In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 40 / 2011 .
1) Chandan Banerjee,
385/1, Keyatala Lane, Kolkata-700029. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Standard Chartered Bank,
41, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071.
2) Standard Chartered Bank,
India Card Division, 1, Haddows Road, Chennai-600006. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 16 Dated 27/07/2012.
Instant case has been filed by the complainant against the O.P.s with an allegation of deficiency in service which is within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
In a nutshell, case of the complainant is that the complainant is Credit Card Holder of O.Ps. Bank, namely Standard Chartered Bank since 1994. He was delivered another upgraded Credit Card, namely Gold Reward Primary Card without any consent of the complainant, within an envelop and the envelop was not opened by the complainant at all. But, while the complainant was traveling from Lucknow to Kolkata on 07.08.09. and 08.08.09. by train, that envelope was lost and it was informed to the O.P.Bank on 08.08.09. in order to deactivate the aforesaid credit card. It was informed by the O.P.s to the complainant that the card was blocked on the same day. Thereafter, the complainant received a Bank Statement showing that the card in question was misused by the miscreants on 08.08.09. at Patna amounting to Rs.60,995/-. Immediately complainant objected against that transaction and against the claim of the O.P.s. But after repeated requests of the complaint O.P.s did not pay heed to redress the dispute of the complainant and the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum and the complainant prayed before this Forum as mentioned in the complaint petition.
O.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons-
After scrutinizing all the documents brought before this Forum and hearing every nook and corner from both the parties, it appears to us that it is admitted fact that the complainant was sent an envelope by the O.P.Bank without any consent of the complainant and no transaction was made by the complainant on or before 08.08.09. Moreover, it is not the case of the O.P.s that transactions which were made on 08.08.09. were done by the complainant and nor any nexus can be proved by the O.P.s between the complainant and the person/persons who had made the fraudulent transaction. Learned Councel for the O.P.s has taken the plea that the fraudulent transactions were made in between time from misplacing of the card in question and information by the complainant about that lost. It is observed from the record that this plea of the O.P.s is correct. But it has been noted by this Forum from the documents filed by the O.Ps at Annexure B that the signatures, which were made at the time of transactions through the card in question, were quite different one from another and this can be detected by any prudent person by naked eyes. It is admitted by the Ld.Councel of the OPs at the time of hearing of argument that before debited any amount after transaction through any credit card O.P.Bank has no practice to verify that signature with the specimen signature of the credit card holder. In this regard we are of the opinion that being service provider O.P.Bank shall not be excused from their liabilities atleast preliminary scrutiny towards the verification of signature of the person performed at the time of transaction, before debited any amount from the account of any consumer/customer. Moreover, in the instant case abovementioned signatures were palpably different from one another, whereas, all those transactions were made within few hours out of a couple of hours. The O.P.Bank, being service-provider should be more careful and vigilant before debited the amount from the account of complainant/consumer. Another point is needed to be mentioned that the O.P.s had ample opportunities to contact with the relevant traders to ascertain the authencity about transaction in order to get rid of fraudulent transaction, before making payments towards the traders. Though Ops have virtually admitted that transactions were quite fraudulent but they never tried to solve the matter with the help of State Power.
As per above discussion, we are of the opinion that the O.P.s have committed deficiency in rendering service and also negligence towards their valued consumer/complainant and raising of the outstanding bill towards the abovementioned fraudulent transactions are quite unjustified. To decide whether the complainant is eligible to get compensation as prayed for partly or in full, it is our view that due to negligence and deficiency in service of the O.P.s, complainant has to suffer degradation of prestige in society and mental agony and harassment and he is entitled to be compensated from the O.P.s.
Hence, Ordered
The case of the complainant is allowed in part with cost on contest against the O.P.s.
O.P.s are directed to reverse the debit of Rs.60,995/- (Rupees sixty thousand nine hundred ninety five) only towards the complainant and O.P.s are also jointly and/or severally directed to pay compensation in the tune of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant for his mental agony and harassment due to negligence and deficiency in service of the O.P.s. O.Ps. are also jointly and/or severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only towards litigation cost only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. 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.
