Haryana

Fatehabad

CC/127/2019

Sahab Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank Of India - Opp.Party(s)

P.K Bishnoi

07 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION FATEHABAD.

                                      Sh.Rajbir Singh, President   

                   Smt.Harisha Mehta  &          Sh.K.S.Nirania, Members

    

                                          Complaint No. 127 of 2019.

   Date of Institution: 25.03.2019.

   Date of order: 07.04.2023.

 

Sahab Singh son of Gopi Ram resident of Behind City Public School, House No.1438, Sunder Nagar, Ward No.14, Fatehabad.

 

                                                             ….Complainant.

                                       Versus

 

1.State Bank of India, situated at Grain Market, Fatehabd Branch Code 1156, District Fatehabad Haryana, through its authorized signatory/Branch Manager.

2.Concerned/authorized person of State Bank of India Credit Card, situated at Bidg 3, infinity Tower, Tower-C, DLF Cyber City, Block 2, Gurgram, Haryana, 122002.

3.Amazon India situated at Brigade Gateway, 8^th Floor, 26/1, Dr.Raj Kumar Road, Malleshwaram (W), Bangalore- 560055, Karnataka India through its authorized signatory/Manager.

 

…..Opposite parties

 

        Complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act

 

Present:     Sh.Pawan Kumar Bishnoi, Adv. for complainant.

                Sh.Sanjeev Mehta, Adv. for OP No.1

                Sh.Dushyant Gera, Adv.for Op No.2  

                OP No.3 exparte vide order dated 10.10.2019.

                             

 

ORDER:

Sh.Rajbir Singh, President

 

1.                      The, brief facts, of the complaint are that complainant was having account bearing No.10586887409 with Op No.1 besides facility of credit card bearing No.4726427585301450 issued by the same bank; that on 24.01.2019, the complainant received a telephonic call from Customer Care Executive of   concerned bank intimating about purchasing of something from Amazon through Credit Card with as well as for making the payment of Rs.66099/- to Op No.1 for the said online shopping;  that the complainant has not purchased anything through online by using the alleged Credit card; that the complainant always keeps the credit card in safe custody and even does not share any confidential details to anyone; that the complainant could not contact the bank due to bank holidays from 25 to 27 of January, 2019; that the complainant has never received any OTP on authorized mobile before any transaction; that the complainant also got lodged an FIR bearing No.91 under Section 379/420 IPC on 19.02.2019 at P.S.City, Fatehabad besides moving an application to the police authorities on dated 28.01.2019; that the complainant further supplied the copy of FIR alongwith an application to OP No.1 whereby a request has been made for not making any authorized deduction from his account towards the fraudulent transaction which had taken place on 07.01.2019 but despite that the Op No.1 had deducted an amount of Rs.2881.42 towards interest from his account for unauthorized transaction; that the complainant has requested the Ops for waiving off the amount of Rs.66099/- which was charged from him on account of an unauthorized and illegal transaction which took place due to failure/lapse  of security system as well as for refunding the amount, deducted on account of interest for said illegal transactions but all fell on deaf ear, therefore, the complainant had left with no other option but to approach this Hon’ble Commission as the act and conduct of the Ops clearly amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Hence, this compliant.

2.                     On notice, Ops No.1 & 2 appeared and contested the complaint of the complainant by filing their separate replies. OP No.1 in its reply has taken preliminary objections such as cause of action, maintainability, locus standi and concealment of material facts etc. It has been further submitted that the answering Op has not issued any Credit Card to the complainant, therefore, question of giving any offer does not arise at all and the answering Op has no role to play in this issue; that the replying OP has never raised any demand and also not debited any interest in the account of complainant on 22.02.2019 on account of any unauthorized transaction allegedly took place on 07.01.2019; that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of replying OP as it has no concern with the alleged credit card and even it has no code number of the same.  Other contentions raised in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                     Op No.2 in its separate reply has submitted that the present compliant is not maintainable as the complainant has not approached to this Commission with clean hands; that complex issues are involved in the matter in dispute, therefore, it cannot be adjudicated upon without leading elaborating evidence;  that the complainant got lodged FIR No.91 dated 19.02.2019 which is still pending for investigation; that the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between complainant and replying Op but instead of getting the matter resolved through arbitration, he approached this Commission by concealing the material facts; that the transaction has been made in a secured manner as the same was validated by the card CVV and dynamic OTP (one time password) which was successfully delivered at the registered mobile number of the complainant; that the alleged transaction was fraudulent transaction; that the answering Op always advises their cardholder not to share any details to any third party and such like liability is also applicable on the complainant; that the transactions details, OTP details and SMS details are as under :

Transaction details:

Date	Merchant	Amount
07.01.2019	Amazon Seller Services Mumbai	66,099

OTP details:

Publish date	Mobile No.	Delivery status	Delivery time	Sender ID	Message Tag	Message	circle
1/7/19 13:23	919495891	Delivered	1/7/19 13:23	SBICRD	OL_P Amazon_INR 66099.00	<>Is the otp for trxn of INR 66099.00 at AMAZON with your SBI Card XX1450 OP is valid for 10 mins. Pls do not share any with anyone	Haryana

SMS details:

Publish date	Mobile No.	Delivery status	Delivery time	Sender ID	Message	Operator	circle
1/7/19 13:25	919495891	Delivered	1/7/19 13:25	SBICRD	Rs.66,099/- was spent on your SBI card ending 1450 at AMAZON on 07.01.2019. Available Credit Limit Rs.4901.00	BSNL GSM	Haryana
1/7/19 13:25	919495891	Delivered	1/7/19 13:26	SBICRD	Dear SBI cardholder, you have consumed 80% of your credit limit. Current available limit on your card is Rs.4901.00. Kindly clear your card outstanding to avoid transaction declines.	BSNL GSM	Haryana

 

It has been further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complainant is not entitled for any compensation on this count. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                     Op No.3 in its reply has submitted that ASSPL does not sell or offer to sell any products rather it only provides online market place where independent third party sellers list their products for sale, therefore, the answering respondent is not liable for any acts/omissions of the independent third party; that the said transaction has been done from the credit card of the complainant who has his account with Op No.1 and therefore, Op No.3 is nowhere involved in any such type of transaction; that the order ID is generated only when users make any transaction with the independent third party sellers; that this order ID gives the answering Op the details of all the transactions that take place on its website between the buyer and the seller; that the alleged unauthorized transactions is due to failure of the security system that can only be questioned and addressed towards the Op No.1 and not by answering Op. Other contentions made in the complaint have been controverted and prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. However, during the pendency of the complaint, the Op no.3 proceeded exparte.

5.                     In evidence, the complainant has tendered evidence affidavits and documents Annexure C1 to Annexure C8 in support of his contentions and then the evidence of the complainant was closed. On the other hand, the Ops have tendered affidavit of Sh.Bhasker Kumar Ex.R2/A, affidavit of Sh.Punit Babbar Ex.RW1/A and affidavit of Sh.Rahul Sundaram Ex.R1 besides document Ex.R3in support of their contentions.

6.                     We have heard Ld. Counsels for both the parties and also perused the record placed on case file minutely.

7.                     After going through the record available on the case file one thing is clear that the complainant has repeatedly stressed on the point that an unauthorized transaction was made on 07.01.2019, in fraudulent manner, by using the Credit Card No.4726427585301450 issued to him by Op No.2 and regarding this he moved an application to the concerned police station (Annexure C3) and further on the basis of it the concerned police station lodged an FIR against some unknown persons (Ex.C4). Reading of contents of the complaint, application (Annexure C3) and FIR (Annexure C4) together makes crystal clear that the present matter is related to a fraud which has taken place with the complainant and as per the version of the complainant it may have taken place with the connivance of the bank officials. The complainant has levelled serious allegations qua forgery and conspiracy and regarding this he has also got lodged an FIR under Sections 379/420 IPC against unknown persons.  The fact regarding not completing the investigation in the matter in question is not disputed. It is worthwhile to mention here that the proceedings before this Commission are summarily in nature and the gravity of the facts mentioned in the complaint as well as in the FIR require voluminous evidence to reach at any conclusion. Therefore, keeping in view the above mentioned fact and circumstances this Commission is of the view that the present complaint before this Commission is not maintainable and the matter in question cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction and it requires elaborating and voluminous evidence. 

8.                          Hence, in view of above discussed factual as-well-as legal position, we dismiss the present complaint as this Commission cannot decide the matter qua forgery and conspiracy as mentioned in the complaint as well as in FIR. However, the complainant is at liberty to approach at appropriate Court/Tribunal  keeping in view of his allegations, if he so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this Commission shall not be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate court/forum.  Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted  in terms of the  judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled “ Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industrial Institute  (1995) 3 SCC page 583. . Copy of the order be sent to the parties concerned, free of costs, as per rules. File after due compliance be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Commission.                                                           Dated:07.04.2023

                                                                                                                  

 

          (K.S.Nirania)                  (Harisha Mehta)                          (Rajbir Singh)                              Member                          Member                                      President