Orissa

Cuttak

CC/162/2022

Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

R K Sahu & associates

31 Mar 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.162/2022

   Pradipta Kumar Pattanaik,

   S/O:Late Golak Bihari Pattanaik,

    At:PlotNo.E/159,Sector-7,

    C.D.A, P.O:AbhinabaBidanasi,

    P.S:Markatnagar,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                          ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1. State Bank of India,Nariman Point,,Mumbai,Maharastra

 

2. General Manager, State Bank of India,

Local Head Office,Bhubaneswar,

               Dist-Khurda

 

3. State Bank of India, Represented

Through it’sA.G.M,Zonal Office,

    Bhubaneswar,Dist-Khurda

 

4. Branch Manager,State Bank of India,

High Court Branch,Cuttack,

  At/Po/Dist-Cuttack.

 

5. State Bank of India Cards and Payment

Service Ltd., Represented through it’s

Manager Customer Care and Services,

DLF Infinity Towers, Tower-C,

                   12^th floor,Block-2,Building-3

DLF Cyber City Gurgaon,Hariana.

 

6. Assistant General Manager,

State Bank of India Card,

House No.6/432 IRC Village,Nayapalli,

(Opposite to Allahabad Bank Zonal Office),

Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khordha.                                                            ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:    12.08.2022

Date of Order:  31.03.2023

 

For the complainant:            Mr. R.K.Sahu,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.1,2,3,5 &6:None.              

For the O.P no.4:                  Mr.P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

 

Sri Debasish Nayak,President            

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that he has a Savings Bank Account bearing no.10861862914 with O.P no.4.  He had preferred to avail S.B.I Credit Card and accordingly he had obtained the same from O.Ps no.5 & 6 vide S.B.I Card no.4726427635929912.   He came to know that on 21.6.2021, 22.6.21 and 23.6.21 his S.B.I Credit Card was misused for nine times and on each occasion a sum of Rs.3800/- was illegally deducted from his account towards purchase of some articles from CODA India without his knowledge.  Immediately he had intimated the same to the O.Pson 3.7.2021 and had preferred to block his S.B.I Credit Card.  According to him, when the said money was not reverted back to his account by the O.Ps, he preferred to send pleader’s notice to them.  According to him, he had never used his S.B.I Credit Card and no OTP was ever sent to his registered mobile bearing no.9861207214.  His S.B.I Credit Card has a limit of Rs.34,000/- but in the said illegal transactions of nine times a sum of Rs.3800/- on each occasion amounting to a total of Rs.34,200/- was deducted from him.  The O.Ps had deducted a total sum of Rs.22,289/- from his S.B Account out of which, they had deducted Rs.1848/- on 28.7.2021, Rs.2311/- on 1.9.2021 and Rs.18,130/- on 30.11.2021.  Thus, ultimately, the complainant has come up with this case urging that he is not liable to pay Rs.34,200/- to the O.Ps towards the illegal use of his S.B.I Credit Card and is also entitled to recover a sum of Rs.22,289/- from them which has been wrongly deducted from his S.B.Account.  He has claimed compensation of Rs.20,000/- from the O.Ps together with cost of his litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and has further prayed for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper.

          Alongwith his complaint petition the complainant has filed several copies of documents in order to prove his case.

2.       Out of the six O.Ps as arrayed in this case, none except O.P no.4 have contested this case for which excepting O.P no.4, rest of the O.Ps were set exparte vide order dt.21.11.2022.  However, O.P no.4 has contested this case and has filed his written version wherein he has stated that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be rejected.  There was no such alleged deficiency in service.  The complainant had availed the CreditCard from O.Ps no.5 & 6 and thus the other O.Ps including himself are not liable here in this case.  Ofcourse he admits about the Credit Card facility as obtained by the complainant wherein while availing such facility, there is standing instruction given to the O.Ps no.5 & 6 by the user of the card/complainant  to deduct from his bank account the amount when such facility is availed.  When the complainant had given standing instructions to O.Ps no.5 & 6 for deducting from his S.B.Account which is maintained by O.P no.4 and such execution is made always through online service, thus O.Ps no.1 to 4 are in no way responsible for such deduction of the amount from the account of the complainant.  When intimation was received from the complainant, his credit card was blocked immediately.    Thus, there was no deficiency in service and according to O.P no.4 the complaint petition is liable to be dismissed.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of O.P no.4, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps  ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

 

 

Issue no.iI.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue for this case is taken up  first for consideration here.

             As it appears in this case, the complainant intending to avail Credit Card facility had obtained the same from O.Ps no.5 & 6 bearing S.B.I Credit Card No.4726427635929912.  He had given advise while obtaining the same that the money spent would be deducted from his S.B.Account  bearing no.10861862914 which he has with O.P no.4.  As the complainant says, he had never used the said Credit Card but it came to his knowledge that on 21.6.21,22.6.21 and 23.6.21 an amount of Rs.3800/- on each occasion for nine times were deducted from his account towards purchase of some articles from CODA India.  The complainant through his complaint petition has vehemently urged that he had never used his Credit Card for these nine times and thus he alleges that it is the work of all the O.Ps who had deducted those amounts from his account with a malafide intention.  Be that as it may, in order to operate a Credit Card, the user has to swipe the same if he intends to purchase any article by visiting any shop personally or through his authorised persons by handing over the said card to them.  That apart, if any article is intended to be purchased by an user of Credit Card through online service, then the card number as reflected therein together with the name of the user alongwith OTP is to be exchanged in order to make a successful transaction and thereby enable him to purchase the intended article.   In this case, the complainant blames the O.Ps to have misused his Credit Card facility who, according to him have deducted a sum of Rs.3800/- for nine times within dates from 21.6.21 to 23.6.21 which was not within his knowledge.  There is no allegation from the side of the complainant that his Credit Card was ever stolen.  When he possess the same Credit Card, it would be a futile effort to throw mud upon the O.Ps and blame them unnecessarily.  It is because, there is no plea from the side of the complainant that his Credit Card was ever stolen, misplaced or if he had handed over the same to any of the O.Ps and had provided them his pass words/number etc.  Thus, the allegation as made by the complainant is found to be false and frivolous and is totally baseless.  Accordingly, this Commission is of a opinion that either the complainant or anyone on his behalf who is acquainted with his Credit Card/pass word etc had used/misused the same but the blame is thrown upon the O.Ps unnecessarily.  Thus, there is no deficiency noticed on the part of the O.Ps when they had deducted Rs.3800/- for nine times within the dates from 21.6.21 to 23.6.21 towards purchase of some articles from CODA India.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

 

Issues no.i& iii.

From the discussions as made above, it can never be said here in this case that the case of the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.P no.4 &exparte against other O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 31^st   day of March,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.    

                                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                       President

 

 

                                                                                                        Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member