Haryana

Karnal

CC/260/2020

Mahinder Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.N. Gaur

28 Mar 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KARNAL.

                                                Complaint No.260 of 2020

                                                Date of Inst: 27.07.2020

                                                Date of Decision: 28.03.2024

 

Mahinder Singh son of Shri Sewa Singh, resident of Katlehri, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

…… Complainant

Versus

 

1.     The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Branch at Village Katlehri, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

2.     The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Village Jundla, Tehsil Nissing, District Karnal.

3.     One Assist Consumer Solution Pvt. Ltd 3^rd Floor, Fleet House Next to Marol Naka Metro Station, Marol Naka Andheri, Kurla Road, Mumbai 4000059 through its Managing Director.

4.     HDFC Ergo General Insurance Company Limited, Stellar IT Park Tower No.1, 5^th Floor, C-25, Sector-62, Noida.

                                                                 …… Opposite parties

 

Complaint Under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 as amdned upto date.

 

Before:    Shri Jaswant Singh…………President

                Sh.Vineet Kaushik……….Member

                Dr.Suman Singth…………Member

 

Argued by: Shri S.N.Gaur, counsel for complainant.

                Shri Amit Munjal, counsel for OP No.1.

                Shri Pardeep Gupta, counsel for OP No.2.

                Shri Rajesh Gupta, counsel for OP No.3.

                Shri Sanjeev Vohra, counsel for OP No.4.  

       

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite parties (hereinafter referred as the ‘OPs’) on the averments that the complainant opened an account bearing A/c No.50100071605611 with OP No.1 in the year 2014. In the year 2016, the OP No.1 issued a credit card. Complainant is also maintaining a saving bank account in State Bank of India, Jundla Branch and said bank had also issued a Credit Card in the name of complainant. On 11.01.2020, complainant received a call on his mobile from one unknown lady, who introduced herself as Sonia Sharma and informed that she is speaking from Customer Care Credit SBI Office and disclosed her No.SBIM-9407 and told that a gift voucher/coupon has been sanctioned in favour of complainant and sought OTP number on credit card. In this way seven messages were received in one call on 11.01.2020 and said lady sought OTP received on complainant’s mobile phone and complainant disclosed all the OTPs received on his mobile to said lady. However, on account of disclosure of seven OTPs a total sum of Rs.1,85,000/- was fraudulently withdrawn from his bank account maintained with SBI. When a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- has been debited from complainant’s credit card then he got suspicious and contacted the customer care office of SBI and blocked his Credit Card. The complainant also inquired that online fraud has been committed on his credit card and as to whether he can be compensated for the said fraud since there was no fault on his part and online fraud has been committed. Then the customer card told that since the complainant himself had disclosed the OTPs received on his phone, so nothing can be done in this respect. Having no option, on 18.01.2020, the complainant approached Superintendent of Police, Karnal, for taking action against Sonia Sharma having mobile No.95361-35838. The said complaint was marked to SHO, Nissing but they did not take any action on the said complaint. The complainant personally appeared before S.P. Karnal and apprised the complete facts regarding fraud having been committed with him, then with the intervention of S.P. Karnal, FIR No.28 dated 04.02.2020 was registered but despite registration of FIR nothing could be materialized in the said investigation conducted by SHO, P.S. Nissing. On 13.05.2020, complainant received a message on his mobile that a sum of Rs.2999/- has been debited in his account maintained with HDFC Bank and the complainant approached Branch Manager HDFC Bank with whom the complainant is having bank account and the officials of HDFC advised the complainant to contact customer care services of bank. Complainant contacted customer care and learnt that HDFC bank had purchased an insurance policy issued from OP No.3 under WA privilege single two year plan against covering the fraud against offline, online, phishing, skimming ATM/PIN, counterfeit cards, duplicate card etc. Then complainant also came to know that the said policy is continuing since 2016 and the bank has charged an amount of Rs.2999/- from the account of complainant in the year 2016. It was also revealed that the OP No.3 issued a policy bearing customer ID No.945088 and membership ID No.1000629178. The policy was again renewed on 14.05.2018 and a sum of Rs.2999/- was charged from the account of complainant. When the aforesaid fraud was committed, the complainant was covered under the insurance policy issued by OP No.3. On learning about the aforesaid insurance policy, the complainant made online complaint with the OP No.3 through customer care and they assured that his policy is intact and he will be compensated suitably. On 09.07.2020, OP No.3 informed the complainant that his claim has been rejected on the ground that the complainant has informed the company regarding the fraud after one month of the incident. The complainant came to know about the covering of fraud under the policy cover issued by OP No.3 for the first time on 13.05.2020 when a sum of Rs.2999/- was deducted from his account of HDFC. However, during that period it was complete lockdown and the office of customer card did not respond to the complaint lodged by the complainant and OP No.3 could be contacted only in July 2020 when the entire situation became clear to the effect that complainant was insured trough OP No.3 and the complainant sought the entire terms and conditions of the policy from the OP No.3. However, the OPs have never supplied the terms and conditions of the policy till today. In this way, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. Hence, the present complaint.

2.             On notice, OPs appeared and filed their separate written version. OP No.1 filed its written version raising preliminary objections regarding maintainability, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that OP No.1 adhered to the terms of the agreement and discharged all its obligations by providing the services; as agreed. Despite the OP No.1 trying to explain and accommodate the complainant. The complainant is taking advantage of situation and has made this false and frivolous complaint against OP No.1. However, instruction for not sharing important information like OTP is circulated widely by every banks and government. Without prejudice it is submitted that in case any person share his OTP himself, no responsibility of bank or insurance arise at all. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3.             OP No.2 filed its written version raising preliminary objections regarding locus standi; concealment of true and material facts; bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties, maintainability; cause of action, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant is having saving bank account No.32998115725 with the OP. However, instruction for not sharing important information like OTP has already widely circulated by every bank and RBI as well.        The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.             OP No.3 filed its written version raising cause of action; non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties; jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that the insurance policy was issued by New India Assurance Company Limited and not by the OP No.3. As per record, the complainant has taken a plan of Insurance with respect to this credit card from NIA through the OP No.3 and the same was renewed from time to time. The policy was issued on the inspection of the complainant and lastly it was renewed in the year 2020 and terms and conditions of the policy were sent to the complainant on 16.07.2020. Further terms and conditions are also available on the website of OP No.3. The complainant intimated about the fraud after six months, therefore, the complainant is not entitled for any benefit under the plan with respect to his credit card as per the terms and conditions. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

5.             OP No.4 filed its written version raising preliminary objections regarding concealment of true and material facts, cause of action, jurisdiction, etc. On merits, it is pleaded that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP, because the complainant himself never lodged any claim with the OP and also never submitted any documents for processing of claim. It is again worthwhile to mention here that as per records of OP no claim was registered as alleged by the complainant under the policy in question. Had the complainant lodged any claim, a claim number would have been allotted and the claim would have been registered, however, in the complaint, the complainant had failed to put forward any claim number, thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

7.             Learned counsel for complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1, extract of OTP Ex.CW2, copy of account statement Ex.CW3, copy of complaint to police Ex.CW4, copy of application made to SP, Karnal Ex.CW5, copy of complaint receipt Ex.CW6, copy of FIR Ex.CW7, copy of complaint made to OP No.3 Ex.CW8, extract of messages Ex.CW9, copy of tax invoice Ex.CW10 and closed the evidence on 26.04.2023 by suffering separate statement.

8.             Learned counsel for OP No.1 tendered into evidence affidavit of Gagandeep Singh, authorized representative HDFC Bank Ex.OP1/A, copy of CMA Ex.OP1, copy of loan statement Ex.OP2, copy of credit card statements Ex.OP3 to Ex.OP5 and closed the evidence on 01.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

9.             Learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Satinder Kumar Rawat, Branch Manager SBI Ex.OP2/A, copy of account statement Ex.OP2/1 and closed the evidence on 01.06.2023 by suffering separate statement.

10.           Learned counsel for OP No.3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Kuldeepsinh Jadeja Ex.RW3/A and closed evidence on 13.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

11.           Learned counsel for OP No.4 tendered into evidence affidavit of Manoj Prajapati, Manger of HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd. Ex.RW4/A and closed evidence on 13.09.2023 by suffering separate statement.

12.           We have heard the learned counsel of the parties and perused the case file carefully and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

13.           Learned counsel for complainant, while reiterating the contents of the complaint, has vehemently argued that on 11.01.2020, he received a call from Customer Care Credit SBI Office regarding gift voucher and sought OTPs seven times and after sharing OTPs a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- has been debited from complainant’s credit card. On inquiry, complainant came to know that a fraud has been committed with him. On learning about the aforesaid insurance policy, the complainant made online complaint with the OP No.3 through customer care and they assured that his policy is intact and he will be compensated suitably. On 09.07.2020, OP No.3 has informed the complainant that his claim has been rejected on the ground that the complainant has informed the company regarding the fraud after one month of the incident. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.  

14.           Per contra, learned counsels for the OPs, while reiterating the contents of their written versions, have jointly vehemently argued that instructions for not sharing important information like OTP has already been widely circulated by every bank and RBI, therefore, there is no fault on the part of OPs, rather the complainant has himself shared OTPs. They further argued that intimation with regard to the alleged incident has been given to the OP No.1 after delay of one month and after six months to the OP No.3. They further argued that as per records of OP No.4 no claim was registered as alleged by the complainant under the policy in question. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.  

15.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

16.           The complainant has alleged that on sharing OTP seven times to customer care, a fraud of Rs.1,85,000/- has been committed with him and he immediately reported the matter to the OPs but OPs have rejected his claim on the ground of lodging of complaint after one month. The onus to prove his case was relied upon the complainant but the complainant has failed to prove his case by leading cogent and convincing evidence. The complainant has failed to place on file any documentary evidence from which it can be ascertained that he has lodged the complaint immediately after the incident. As per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the complainant should have approached the OPs within 24 hours of discovering the fraud but he did not do so. He informed the OP No.1 after one month and to OP No.3 after six months from the incident.   The complainant has lodged FIR on 04.02.2020 and the incident has taken place on 11.01.2020, thus, there is delay of twenty three days in lodging the FIR. Further, the complainant has not disclosed the fate of the said FIR.  

17.           Furthermore, during pendecy of complaint, the complainant firstly impleaded National India Assurance Company as OP No.4 and thereafter he impleaded HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited as his insurer when the complainant does not know from where he obtained the insurance policy, then how he has lodged his claim with the insurance company. Without lodging the claim with the insurance company, the claim cannot be settled.

18.           Furthermore, the complainant himself shared OTP to the alleged customer care representative seven times and thereafter his amount has been debited. When the complainant himself shared his OTP, thus, the complainant himself is at fault and OPs cannot be blamed for that. Hence, there is no deficiency on the part of OPs.

19.           Thus, as a sequel to abovesaid discussion, the present complaint is devoid of any merits and deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed being not maintainable. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:28.03.2024                                                             

                                                                  President,

                                                     District Consumer Disputes

                                                     Redressal Commission, Karnal

 

(Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Suman Singh)

                           Member                          Member