Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/9/2021

Ravi Kumar Goel - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank India - Opp.Party(s)

Sukhwinder Singh

19 Jul 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/9/2021
Date of Institution	:	04/01/2021
Date of Decision	:	19/07/2021

 

Ravi Kumar Goel, aged 58 years, son of Sh. Hem Raj resident of House No.96, Sector 28A, Chandigarh.

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Standard Chartered Bank India, through its Nodal Officer Ms. Nidhi Paul, Credit Card Section, SCO 137, 138, Madhya Marg, 9C, Sector 9, Chandigarh 160017.
2. Standard Chartered Bank, Customer Care unit, 19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600001.

… Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Sukhwinder Singh, Counsel for complainant
	:	OPs ex-parte.

 

Per Suresh Kumar Sardana, Member

1.      Briefly stated the allegations are, complainant had taken a credit card from the OP Bank. Averred, on 7.11.2018 the said card was illegally used whereby three transactions of ₹5,234.58, ₹8,375.32 and ₹20,938.32 were debited into complainant’s account. As soon as the complainant came to know of the same on his mobile, he immediately intimated the OPs through email dated 7.11.2018. In response, the complainant received reply 12.11.2018 and as per the account statement of 21.11.2018 the aforementioned three payments were reversed. However, as per statement dated 21.1.2019 the three reversals were again debited into the complainant’s account. The complainant represented before the RBI attaching therewith notification dated 6.7.2017 as per which no liability could be fastened upon the complainant if the fraudulent transaction is brought to the notice of the bank within three days. The complainant had also filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and as per order (Annexure C-7), interest of ₹16338.64 was waived. Pleaded due to the dispute, the CIBIL score of the complainant also suffered.  Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint. 
2.     Registered notices were sent to the OPs which were presumed to have been served. Since none appeared on behalf of OPs, therefore, vide order dated 5.4.2021, they were ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
3.     Complainant led evidence by way of affidavit and documents.
4.     We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant, and gone through the record of the case. After appraisal of record, our findings are as under:-
5.     We have perused the allegations made by the complainant in the consumer complaint. The grievance of the complainant is with regard to three alleged transactions of ₹5,234.58, ₹8,375.32 and ₹20,938.32 which were debited into his account.  According to him, the said transactions were unauthorized fraud transactions. However, the complainant alongwith the consumer complaint has himself annexed Annexure C-5 (Page 11 to 14) which is a copy of the reply dated 30.5.2019 submitted by the OPs with the Banking Ombudsman with reference to the complaint filed by the complainant. In the said reply, copy of which was also sent to the complainant, the OPs clarified that the fraud investigation team of the bank had done a detailed investigation on the alleged transactions reported by the complainant and it was found that the transactions were incurred online through a secured website post validating the card details and the OTP (one time password).  The fraud investigation team had also found that the OTP was sent to the customer’s registered mobile number and email ID updated in the bank records. 
6.     We are of the concerted opinion that the secured transactions get successfully processed only after successful validation of the OTP which was sent to the customer’s mobile and email registered with the bank and the OTP is known only to the customer.  Further, it is not the case of the complainant that there was any change in his mobile number/email ID updated in the bank records. The complainant was also made aware of the system extract containing the details of disputed transactions which were successfully processed post successful validation of OTP. Thus, the complainant has not been able to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs.
7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the present consumer complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
19/07/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member