Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/288/2014

B.Suguna Sarasa - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.Martin Kerwin

06 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 23.06.2014

Date of Reservation      : 05.08.2022

Date of Order               : 06.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                      THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.288/2014

TUESDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mrs. B.Suguna Sarasa,

No.2/16, Natarajan Street,

Shanthi Nagar,

Ramapuram,

Chennai-600089.                                                          ... Complainant            

 

..Vs..

 

1.The General Manager,

   State Bank of India,

   Local Head Office,

   Circletop House,

  16, College Lane,

   Chennai-600006.

 

2.The Regional Sales Manager,

   SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd,

   10^th Floor, No. 141, TVH Agnito Park,

   Rajiv Randhi Road, Kandanchavadi,

   Old Mahabalipuram Road,

   Chennai-600097.

 

3.Ms. Rashmi Gupta,

   Senior Manager,

   SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd,

   DLF Infinity Towers,

   Tower C, 10^th -12^th Floor, Block 2, Building 3,

   DLF Cyber City,

   Gurgaon-122002,Haryana.                                         ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

 

Counsel for the Complainant                   : M/s. Martin Kerwin

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party           : M/s. S. Makesh

Counsel for the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties : M/s. K. Mohandass

 

On perusal of records and having treated the written arguments of the Complainant as oral arguments on endorsement made by the Complainant  we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.33,899/- which is wrongly deducted from the Complainant’s credit card account due to the negligence attitude of the Opposite Parties and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation towards negligent act and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony caused to the Complainant.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant had availed Credit Card facility from the Opposite Party vide Credit Card No.4377 4869 4441 8498. The Complainant was regular in payment of credit card dues. On 24.01.2013 a sum of Rs.8000/- was debited from the Complainant’s account for transaction with www. indianhealthorganiDELHI.in. Immediately the Complainant had raised oral complaint to the Opposite Parties stating that the above said unauthorised transaction was made without the Complainants knowledge through her credit card. The Opposite Parties had given an assurance to take action within 7 days and release the Complainant’s amount immediately. But the Opposite Parties failed to do so. On 05.05.2013 when the Complainant had received the Opposite Parties monthly statement  showing i) a sum of Rs.10,999/- was debited from the Complainants account for the transaction with Impact Solutions, Ghaziabad on 03.04.2013 ii) a sum of Rs.4000/- was debited from Complainant’s account for the transaction with Airtel bill desk, Mumbai on 12.04.2013 iii) a sum of Rs.2050/- was debited from the Complainants account with the transaction with Airtel Bill Desk, Mumbai on 03.04.2013.  The Complainant had raised a written complaint through email on 08.05.2013 to the Opposite Parties website vide feedback@sbi.com and nodalofficer@sbicard.com on the Complainants credit card. A reply e-mail has been received by the Complainant on 19.06.2013. In spite of repeated request to return back the amount which was wrongly deducted from the Complainant’s account again a sum of Rs.8850/- was debited from the Complainant’s account for the transaction with click_N_GO_payTM, Mumbai on 04.10.2013. The Complainant has raised a complaint through email on 07.10.2013. While so to the shock and surprise of the Complainant the Opposite Party has sent a notice to the Complainant to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.64,750.49/- as on 11.01.2014. The Complainant has given a reply notice through her advocate on 21.01.2014.  The Opposite Party has threatened the Complainant of dire consequences if the Complainant fails to pay the amount. Even assuming the Complainant has committed default the Opposite Party ought to have followed legal method for recovery of the amounts. She has also sent legal notices to the Opposite Parties on 12.03.2014, but there is no reply from the Opposite Parties. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The 1^st Opposite Party is not a necessary Party to the Complaint on the ground that they are not providing credit card services to their customers. M/s. State Bank of India and M/s.SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Limited are different entities. Further, M/s. State Bank of India have no control over the affairs of the SBI Card and Services Private Limited. Moreover there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and State Bank of India.  This Opposite Party has nothing to do with the transaction which have taken place between the Complainant and the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties. The 1^st Opposite Party is not a necessary party to this proceedings and hence to dismiss the complaint as against the 1^st Opposite Party with exemplary cost.

4.    Written Version filed by the 2^nd and 3^rd  Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant has not come before this Hon’ble Forum with clean hands and suppressed with material facts and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complaint does not qualify the ingredients of the valid complaint as envisaged under section 2 (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. There is no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.  It is important to mention that the transaction was valid transaction because they have been performed in a secure electronic commerce environment. Further the Opposite Parties have advised the Complainant to make payment of the outstanding amount but despite the said fact the Complainant remained adamant on his demand and pressure the Opposite Party to accept his illegal demand and waive off the amount of valid transaction.  The transaction of Rs.8000/- on 24.01.2013, the transactions with regard to the sums of Rs.10,999/-, Rs.4000/-, Rs.2050/- and Rs.8850/- the said case was closed as the Opposite Party have not received the documents with the stipulated time and communication was also sent to the Complainant in that regard. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.  

5.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14. The Opposite Parties submitted Written Version. Proof Affidavit of Opposite Parties 1 to 3 was closed and no document was marked, on the side of Opposite Parties.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

 

 

Point No.1:

The Complainant had availed Credit card facility from the Opposite Party vide credit card No.4377 4869 4441 8498, which is not in dispute. The contention of the Complainant was that on 24.01.2013 there was an  unauthorised deduction of Rs.8,000/- from the Complainant’s account with www. indianhealthorganiDELHI.in which transaction is found in Ex.A-2. The Complainant contended that, as the Opposite Party failed to take action on the oral complaint of the Complainant, as per Ex.A-4 the Complainant had sent an email on 26.04.2013 regarding the illegal transaction of Rs.8000/-. Further contended that on 12.04.2013 a sum of Rs.4000/- was debited for the transaction with Airtel bill desk, Mumbai and a sum of Rs.2050/- was debited from the Complainant’s account for the transaction with Airtel bill desk, Mumbai on 13.04.2013. As per Ex.A-5 the Complainant had raised a written complaint via email on 08.05.2013 to the Opposite Party about the unauthorised debit transaction in the Complainants credit card, which was replied by the Opposite Parties, Ex.A-6, at Page.No.7 stating that they require more time for further investigation. While so again on 04.10.2013 a sum of Rs.8850/- was debited unauthorisedly from the Complainant’s account for the transaction with click_N_GO_payTM, Mumbai. In spite of the complaints made by the Complainant, the Opposite Parties had sent a notice claiming an outstanding amount of Rs.64,720.49/- due as on 11.01.2014, Ex.A-9. The legal notices, Exs.A-11 to Ex.A-14 from the Complainant evoked no response from the Opposite Parties.

        The 1^st Opposite Party has averred that they are not a necessary party to the proceedings as they have no control over the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties, which are different entities and that there is no privity of contract between the Complainant and the 1^st Opposite Party, will not hold good as the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties are subsidiary of the 1^st Opposite Party who has control over the 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties, and hence the 1^st Opposite Party is a necessary party to the complaint.

        The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Party had averred that the complaint regarding the transaction of Rs.8000/- on 24.01.2013 at www.indianhealthorganiDELHI.in. was received beyond the time frame and hence the case was closed as card holder liability and further complaints with regard transactions of Rs.10,999/, Rs.4000/-, Rs.2050/- and Rs.8850/- was also closed as they did not receive the documents within the stipulated time and communication regarding closure of complaints was sent to the Complainant cannot be sustained as the Opposite Parties have not produced  any document to prove that the complaint ought to have made by the Complainant with regard to the unauthorised deductions within a time frame and that the reasoning the Complaint was received beyond the time frame is not supported by documentary evidence. Moreover the communication that the case was closed as card holder liability to the Complainant was also not produced.

In spite of several complaints and reminders of the Complainant about the unauthorised deductions made from the Complainant’s account the Opposite Parties were not vigilant in redressing the grievance of the Complainant and allowed further unauthorised deductions from the Complainant’s account. When the complaint regarding unauthorised deductions was already addressed to the 3^rd Opposite Party, the Opposite Parties were lethargic and failed to resolve the complaint raised by the Complainant regarding unauthorised transaction.

        In view of the aforesaid discussions we are of the considered opinion that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of services by failing to redress the grievance of the Complainant regarding unauthorised transactions. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2:

As discussed and decided in Point No.1 that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency of service, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are liable to pay a total sum of Rs.33,899/- (being Rs.8000/- for www.Indiahealth organi.DELHI.in + Rs. 10,999/- for Impact solution, Ghaziabad + Rs.4,000/- for Airtal Bill Desk, Mumbai + Rs.2050/- for Airtal Bill Desk, Mumbai + Rs.8850/- for Click_N_Go_payTM, Mumbai) which was wrongly deducted from the complainant's credit card account due to the negligence attitude of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- towards cost of this proceedings. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to pay a total sum of Rs.33,899/- (Rupees Thirty Three Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety Nine Only) (being Rs.8000/- for www.Indiahealth organi.DELHI.in + Rs. 10,999/- for Impact solution, Ghaziabad + Rs.4,000/- for Airtal Bill Desk, Mumbai + Rs.2050/- for Airtal Bill Desk, Mumbai + Rs.8850/- for Click_N_Go_payTM, Mumbai) which was wrongly deducted from the complainant's credit card account due to the negligence attitude of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand Only) towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards cost of this proceedings, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the above sums shall be payable with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^th of September 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1		Copy of SBI Credit Card
Ex.A2	23.02.2013	Copy of Credit Card Statement
Ex.A3	23.04.2013	Copy of Credit Card Statement
Ex.A4	26.04.2013	Copy of Email complaint
Ex.A5	08.05.2013	Copy of Email complaint (Reminder)
Ex.A6	24.07.2013	Copy of Email complaint to SBI card Web site
Ex.A7	11.01.2014	Copy of Legal notice from the Opposite Parties Bank
Ex.A8	21.01.2014	Copy of Reply notice sent by the Complainant
Ex.A9	07.10.2013	Copy of Email complaint
Ex.A10	23.10.2013	Copy of Credit card statement
Ex.A11	12.03.2014	Copy of Legal notice to the 1st Opposite Party
Ex.A12	12.03.2014	Copy of Legal notice to the 2nd  Opposite Party
Ex.A13	12.03.2014	Copy of Legal notice to the 3rd  Opposite Party
Ex.A14	09.04.2014	Copy of Acknowledgement card

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT