DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 155/2008

Mrs. Anjana Datta

D-6, 6143/1 Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi-110070                                            ……Complainant

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank

Narain Manzil, Rear Block,

23, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001                                         ……Opposite Party

                                                          Date of Institution: 15.03.2008                       Date of Order        : 05.04.2017

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

The dispute between the parties is with regard to the payment of Rs.16437/- stated to have been debited from the account of the complainant by the OP bank through her credit card bearing No.4129-0576-8017-6151 shown in the statement of account for the month of April, 2007. Admittedly, the complainant made a complaint in this regard to the OP and her complaint was kept pending besides the transaction under dispute was kept in abeyance. The OP provided a copy of the charge slip (printed from machine ID 50004140) to the complainant but the complainant on seeking the charge slip made the following observations:-

“a)    The signature on the charge slip is not mine.

b)      The card expiry date on the charge slip shown as 07/09 differs from that on my card as 09/07”

However, the OP bank never met with this discrepancy though on 30.06.07 she had a received a confirmation from the OP that the expiry date of her credit card was 09/07 and not 07/09 as shown in the charge slip.  However, the OP did not redress her grievance despite the correspondence and legal notice in this behalf. Therefore, pleading deficiency in service on the part of the OP the complainant has filed the present complaint for removal of the transaction dated 20.03.07 of Rs.16437/- alongwith interest and service tax accumulated till date of finalization from her credit card account and for paying Rs.50,000/- to her as compensation for harassment and litigation costs.

          OP in the reply has inter-alia pleaded that a copy of the charge slip alongwith the copy of the invoice issued by M/s Computer Empire in the name of the complainant duly signed by her was sent to the complainant vide letter dated 18.05.07 but, however, the complainant on being provided with the charge slip for the said transition disputed her signatures on the same.  The procedure for transacting through credit card as mentioned in the reply is reproduced as hereunder:-

          “The vendor will swipe the card in the EDC machine provided by the service provider. It may be noted that every credit card, holds a magnetic slip on the back of it and whenever the card is swiped on the EDC machine, the machine will read the magnetic code and then will automatically send it for approval to the card service provider, such as Master Card, Visa, etc. The said service provider will then approve or disapprove the transactions as the case may be. Once the transaction is approved it will be indicated through that EDC machine to the vendor, and the said vendor in response will take the signatures of the card holder on the charge-slip. It is also submitted that as per the card member rules, no credit card transaction is valid unless the credit card carries the signatures of the holder at the back of the card which is to be verified by the merchant. In view of the aforesaid, it is the respectful submission of the opposite party that the complainant has not approached this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and has suppressed material facts in as much as it has already been demonstrated above that the transaction through credit card is a technical process and cannot take place unless and until the card is physically swiped on the EDC machine.

It is further submitted that when a merchant gets approval of a transaction on a credit card it is his duty to ensure that the signature on the charge-slip tallies with the signature on the back side of the credit card. Infact the VISA has prescribed guidelines has as per which the merchant are bound to check the identity of the customer before allowing a transactions. Thus liability if any, is of the merchant and not of the opposite party bank. It is submitted that the complainant has intentionally and with ulterior motives not impleaded the said merchant as said merchant and the complainant are hand in glove with each other and are trying to gain at the cost of the opposite party bank.”

It is stated that all this goes to show that the transaction was valid transaction which had been done by the complainant herself by swapping her card at the EDC machine at the merchant outlet i.e. M/s Computer Empire. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

          Complainant has filed a brief rejoinder to the reply of the OP wherein she has inter-alia stated that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the Merchant and it is the OP who has to release the payment on verification of signatures.

Complainant has filed her affidavit as CW1 and has relied on the documents Ex.CW-1/1 to CW-1/16. On the other hand, the affidavit of Sh. Anand Prakesh, Constituted Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP and he has relied on the document Ex. OP-1 to Ex OP-5. However, neither of the parties have marked Exhibit Nos. on their respective documents.

Since, the case is quite old we proceed to decide the matter.

 It is an admitted fact that the credit card in question of the complainant was never misplaced during the period of the transaction. It always remained with her. It is also a matter of common knowledge that every debit card or credit card is given a special and exclusive Pin No. by the bank and it is the cardholder who has to acquire the exclusive knowledge about the Pin No.  He /she is not supposed to pass on the Pin No. to anyone else.  If he/she does so, he/she does so at his/her own responsibility and in case of misuse of the card by anyone the cardholder cannot escape from his/her liability to pay the amount to the bank. 

In the present case, the complainant has not denied charge slip received from M/s Computer Empire by the bank. Copy of the same is Annexure-3. The same is in the name of the complainant and the complainant had purchased goods worth Rs.16,437/- from the said Firm. According to her, her signatures on the charge slip are not genuine and the same does not bear her signatures. In this regard, the submission made on behalf of the OP and not specially denied by the complainant in the rejoinder and her affidavit is as has already been mentioned in the portion of the reply reproduced hereinabove. We do not want to discuss it again. Hence, it was the duty of the vendor to verify the signature of the complainant from her signature on the back of the card. Therefore, the fault, if any, lied on the part of the Merchant and not on the part of the OP.   Most importantly and as already discussed hereinabove the original credit card has always been in the possession of the Complainant herself. Then how could anyone use it without obtaining it from the complainant. Therefore, it was the complainant or some person on her behalf had made the said transaction from the merchant. Hence, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to hold the OP guilty of deficiency in service.  

In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations.  Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 05.04.17.