| ORDER | DATE OF FILING : 17.02.2015. DATE OF S/R : 30.03.2015. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11.01.2016. Sri Tamojit Neogy, son of Sankar Kumar Neogy, Village & P.O. Ghoshpara, P.S. Nischinda Bally, Howrah 711227. …..……………………………………………….. COMPLAINANT. 1. The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Kolkata Branch, 19, N.S. Road, Kolkata 700001. 2. The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, Howrah Branch, 49, Dobson Road, Howrah 711101. 3. The Officer, Customer Care, Standard Chartered Bank, Customer Care Unit, 19, Rjajisalai, Chennai 600001. …………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS. Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak. F I N A L O R D E R - Complainant, Tamojit Neogy, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.p. to refund Rs. 5,680/- so deposited by the complainant, to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- Brief fact of the case is that complainant got a credit card being no. 5546 2329 0194 7282 vide Annexure ‘A’ from o.p. no. 1 which was valid from October, 2010 to October, 2013 and he was using the said card from October, 2010 to 2nd November, 2012. From 03.11.2012, complainant left India with a request to o.p. no. 1 to block his abovesaid card, vide Annexure ‘B’. It is alleged by the complainant that in the midst of November, 2012, o.p. no. 1 called him over phone and informed him that some fraudulent transactions took place in his credit card and complainant replied them as he was out of India from 03.11.2012, no web transaction was possible for him to do as a specific security code is required for any web transaction.And that security code was received by him only in his registered mobile number which was also deactivated by that time. And according to him, the said credit card should also have been deactivatedas per his prior request made to o.p. no. 1. So how those transactions could be made possible at all ? However, he asked o.p. no. 1 to send all details but they failed to provide any details. Moreover, on 04.12.2012, o.p. sent one monthly statement showing those three fraudulent transactions against a card bearing no. 3020 which was not all his card. It is further alleged that on 23.11.2012, he paid all outstanding amount being Rs. 7,049.85 against his credit card bearing no. 7282 but this was not shown as credit in the said card but shown in one another card bearing no. 3020 vide Annexure ‘C’.Thereafter complainant send letter through e.mal to o.p. no. 1 asking for clarification of the statement date d04.12.2012 videAnnexure ‘D’ & ‘E’ and o.p. sent e.mail on 20.02.2013 that the card bearing no. 3020 was invalidated in their office record on 27.11.2012 and there was total outstanding amount of Rs. 4,320.82. Again on 10.07.2013, complainant got an e.mail from o.p. that the same card i.e., 3020 was blocked w.ef. 12.11.2012 with an admission that the card bearing no. 3020 could not be delivered to complainant by the courier company they engaged for such work and it is returned to them with an endorsement ‘Party Notavailable’. And on 28.08.2013 o.p. asked for payment of Rs. 7,467.82 as outstanding amount lying in the card no. 3020vide Annexure ‘F’. Ultimately on 14.11.2013, o.p. sent one e.mail to complainant saying that his earlier card bearing no. 7282 had been blocked w.e.f. 11.11.2012 but as they initiated the replacement card being no. 3020, the total outstanding amount rose upto R s. 8,969.37 and complainant was required to pay the same vide Annexure ‘G’. After that o.p. started creating harassment by way of sending demand notice to the complainant videAnnexure ‘H’ & ‘I’.So complainant even lodged complaint withC.A. & F.B.P.,Government of West Bengal,. But no fruitful result came out. And under compulsion, he paid Rs. 5,680/- as the settlement amount to o.p. videAnnexure ‘K’. But again on 21.07.2014, complainant got another demand notice for an amount ofRs. 6,161/- viee Annexure ‘L’.And it is surprising enough that on 14.08.2014, he got another mail from o.p. no. 3 that all outstanding amount had been settled when complainant never paid any amount after 19.07.2014 vide Annexure ‘M’. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative, complainant filed this instant petition alleging deficiency in service coupled with unfair trade practice adopted by them.
- Notices were served. They appeared and filed any written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest.
- Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :
i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? - Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS : - Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the complaint petition and the written version filed by both the parties along other related documents. The o.p also filed non maintainability petition challenging the territorial jurisdiction of this instant case. But we find that the address of o.p. no. 2 falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. And with regard to the point of limitation, we find complainant made last payment on 19.07.2014 against the alleged demand of o.ps. with respect to the credit card in question, and he filed this petition on 17.02.2015 which is very much within two years of 19.07.2014. So , the case is not barred by limitation. Now, it is admitted by o.ps. that three transactions took place on 12.11.2012 for the amounts of Rs. 8,968.21, Rs. 4,464.84 and Rs. 1,134.97 even when complainant was out of India and before leaving India, he requested o.ps. to block his card no. 7282. And it is was due to o.ps.’ utter negligence that the card in question was not blocked by them. Moreover, they are claiming that they issued a new card bearing no. 3020 in the name of the complainant and dispatched the same to his address. And those alleged transactions were done through this new card no. 3020. But it is also admitted by o.ps. vide e.mail dated 10.07.2013 that the new card no. 3020 could not be delivered as the endorsemen like ‘Party no available’ made by courier agency. Again, o.ps. are admitting once that the card i.e., card no. 3020 was blocked on 27.11.2012 vide e.mail dated 20.02.2013 again they are submitting that the said card was blocked on 12.11.2012. Also they sent e.mails stating that the said card was blocked on 05.10.2013 or 05.08.2013 vide A nenxure ‘M’ & ‘N’. So, when the card was actually blocked, that is best known to them.The entire submission of o.ps. is full of confusion. Complainant never rquested for issue of any new card, why o.ps. at all created all these problem for initiating a new card in the name of the complainant?. Even for arguments sake if we accept that complainant did not inform them to block his card on 03.11.2012, i.e., before leaving India, on 12.11.2012 when fraudulent transactions took place and o.ps. informed the complainant and complainant told them that he did not use the card rather he was out of India, what prompted o.ps. to initiate a new card and to send the same at complainant’s mailing address on 27.11.2012 ? People depose utmost faith on their bankers. How the banks like o.ps. could be so careless ? It is true that they could retrieve and reverse two amounts being Rs. 8,950.71 on 27.11.2012 and Rs. 4,397.98 on 16.12.2012 which are reflected in statements dated 04.12.2012 and 04.01.2013 respectively. But is is also admitted by them that they could not realize the third amount of Rs. 1,134.97, which was to be paid by the complainant. And since he did not pay, the amount accumulated all incidental charges and complainant was required to pay outstanding amount which rose up day by day. And complainant under compulsion paid Rs. 5,680/- on 19.7.2014 with respect to his credit card no. 7282 for no fault on his part. O.ps. had harassed the complainant like any thing since 12.11.2012 by sending e.mails on different dates asking for different outstanding amounts from the complainant. Even after receiving the settlement amount of Rs. 5,680/- from the complainant, o.ps. did not care to send e. mails asking for different outstanding amount which clearly shows that they have no regard or respect for consumer service and satisfaction. Utmost degree of care is required to be adopted by o.ps. in dealing with credit card account of the customers. O.ps. failed to adopt that utmost degree of care for which complainant had to suffer a lot in all respect i.e., mentally, financially, physically which should be dealt with utmost care by theForum. Accordingly, we areof the candid opinion that it is fit case where the prayers of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 68 of 2015 ( HDF 68 of 2015 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.Ps. That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to refund Rs.5680 to the complainant within one month from this order. That they are further directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 2,000 as litigation costs. That the o.ps. are further directed to pay the entire amount of Rs. 17,680 to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the aforesaid amount shall carry an interest @ 8% per annum till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. DICTATED & CORRECTED BY ME. ( Jhumki Saha) Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah. | |
