Case No. 100/2023   

IN THE MATTER OF

Shoiab Khan S/o Irshad Khan R/o Village-Usia District Ghazipur (UP) presently residing at Police Lines, Aligarh

                                           V/s

1. State Bank of India AMU Branch, Aligarh
2. SBI Cards & Payment Services Ltd. through its representative Rashmi Arora, Power of Attorney Holder

CORAM

 Present:

1. Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President
2. Shri Alok Upadhayay, Member
3. Smt. Purnima Singh Rajpoot, Member

PRONOUNCED by Shri Hasnain Qureshi, President

JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant before this commission for  the following reliefs:-

1. The op be directed to reimburse the complainant for Rs 43000 and credit the said amount into his account.

(aa) the OP be directed to reimburse the complainant Rs.11713.20 and credit the said amount into his account.

2. Ops be directed to pay compensation Rs.250000 for harassment.
3. Op be directed to pay as litigation expenses Rs.10000.

1. Complainant has stated that he is in UP Police service in Aligarh. He was provided a credit card no. 5172527316488702 by the Op bank. On 24.1.2023 an amount Rs. 19313 was debited and an amount Rs. 19872 was also debited and thus total amount Rs.43000 was debited from his account without his knowledge on the said credit card using the mobile no.6295209344. On 11.9.2023 amount of Rs. 11713.20 was also withdrawn on the complainant debit card by playing fraud in connvance with the bank employee.  Complainant has never feed the said mobile no.  in the record of the bank. The said amount was dishonestly and fraudulently was debited in the said debit card. Complainant has never made any transaction with the bank through the said mobile number. The act of debiting the said amount on the said debit card using the said mobile number was done in connivance with the staff of the bank. On 26.3.2023 complainant was informed by the customer care to make payment of the said amount and then the complainant came to know about the fraud committed with him. On10.4.2023 complainant made a complaint at cyber cell Aligarh and on 3.4.2023 lounged the complainant with the bank and requested the bank to credit the said amount to his account but no result . Bank is the trustee and service provider to provided the facility of using the debit card and is under obligation to render the service without any fault or sort coming in the nature and manner of the performance required to be maintained. Complainant further alleged that the complainant suffered loss by the acts of commission or omission and negegience of the bank and the bank is liable to reimburse the complainant for the same with compensation for physical and mental sufferings and also cost of litigation.                         

2. OP no.1 stated in WS that the SBI credit card is a company incorporative under the Company Act has its own management and credit card is not concerned with the State Bank of India which does not provide any credit card facility to their customer. Complainant has to lodged a complaint against he SBI card if he has any complaint regarding transaction of credit card.
3. OP no.2 has stated that SBI Cards and payment services is the card issuing company and provides ancillary services in respect of SBI card. Complainant has further stated that SBI and SBI card are two separate legal entities and the matter in issue  pertains to SBI card as the SBI card is engaged in the business of issuing credit card and anceaed services. Complainant is not sure that the transaction was done from his debit card. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement with cardholder which stipulated as that in all disputes between the card holder and SBI card shall be resolved by the arbitrator. Transaction Id made by the complainant is admitted but it was denied that the transaction of Rs.43000 was conducted without the knowledge of complainant. The transactions are conducted under 3D secured  environment and is completed with second level of authincation  i.e.     dynamic OTP delivered at card holder’s registered mobile number. The transactions were conducted with the merchants PAYUPA.PAYU payments, Gurgaon India for Rs.19313 and one MOVIKWIK Gurgaon IND. For Rs.19872 and money transferred to the merchants as per RBI circular dated 6.7.2017, the loss due to negligence by a customer where he has shared the payment credentials the customer bill bear the entire loss and till he reports the unauthorized transactions to the bank. Any loss occurring after reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank. Therefore liability for said transaction rest with the complainant. There is no deficiency part of the complainant. Complaint is liable to be dismiss.        
4. Complainant has filed his affidavit and papers in support of his pleadings. Op have also filed affidavit in support of their pleadings.
5. We have perused the material available on record and heard the parties counsel.
6. The first question of consideration before us is whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
7. Admittedly, OP no.2 is engaged in the business of issuing credit card and ancillary  services. OP no.2 has admitted the transaction Id belonging to the complainant and it was also admitted that money was transferred to the merchants and also pleaded exemption from the liabilities as the transactions were conducted in secured environment and completed with OTP delivered at complainant’s registered Mobile number. Complainant has stated that the transactions were conducted at the mobile numble 6295209344 and he has deposed that he had never given the said mobile number to feed in the record of OP no.2. OP no.2 has not specifically mentioned that the said mobile number was given by the complainant to feed in the record. Thus it is proved that the transactions were conducted on the unauthorized mobile number of which the complainant cannot be said to hve knowledge. Complainant has also deposed that transactions were conducted without his knowledge. Thus the complainant cannot be made liable for any transaction and the op no.2is held liable for the transactions for want of foolproof safeguards to be provided to the customers and thereby complainant suffered loss on account of acts of commission or omission and negligence on the part of the OP no.2. op no.2 has committed deficiency in service and is liable to reimburse the complainant. 

8. The question formulated above is decided in favor of the complainants.
9. We hereby direct the Op no.2 to reimburse the complainant for Rs. 43000 and Rs.11713.20. Op no.2 is also directed to pay compensation for harassment at Rs.20000 and litigation expanses Rs.10000.
10. Op shall comply with the direction within 30 days failing which Ops shall be prosecuted for non-compliance in accordance with section 72 of the Act for awarding punishment against him.
11. A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties as per rule as mandated by Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.
12. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this judgment.