Sri B.NARAYANAPPA,

     President

1. The complainant Sri. Sadanand Nagaraja Rao has filed this complaint against opposite party Standard Chartered Bank, Chennai praying to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.6,56,212/- with interest at 18% p.a. and to grant other reliefs as deem fit by this Commission in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts are that:-

The complainant is the Managing Director of Supreeem Pharmaceuticals Mysore Pvt. Ltd., a drug manufacturing company situated at KIADB Industrial Area, Nanjangud and he obtained credit card bearing No.4541982338814152 from the opposite party and he was operating the same for the past three years.The complainant was deputed by the company to state of Mexico to attend Expo Farma, Mexico along with his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha V.K, Head of Marketing Department.They booked residence Heritage OKLA HOMA by Blue Bay and they reached Mexico on 17.04.2018 and Expo Farma started on 18.04.2018.The complainant possessed the credit card issued by opposite party and he kept it for use on business tour. On 18.04.2018 Expo Farma events commenced he and his senior colleague participatedin the event one booth was provided to them for exhibiting their products, banner, catalogues etc., and they kept all their belongings such as pass ports, credit cards, debit cards, USD currency 600, INR 5000, I-pad G, gold ornaments and the mobile of his colleague in a bag pack which contained their lunch also and the same were looking after carefully by the complainant.At about 2.55 p.m. (3-30 a.m. IST)a group of students studying in M pharma came near the booth and made enquiries regarding the products and requested for a photo session, after completion of the photo session they went away.15 minutes later the complainant and his colleague noticed that their bag pack contained all the valuable items were stolen.Immediately they lodged oral complaint of the missing bag to the Expo Farma authorities,except the cell phone of the complainant entire valuables were stolen the Expo Farma authorities advised the complainant to lodge a complaint to the Mexican Police.Accordingly a complaint was lodged with Mexican police on the same day and the complainant sent E-mail to the opposite party Bank credit card division which was acknowledged by them.Further the complainant lodged complaint to Indian Embassy authorities at Mexico city.Therefore, the complainant and his colleague were put to untold misery, hardship.In the mean while in between that three crucial hour the credit card was misused by the culprits and articles worth Rs.2,93,230.98was purchased through credit card by forging the signature of the complainant.Immediately when he received SMS alert in this regard, he sent E-mail to opposite party stating unauthorized transaction was took place by forging his signature the complainant visited Indian Embassy on 3^rd day at Mexico city to the fortune of the complainant Indian Embassy authorities told that they found the passport of both the complainant and his colleagueand the same was returned to them.The Mexican police neither investigated the matter for tracing the culprits nor recovered the stolen property, the complainant and his colleague with great difficulty returned to India on 30.04.2018.The complainant submitted a customer transactions dispute form to opposite party requesting them to make good the financial loss.The opposite party on 23.05.2018 gave temporary credit of the disputed transaction to the account of the complainant , but two months later the credit given was reversed and thereby the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice.On 01.11.2018 complainant issued legal notice to opposite party calling upon them to make good the loss.The complainant forwarded FIR copy to opposite party, the opposite party gave evasive reply to legal notice.The opposite party is under the control of RBI, hence the opposite party bound by the RBI norms and guidelines as per the guidelines of RBI, it is clear regarding the protection of the interest of the customers, the bank is bound to make good the los sustained by the complainant.The opposite party failed to give immediate attention to the E-mail sent by complainant and thereby committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.Therefore, this complaint is filed.

3. After registration of this complaint, notice was ordered to be issued to opposite party.   In response to notice opposite party appeared before this Commission through its counsel and has filed written statement/version contending that the complaint is liable to be dismissed since this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, neither the opposite party carries on business nor has a branch within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Commission and there is no cause of action against the opposite party since already complainant had paid the disputed transaction dues, hence there was no cause of action subsists to file present complaint.  The contents of the complaint are wholly misconceived, vexatious and misleading there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and admitted that the opposite party had issued credit card bearing No.4541982338814152 on 16.10.2004 to the complainant on his request and contended that the complainant by using the said credit card without any difficulty now disputed the transaction dated 18.04.2018 amounting to Rs.1,02,615/- and Rs.1,90,615.98.  On the basis of  dispute raised by the complainant, the opposite party blocked the card on 19.04.2018 and collected the Dispute Declaration Form  from complainant to take up the dispute with the Merchant establishment through the member Bank.  According to guidelines the opposite party provided a temporary credit towards the aforesaid disputed transaction in the month of June-2018 so as to avoid levy of financial charges till the completion of the investigation.  The credit card issued by the opposite party has been used by the customer as per their convenience and requirement and commonly used methods of credit cards usage are that swiping at the merchant outlet, online transaction and the merchant   raises the settlement request to the card issuing bank for payment towards the transaction incurred by the card members and the same is settled by the issuing bank.  In the event of any dispute received by the card issuing bank from the customer, the dispute is referred to merchant for necessary clarification from merchant with respect to transaction disputed by the customer and it is further contended that the opposite party is just facilitator between the merchant and customer for the transaction and  settling the payment of the customer with merchant.  The opposite party initiated necessary investigation on the DDF received from the complainant and it was observed that the credit card was physically involved in the said transaction at the time of  incurring  in the said transaction.  In this regard the charge slips retrieved from merchant is annexed and on 18.04.2018 the said card was in possession of the complainant and was valid and active for usage at the time of incurring the transactions.  Accordingly, the SMS had been sent to the complainant indicating the debit, hence the opposite party imposed the liability on the complainant to pay aforesaid transaction.  As per the Rules and Guidelines, it is confirmed that the liability of the complainant towards the disputed transaction and denied all other allegation made in the complaint.  For all these reasons prays to dismiss the complaint.

4. The complainant has filed his affidavit by way of examination in chief, the same was taken as PW.1 and got marked Exhibit P.1 to P.20.  On the other hand, the opposite party has also filed its affidavit by way of examination in chief same was taken as RW.1 and got marked certain documents. 

5.   We have heard the arguments of both sides.  The complainant counsel as well as counsel for opposite party have also filed their written arguments.

6. The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-  

1. Whether the complaint proves the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party?
2.  What order?

7.      Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

       Point No.1 :- In the negative;

       Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

8. Point No.1:-  It is not in dispute that the complainant had obtained credit card bearing No.4541982338814152 from the opposite party and he was operating the same the opposite party has admitted the said fact of issuance of the said credit card in favour of the complainant.

9.      It is the contention of the complainant that he and his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha V.K were deputed to state of Mexico to attend Expo Farma and they reached Mexico on 17.04.2018 and Expo Farma started on 18.04.2018 and they participated in the said event and they  were provided with one booth for exhibiting their products, banner, catalogues etc., and they kept their belongings such as pass port, credit cards, debit cards, USD currency 600, INR 5000, I-pad G. gold ornaments and mobile including lunch in their bag pack.  It is further alleged that on 18.04.2018 at about 2.55 p.m. (3-30 AM IST) a group of 13 students studying in M Pharma came near their booth and enquired regarding their products and requested for photo session.  After photo session the students went away, 15 minutes later the complainant and his colleague noticed that their bag pack contending all their valuables was stolen, immediately they lodged oral complaint to Expo Farma authorities and  lodged complaint to Mexican police and also lodged complaint to Indian embassy at Mexico city, within 3 crucial hours from the time of loss of credit card same were used by the culprits and purchased articles worth of Rs.2,93,230.98,  the complainant after receipt of  SMS alert  in this regard immediately he sent E-mail to opposite party about forging of his signature and operating of the credit card and purchase of  various articles,  but the Mexican police neither made any investigation for tracing the culprits nor recovered the stolen property and he was told by India Embassy  that their passport was found and the same were returned to complainant and to his senior colleague and further alleged that in view of theft of the credit card and all their belongings, the complainant and his senior colleague undergone unexplainable agony and mental torture.  Though the opposite party gave temporary credit of transaction to the complainant on 23.05.2018, but the same was reversed and thereby committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and contended that as per guidelines of RBI the Bank is bound to make good of loss sustained by the complainant, hence, the opposite party is liable to pay Rs.6,56,399/- to the complainant with interest.

10.      On the other hand, it is the specific contention of the opposite party that immediately after receipt of complaint by the complainant  through E-mail regarding by  using of the credit card  purchased articles by unknown culprits, the opposite party blocked the credit card and collected disputed declaration form (DDF) from the complainant to take up the dispute with the Merchant Establishment through the member Bank.

11.      Based on the complainant’s dispute and in accordance with the applicable guidelines, temporary credit provided towards disputed transaction in the month of June-2018, so as to avoid levy of financial charges till the completion of the investigation.  During the course of investigation, it was observed that the credit card ending 4152 was physically involved in the said transaction at the time of incurring the transaction.  The card holder was aware that at the time of swiping the card at the EDC machine  the credit card transaction validated electronically while the card was swiped at the merchant outlet and the merchant delivers the goods or services immediately.  Therefore, it is the specific contention of the opposite party that the credit card was physically involved in the transaction dated 18.12.2018.  Therefore, the opposite party imposed  the liability on the complainant to pay the aforesaid disputed transaction incurred in his card account and recovered the temporary credit given to the complainant and the opposite party produced  retrieved transaction bill dated 18.04.2018 which contains  the signature of complainant.  Therefore, prima-facie it appears that the credit card was physically used by the complainant himself and also the opposite party produced VISA credit bill for Rs.26,999/- which also bears  the signature of complainant and also produced credit card statement showing the transaction of Rs.1,02,615/- and Rs.1,90,615.98 held on 18.04.2018.  So from the specific contention of the opposite party after investigation of the complaint of complainant they found that the complainant himself personally transacted the said transaction and purchased articles worth of Rs.2,93,293.98 and it is further specific contention of the opposite party that it is the duty of the complainant to take care of credit card and to use the same personally  with all care and cautions as that of currency notes, but the complainant negligently kept the same along with other valuables belonging to him and his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha. V.K in a bag pack and alleged to have lost it.  Therefore, it is contended by opposite party that due to negligent act and carelessness of the complainant and his colleague theft of valuables  belonging to complainant and his senior colleague might have taken place.  But it is the clear contention of the opposite party that the complainant has physically used the credit card at the merchant outlet and transacted to purchase articles.

12.      Though the complainant has alleged that his credit card and his  valuables and the credit card of his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha .V.K and her valuables and passport of both of them were stolen.  Therefore, the oral complaint was lodged to Expo Farma authorities  and they lodged complaint to Mexican police and also lodged complaint to Indian Embassy.  But it is clearly contended by complainant that the Mexican police neither investigated the matter nor recovered the stolen articles and  it is surprising contended by complainant that when   he visited the Indian Embassy the Indian Embassy authorities told that they found passport of the complainant and his senior colleague,  when the Indian Embassy found the stolen  passport of complainant and his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha V.K what about other articles belonging to complainant and his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha V.K in this regard no answer from the Indian Embassy.  Therefore the contention of the complainant that his credit card and credit card of his senior colleague Mrs. Shobha V.K and their valuable articles including the passport of them were stolen appears to be fishy and unbelievable.  Therefore in view of result of the investigation conducted by opposite party on the complaint of the complainant that the investigation authority found that the complainant himself personally involved in the transaction held on 18.04.2018 and the complainant received SMS alert in this regard and the opposite party Bank transferred the transacted amount to merchant outlet.  And it could be seen from the retrieved bills produced by opposite party.  Therefore, it is contended by opposite party that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  On going through the material averments made in the complaint and in the version of opposite party and documents produced by either parties to complaint, we do not find any merits in the complaint and we do not find any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by opposite party.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed as it devoid of  merits.  Hence, we answer point No.1 in the negative.

13.    Point No.2:- For the aforesaid reasons, we proceed to pass the following

:: ORDER ::

The complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

No order as to cost.

    Furnish the copy of order to both the parties at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer transcribed, typed by her, corrected by us and then pronounced in open Commission on this the 17^th December, 2021)