Delhi

North East

CC/82/2021

Shri Hukum Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

15 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 82/21

 

 

 

In the matter of:

 

		Sh. Hukum Singh S/o Sh. Raghuvir Singh R/o H.No. 467, St. No. 11, Phase 6, Shiv Vihar, Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094		Complainant
		Versus
	1.       2.	State Bank of India Branch Karawal Nagar, Delhi-110094   SBI Credit Card Fourth Floor Unit No. 401, 402 Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E 1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, Delhi-110034		Opposite Parties
			DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:		12.07.21 31.01.24 15.04.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party No.1 i.e. State Bank of India and Opposite Party No.2 i.e. SBI credit Card alleging deficiency in services.

 

 

Case of the Complainant                                                                 

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that the Complainant is having saving account no. 10226267578 with Opposite Party No.1 bank and Complainant agreed to apply for credit card and received a SBI simply save credit card having no. 4726 4280 3517 8084. It is stated that Complainant never used his credit card from the very beginning and never generated PIN. At the time of updating the passbook from Opposite Party No.1, Complainant came to know that there are 5 transactions of different amounts on different dates amounting to Rs. 19,164/- has been done without Complainant approval’s and thereafter this amount has been credited in account of Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that this amount has been illegally deducted by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant had also made several calls to Opposite Party No.2 but no proper response received by Complainant. The Complainant blocked his credit card on 08.09.20 vide request no. 185429279238 and requested for refund and to stop the services. The Complainant wrote letters to Opposite Party No.1 bank but bank did not reply. The Complainant had served legal notice to both the Opposite Parties but Opposite Party No.1 did not give any reply and Opposite Party No.2 replied through email dated 22.05.21 stating that contents of legal notice were baseless and stated that card was blocked on 18.12.20 and alleged transaction of Rs. 13,100/- took place on 01.07.20. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for the refund of Rs. 19,164/- in the account of Complainant along with interest of 18 % p.a. and Rs. 50,000/- for mental harassment. He has also prayed for Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses.  
2. It is to be noted that Opposite Party No.1 had not entered appearance despite service of notice.

Case of the Opposite Party No.2

3. The Opposite Party No.2 contested the case and filed written statement challenging maintainability of the present matter on the ground that the Complainant has misstated that the alleged transactions were not made by him. It is also submitted that credit card can be used without generating the PIN from ATM. It is submitted that said transactions were done by the Complainant in secured manner validated by Complainant’s card details and Dynamic OTP delivered on mobile no. of the Complainant registered with Opposite Party No.2. It is alleged that the Complainant by making use of credit card facility provided by Opposite Party No.2 has made himself liable for services availed and monetary liability arisen. The Opposite Party No.2 has prayed for dismissing the present complaint.

Rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2

4. The Complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the Complainant has denied the pleas raised by the Opposite Party No.2 and has reiterated the assertion made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Complainant

5. The Complainant in support of his complaint filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party No.2

6. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party No.2 filed affidavit of Ms. Rashmi, AR of Opposite Party No.2 wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party No.2 have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsels for the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant and Opposite Party No.2.
8. It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant was issued subject credit card by Opposite Party No.2 and he never used his credit card from the very beginning and never generated PIN. It is alleged that at the time of updating the passbook from Opposite Party No.1, Complainant came to know that there are 5 transactions of different amounts on different dates amounting to Rs. 19,164/- has been done without Complainant approval’s and thereafter this amount has been credited in account of Opposite Party No.2. It is stated that this amount has been illegally deducted by Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant blocked his credit card on 08.09.20 vide request no. 185429279238 and requested for refund and to stop the services. It is prayed that the Complainant is entitled for refund of Rs.19,164/ on account of illegal and unjustified deductions as well as compensation.
9. On the other hand, the case of Opposite Party No.2 is that the alleged unjustified transactions were secured transactions authorised by OTPs sent on Complainant’s registered no. It is contended that those transactions were done either by the Complainant himself or due to negligent conduct of the Complainant, hence, liability cannot be imposed on Opposite Party No.2.
10.  The perusal of material on record including the pleadings shows that the Complainant has relied upon copy of his bank statement showing the disputed 5 transactions. Opposite Party No.2 has contended that said transactions were done by the Complainant in secured manner validated by Complainant’s card details and Dynamic OTP delivered on mobile no. of the Complainant registered with Opposite Party No.2. However, Opposite Party No.2 has not led any evidence whatsoever in support of their contention. Opposite Party No.2 has neither filed any record of data showing OTP sent to registered mobile no. nor has proved that any investigation was conducted after having received the complaint of unauthorised transaction. Since, Opposite Party No.2 has failed to show any basis of said contention, their defence falls off.
11.  We also note that Complainant files reply of Opposite Party No.2 to his legal notice sent where Opposite Party No.2 admits that Annual premium for Card protection plan was debited from client’s account with his due consent. Opposite Party No.2 has neither taken this stand in their written statement nor has produced any document showing consent of Complainant. Rather it is an admission on their part that the amount was debited by them. Opposite Party No.2 has also stated in their written statement that the Complainant had used his card on 01.07.2020 for an amount of Rs.13,100/- and not disputed that entry showing usage of the card by the Complainant. However, Opposite Party No.2 has not produced any cogent evidence proving this contention as to usage of the card.
12. The Opposite Party No.2 has also failed to produce any document to show that the amount was charged towards maintenance of the account and the Complainant was informed in this regards at the time of issuing the card which makes them liable of unfair trade practice.
13. Since, the Opposite Party No.2 has not been able to prove any negligence on the part of the Complainant nor any document to show any internal investigation conducted or any system logs to resolve the dispute we find Opposite Party liable for deficiency in services towards the Complainant and unfair trade practice.
14. In view of above facts and discussion, we are of the considered view that Opposite Party No.2 has been deficient in services towards the Complainant and unfair trade practice by failing to resolve the issue raised by the Complainant and reversing the amount illegally deducted.
15.  Thus the present complaint is allowed and the Opposite Party No.2 i.e. SBI credit Card is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.19,164/- alongwith with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint. The Opposite Party No. 2 is also directed to pay Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation and litigation cost along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order till its recovery.
16. Order announced on 15.04.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Anil Kumar Bamba)          Member

(Adarsh Nain)      Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President