Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/813/2019

Sh. Prem Kumar Jindal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Amarbir Dhaliwal Adv. & Gurtej Pratap Singh Sandhu Adv.

29 Feb 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	813 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	26.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	29.02.2024

 

 

 

 

 

Sh. Prem Kumar Jindal S/o Sh.Amar Nath Jindal, R/o House No.924 Ashirwad Enclave Sector 49-A, Chandigarh - 160047

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  Standard Chartered Bank through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Officer, No.19 Rajaji Salai, Chennai - 600 001 - Landmark: Beach Police Station

2]  M/s AMAZON SELLER SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, through its Managing Director/Chairman/ Authorized Officer Registered Address: Brigade Gateway, 8th floor, 26/1, Dr.Rajkumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore-560055, Karnataka, India.

3]  M/s Amazon Pay India Private Limited, No.26/1, Brigade World Trade Centre, 8th Floor, Dr. Raj Kumar Road, Bangalore- 560055, Karnataka

3]  Qwikcilver Solutions Private Limited through its Managing Director/Director/Authorized Officer, #111, Brigade Manar Court, 1st Floor, 5th Block, Koramangala, Bangalore-560095

     ….. Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                MR.S.K.SARDANA,                MEMBER

                               

Argued by:-     Sh.Harshit Kakani, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Jatin Bansal, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Arjun Kundra, Counsel for OP No.1.

Proxy Counsel for Sh.Piyush Khanna, Counsel for OP No.2.

OP NO.3 exparte.

Sh.Shantanu Bansal, Counsel for OP No.4.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

1]       The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he was holding SCB TITANIUM Credit Card No.5546232909482514 issued by OP No.1 Bank and never defaulted in its payment. It is stated that on 25.7.2019 in morning, the complainant was shocked to note the receipt of SMS Messages of midnight from the OP No.1 stating the OTPs (One Time Password) for 7 transactions from his credit card at Amazon Pay (Ann.C-1) showed that his credit card was charged for Rs.2,60,000/- vide 7 unauthorized electronic transactions. It is stated that the complainant's credit card was used in an unauthorized manner on the web-portal of OP No.2 for purchasing Amazon Pay Gift cards issued by OP No.4 and the said transactions were executed by an unauthorized beneficiary to purchase Amazon Pay gift cards worth Rs.2,60,000/- in total and the same were redeemed by him at the web portal of OP No.2. It is submitted that however, as per the credit card statement (Ann.C-3) the transactions are dated 24.07.2019 which is wrong. The complainant also did not receive any e-mails or messages on his phone related to the illegal purchases despite having his email and telephone number linked to his Amazon Account. It is pleaded that it is a standard practice of the banks and financial institutions to inform its customers when the usage limit of the credit card is almost full but still the complainant did not receive message when his card was used for Rs.2,60,000/- against his credit card limit of Rs.2,66,000/ -.

         It is submitted that the complainant immediately made a telephonic call to OP No.1 and also sent e-mail requesting it to block his card and for reversal of the debited amount which was charged in an unauthorized manner. Accordingly, his credit card was blocked  (Ann.C-4) and the disputed amount was credited back into his account but it was again reversed and debited from his card account (Ann.C-3). The complainant also lodge a police complaint vide Ref.No.PW201911739, dated 28.06.2019 mentioning all details of the unauthorized transactions (Ann.C-5).  The complainant also requested the OP No.1 to provide the beneficiary statement/details of all the fake transactions and further reverse the same, but it was not supplied.  It is also pleaded that during the complainant’s telephone call with customer care of OP No.2 revealed that one Mr.Ankur Dutta was responsible for unauthorized transactions.  It is further pleaded that since the complainant intimated the bank on the same day of the unauthorized electronic transation i.e. within 3 working days, so there is zero liability of the complainant and the Op No.1 is liable to reverse the said amount of Rs.2,60,000/-.  However, the OP Bank did not do so despite request of the complainant. Hence, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OP No.1 to credit an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- in his credit card account; waiving off any interest or charges as well as to pay compensation and litigation cost.

 

2]       After service of notice, the OP No.1 has put in appearance, filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the OTPs were sent at the registered mobile number of the complainant on the basis of the transactions initiated towards the credit card of the complainant and also sent SMS's after the amount was debited from the credit card of the complainant. It is denied that there is discrepancy between the OTP message time and transaction time. The disputed transactions were processed on 24.06.2019 as the time captured in Visa is in GMT (Greenwich Mean Time) format, whereas the OTP and SMS log details being shared by the OP Bank is in IST (Indian Standard Time) format, so the Complainant is under the false presumption that the transactions took place prior to the receipt of the OTP.  It is submitted that based on the dispute raised by the complainant, the OP Bank blocked the credit card of the complainant ending 2514 on 25.06.2019 for security reasons and issued a replacement card ending 7310.

         It is pleaded that on the basis of the dispute raised by the complainant, the answering OP initiated the investigation with respect to the disputed transaction and during the investigation it was found that the disputed transactions were Online Secured Transactions which were incurred after validation of OTP details delivered to the Complainant's registered mobile number updated as per the records of the OP Bank. It is submitted that the disputed transactions were processed with a combination of credit card details and OTP sent to the Complainant's registered mobile number and in the absence of the credit card number and the OTP, the validation of the transaction could not have been completed. It is also submitted that the customers are required to keep the card plastic (CVV number, expiry date, etc.) confidential for avoiding any misuse and thus the onus for all the transactions on the card is that of the cardholder till the loss of card is reported to the bank. It is pleaded that every card member is responsible for the security of the Card at all times and should take all steps towards ensuring the same, so the OP Bank informed the complainant about his liability towards the disputed transaction vide email dated 26.07.2019. Denying other allegations, the OP No.1 has prayed to dismissal of the complaint with cost.

        

3]       The OP No.2 (Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd.) has also filed written version stating that the complainant has a registered account with answering OP (ASSPL) which is secured with a password known exclusively to the complainant and no one can access to it unless the complainant himself shares the secured password with third party.  It is submitted that the complainant approached the answering OP alleging that unauthorized transactions had taken place on his account and he was informed that the alleged grievances of the complainant with regard to the unauthorized transactions of the complainant can only be resolved by the OP No.1 and answering OP/ASSPL cannot verify any such transactions from its end.  It is stated that the answering OP/ASSPL is an ecommerce online market platform where individual users and independent third party sellers transact to purchase/sell goods and services. It is submitted that the complainant's account is secured through a password that is only accessible to the complainant unless the complainant shares the said secured password with a third party, therefore, OP No.2 cannot assist the complainant in resolving his grievances of alleged unauthorized transactions and he has to approach the OP No.1 regarding it the alleged grievances of the complainant. Denying other allegations, the OP No.2 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4]       The OP No.4 has filed short written version and while admitting the issuance of Amazon Gift Cards stated that the issuance was subject to approval by OP No.2 upon payment being made and the answering OP No.4 has not role to play.  It is submitted that no case is made out against answering OP as no role of the answering OP has been disclosed in the matter. Pleading no deficiency in service, the OP No.4 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

5]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written submission. 

 

7]      The issue to be decided is whether there deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 in not redressing the grievance of the complainant about unauthorized transactions made in his account especially when the unauthorized transactions have been brought to the notice of OP No.1 Bank without any delay or not ?

 

8]       To find out answer to this issue, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

         From the record, especially from Ann.C-4 dated 25.6.2019, it proved that the complainant reported the matter to the OP Bank on that very day when unauthorized transactions took placed from his account/card.  Moreover, the OP No.1 Bank also admitted that based on the dispute raised by the complainant, the OP Bank blocked the credit card of the complainant on 25.6.2019 for security reason and issued a replacement card to him.  Thus, it is proved that the complainant has promptly brought the unauthorized transactions in question to the notice of OP No.1 bank on same day/25.6.2019.

 

9]       It is important to mention here that the Reserve Bank had issued Circular bearing No.RBI/2017-18/15 DBR. No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/ 2017- 18 dated 06/07/2017, to all commercial banks with respect to “Customer Protection-limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions”, wherein it is stipulated that the customer is required to report the unauthorized transaction to the bank, which has been done in the instant case. The relevant part of the said circular is reproduced as under:-

“…..Limited Liability of a Customer

 

(a) Zero Liability of a Customer

 

6.       A customer's entitlement to zero liability shall arise where the unauthorised transaction occurs in the following events;

 

(i) Contributory fraud/ negligence/ deficiency on the part of the bank (irrespective of whether or not the transaction is reported by the customer).

 

(ii) Third party breach where the deficiency lies neither with the bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system, and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding the unauthorised…..”

 

9.      On being notified by the customer, the bank shall credit (shadow reversal) the amount involved in the unauthorised electronic transaction to the customer’s account within 10 working days from the date of such notification by the customer (without waiting for settlement of insurance claim, if any). Banks may also at their discretion decide to waive off any customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transactions even in cases of customer negligence. The credit shall be value dated to be as of the date of the unauthorised transaction.

10.     Further, banks shall ensure that:

 (i) a complaint is resolved and liability of the customer, if any, established within such time, as may be specified in the bank’s Board approved policy, but not exceeding 90 days from the date of receipt of the complaint, and the customer is compensated as per provisions of paragraphs 6 to 9 above;

(ii) where it is unable to resolve the complaint or determine the customer liability, if any, within 90 days, the compensation as prescribed in paragraphs 6 to 9 is paid to the customer; and

 (iii) in case of debit card/ bank account, the customer does not suffer loss of interest, and in case of credit card, the customer does not bear any additional burden of interest.

Burden of Proof

12. The burden of proving customer liability in case of unauthorised electronic banking transaction shall lie on the bank.

 

10]     It is observed that the OP No.1 Bank has not complied with the directions issued by Reserve Bank of India once the complainant has intimated it about the unauthorized transactions from his account on the same day/26.6.2019.    

 

11]      Further, as per the Circular of RBI, referred above, the burden of proving the complainant’s liability is on the OP No.1 Bank, which the OP Bank has failed to prove by leading any valid documentary evidence and mere submission of OP Bank that the complainant was negligent or transactions were successful as per the account statement without any cogent evidence does not absolve them of their duty. Hence, non compliance of the directions and failure of the OP No.1 in redressing the genuine grievance of the complainant about unauthorsied transactions in question in his account as per by the circular of Reserve Bank of India, detailed above, clearly amounts to deficiency in services.

 

12]      The complainant relied upon the decisions of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in F.A.No.112 of 2015 – Chairman, Punjab National Bank & Anr. Vs. Leader Values Ltd., decided on 13.03.2020 and Revision Petiton No.3333 of 2013 – H DFC bank Limited & Anr. Vs. Jesna Jose, decided on 21.12.2020 as well as decision of Hon’ble State Commission, UT, Chandigarh in Appeal No.114 of 2023 – Dr.Ajay Sood vs. Bank of India, decided on 05.10.2023, wherein similar issue, as in the present case, has been dealt with and decided in favour of the complainant/consumer. 

     

13]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings and settled position of law, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OP No.1 Bank (Standard Chartered bank). The OP No.1 Bank is directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- debited on account of unauthorized transactions alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of deduction of amount i.e. 26.06.2019 till the date of actual realization.

         This order be complied with by OP No.1 within 60 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

 

14]      The complaint qua remaining OPs stands dismissed. 

 

15]      The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

        Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

29.02.2024                                                                          Sd/-

 

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(S.K.SARDANA)

MEMBER