their table and final decision is yet to come the opposite party could not charge or claim any interest and also the opposite party wantonly added the interest amount to the complainant account as used amount every month periodically which was not justified.  The opposite party was liable to pay compensation to the complainant since the complainant had sustained mental agony and stress due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party with respect of the disputed and fake claims to the unknown persons without consent and knowledge of the complainant. Thus aggrieved by the act of the opposite party the present complaint was filed to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.4,92,993/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant with 12% interest per annum from the date of the complaint till the date of realization and direct the opposite party not to claim or charge any interest or penalty from the complainant for the unused amount. 

Crux of the defence put forth by the opposite party:-

The opposite party filed version disputing the complaint allegations that the complainant had made misconceived and baseless allegations of deficiency in service without any documentary evidence.  Complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of a consumer dispute under the Act, as there was neither any unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party nor any deficiency in service being established against the opposite party.  Complainant approached the opposite party and expressed his willingness to obtain a credit card facility form them.  The complainant duly provided a signed copy of the application from along with the requisite documents and on the basis of the information provided in the application form the opposite party issued a Credit Card bearing No.4196 0749 4321 2759. Based on the dispute raised by the complainant, the opposite party blocked the card ending 2759 on 30.08.2017 for security reasons.  Thereafter, the opposite party collected the Dispute Declaration Form from the complainant so as to enable the opposite party to take up the dispute with the Merchant Establishment through the Member Bank. The opposite party issued a replacement card ending 4622 in lieu of the card ending 2759 and accordingly the outstanding in the card ending 2759 was transferred to the card ending 4622.  It was necessary to take clarification from the merchant with respect to any transaction disputed by the customer.  The opposite party’s Bank was just a facilitator between the merchant and customer for the transaction and was settling the payment on behalf of customer with the merchant and the customer would make the payment to the opposite party Bank. Upon receipt of the duly signed DDF from the complainant the Fraud Investigation team of the opposite party carried out a detailed investigation.  During the discussion with the complainant it was informed by the complainant that he had received a phone call from third party introducing himself from Standard Charted Bank who requested him to provide some details since he had already submitted request to link Aadhaar number.  The caller insisted to provide the details for verification.  Hence the complainant claimed to have shared the card details and Aadhaar card number to the third party, as the caller had pretended it as verification call to link his Aadhaar number to his credit card account.  During the course of investigation it was also observed that the aforesaid disputed transaction had incurred online through a secured mode post successful validation of the card details and the OTP sent to the complainant’s mobile number registered with the opposite party. Aforesaid transactions were 3-D secured transaction.  For incurring a 3D transaction, OTP number was required.  The aforesaid transactions were incurred after validation of OTP details delivered to the complainant’s registered mobile number.  Since the transactions were allowed based on the valid combination of data submitted as per the requirements for internet transactions, the complainant was liable to effect payment towards the disputed transactions.  Complainant was responsible for the security of the card at all times and should take all steps towards ensuring the same.  Opposite party in accordance with the applicable rules and guidelines confirmed the liability of the complainant towards the disputed transactions.  Internal Ombudsman of the opposite party independently examined the case in details and confirmed the liability towards the first 8 disputed transactions incurred on the complainant’s card account and requested to reverse the remaining 8 disputed transactions amount of Rs.45,088/- upon receipt of the copy of the FIR.  The opposite party accordingly issued a letter dated 26.04.2018 and 15.05.2018.  Thus there is no deficiency in service on their part and sought for the complaint to be dismissed.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and submitted documents marked as Ex.A1 to A13. On the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were filed by them.

Points for consideration:

Whether the act of opposite party in allowing the alleged unauthorized transactions in the complainant’s Credit Card Account proved to be deficiency in service by the complainant successfully by admissible evidence?

If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

The following documents were filed on the side of complainant in support of his contentions;

Credit Card Statement of the complainant issued by the opposite party was marked as Ex.A1;

Transaction copy Retrieval & Disputes Form was marked as Ex.A2;

Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant dated 27.03.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;

 Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant dated 11.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;

Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant dated 26.04.2018 was marked as Ex.A5;

Letter given by the complainant to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell dated 02.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A6;

Letter to the opposite party by the complainant dated 08.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A7;

Letter to the opposite party by the complainant dated 28.05.2018 was marked as Ex.A8;

Letter issued by the opposite party dated 10.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A9;

Reply notice issued by the  opposite party dated 27.08.2018 was marked as Ex.A10;

Bills raised by the opposite parties were marked as Ex.A11to Ex.A13;

On the side of opposite party the following documents were submitted for proof of defence;

Copy of the OTP details which confirms successful validation and the transaction alert SMS sent to the complainant was marked as Ex.B1;

Opposite party letter dated 26.04.2018 & 15.05.2018 to the complainant was marked as Ex.AB2;

Opposite party reply to the complaint No.20181900600001 dated 10.08.2018 to the Banking Ombudsman, RBI was marked as Ex.B3;

Reply to the legal notice dated 27.08.2019 to the complainant’s counsel was marked as Ex.B4;

 Point No.1:-

The complainant after filing the proof affidavit and documents did not turn up to file the written arguments or adduce oral arguments.  Thus after providing sufficient opportunities the arguments stage of the complainant was closed.  As sufficient materials were available this commission proceeded to dispose the complaint on merits through no arguments were made.

The opposite party filed written arguments and represented that their written arguments may be treated as oral arguments.

On the available materials produced by the complainant it is seen that the complainant was having aCredit Card Account with the opposite party in Account No.4196074943212759.  On 29.08.2017 the complainant’s Account was hacked by some unauthorised person from Mumbai, Guorgan, Noida and a sum of Rs.92,993/- was looted.  The complainant did not receive any OTP SMS for the disputed transactions.  When the same was complained with the opposite party the Credit Card Account was blocked and new card was issued.  However, no steps were taken by the opposite party to find out the hackers but the opposite party started claiming interest on the disputed amount.  Thus the complainant sought for compensation as he sustained mental agony and stress due to the deficiency in service of the opposite party with respect to the disputed and fake transactions.

On the other hand, the opposite party filed written arguments disputing the very filing of the complaint before the commission as the averments in the complaint are vague, baseless and with mala fide intention.  With regard to the alleged transactions it is stated that the Bank is just a facilitator between the merchant and customers for the transactions and is settling the payment on behalf of customer with the merchant and the customer would make the payment to the opposite party’s Bank.  Upon receipt of the Dispute Declaration Form from the complainant the fraud investigation team of the opposite party carried out a detailed investigation and found that the complainant had received a phone call from third party introducing himself from the Standard Charted Bank and requesting to provide the details of Aadhaar number, the card details etc., along with the OTP.  Thus the opposite party had acted strictly as per the applicable Rules and Regulation of the RBI but the alleged transactions had taken place only due to the negligent act of complainant and the Bank was no way responsible for the same.  Also based on the complaint by the complainant with the internal Ombudsman on examination it was confirmed liability for eight disputed transactions and to reverse the eight remaining disputed transactions amount of Rs.45,088/- upon receipt of the copy of the FIR.  Accordingly, a letter was also issued to the complainant requesting for the FIR. The FIR was not produced.  Thus submitting no deficiency on their part the opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.

This commission perused the available materials and evidences produced by both parties.  It is seen that the alleged fake transactions happened on 29.08.2017.  However, the dispute Form was submitted only on 09.09.2017 after a period of 9 days from the date of occurrence. Until the alleged transactions were held to be fake transactions it could be held that they are done by hackers.  The opposite party had submitted that on an enquiry by the internal Ombudsman eight out of sixteen transactions were found to be genuine and an FIR copy was sought for the other eight transactions.  But no FIR copy was produced by the complainant.  Until the result comes out of the Police Complaint no liability could be fixed on the Bank.  Further the eight genuine transactions as per the opposite party’s version was not disputed by the complainant.  If the same to be disputed by the complainant it requires evidence to be recorded by both parties which is not possible before the Consumer Commission which follows a summary procedure.  Thus in the above facts and circumstances we hold that the complaint as filed before this commission does not bring out any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The point is answered accordingly.

Point No.2:-

As we have held above that the complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, he is not entitled to any reliefs as claimed in the complaint from the oppostie party.  Thus we answer the point accordingly.

In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No order as to cost. 

Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 28th day of November 2022.

   Sd/-                                                                                                                     Sd/- 

MEMBER-II                                                                                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 .............. Credit Card Statement of the complainant issued by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A2 .............. Transaction copy Retrieval &Disputes Form. Xerox

Ex.A3 27.03.2018 Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant. Xerox

Ex.A4 11.04.2018 Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant. Xerox

Ex.A5 26.04.2018 Letter issued by the opposite party to complainant. Xerox

Ex.A6 02.05.2018 Letter given by the complainant to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Cyber Crime Cell. Xerox

Ex.A7 08.05.2018 Letter to the opposite party by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A8 28.05.2018 Letter to the opposite party by the complainant. Xerox

Ex.A9 10.08.2018 Letter issued by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A10 27.08.2018 Reply notice issued by the  opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A11 .............. Bills raised by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A12 .............. Bills raised by the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A13 ............ Bills raised by the opposite party. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 ................ Copy of the OTP details which confirms successful validation and the transaction alert SMS sent to the complainant Xerox

Ex.B2 ................ Opposite party letter dated 26.04.2018 &15.05.2018 to the complainant. Xerox

Ex.B3 ................ Opposite party reply to the complaint No.20181900600001 dated 10.08.2018 to the Banking Ombudsman, RBI. Xerox

Ex.B4 ............... Reply to the legal notice dated 27.08.2019 to the complainant’s counsel Xerox

 

 

    Sd/-                                                                                                                 Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                                                                                  PRESIDENT