ORDER

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This Complaint is filed by the complainant named above inter alia alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Ops for two fraudulent transaction i.e. Rs.18,424.80/- & Rs.20,000/-respectively on dt. 16.07.20231 resulting financial loss & mental agony to the complainant.
2. Complainant seeks for an order  directing the O.P2 to pay Rs.18,424/- & Rs. 20,000/-  wich was fraudulent deducted from his credit card  and to award compensation of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment ,inconvenience, frustration & mental agony and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards litigation cost.
3. Brief fact of the complaint is that, the complainant is a regular customer of State Bank of India Kesinga Branch/OP1.He has availed SBI Credit Card bearing number 4155759657926628.(www.sbicard.com). On dt. 16.07.2023 at about 8 P.M in the evening he received two messages, one from the MOBIKWIK and another from RAZ manrega, so also, received two OTPs i.e  634117 being sent form MOBIKWIK and another OTP i.e  792029 being sent from RAZ Manrega and was asked  for sharing it. But, without sharing the said OTPs , two amounts i.e Rs.18,424.80 (MOBIKWIK0 vide Transaction NO.1807202317655798237 and Rs. 20,000/- (Raz Manrega) vide Transaction no.1807202317 were fraudulently deducted from the SBI Credit Card of the complainant. The matter was immediately reported to the SBI Customer care with a requested to stop the Card and for necessary action to recover of  said amount. The SBI customer care had received the complain and assured the complainant that, to  resolved the complaint within 8 days but till date no step is taken by the  Ops to resolve  the grievance of the complainant. The complainant, finding no way, made  a written complain to the officer-in-charge ,CYBER crime & Economic Offences,Kalahandi at Bhawanipatna on dtd.24.08.2023 vide G.D No. 006 dt.24/08/2023 but no step is  taken to redress the complain till date for which he suffered financial loss & mental agony. Hence this complaint.
4. On being notice, Opp.Party No.1 appeared through their Learned Counsel Shri S.K.Agrawal and filed their written version being prepared by  Sri.Rohit Mahananda ,the Branch Manager ,SBI, Kesinga .The vOp1 has admitted  the facts that, the complainant is maintaining one saving bank account vide A/C No. 32781636776 at Jagannath Para  Branch,Bhawanipatna. However, denied the petition allegations on all its material particulars. He has also challenged the maintainability of this complaint as the complainant petition revel no cause of action there against the OP1/Bank . It is further submitted that, subject  SBI Credit Card is not issued by the OP1 who is doing banking business only .The OP2 is a separate legal entity no way related to OP1. The complainant is not a consumer of op 1.The complainant has never filed any complainant in the customer care cell of the Op1/Bank regarding alleged fraudulent transactions. Complaint is relating to service of SBI Credit Card Ltd /OP2 and that,  OP1 is no was liable for any alleged fraudulent transaction so also , no relief prayed against the OP1/Bank  as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP1.
5. The Opp.Party No.2 appeared through their learned counsel Sri.R.K.Nanda and filed their written version admitting the facts that, SBI  Credit Card bearing No. 0004155759657926628 is issued to the complainant based on duly filled application in the month of June 2021. It is all so admitted that, on 16/07/23 there was two transaction with the said Credit Card i.e   Rs.18,424.80 (MOBIKWIK0 vide Transaction NO.1807202317655798237 and Rs. 20,000/- (Raz Manrega) vide Transaction no.1807202317 and debited to the said Credit Ccard. It is submitted that, complainant had approached the Op2 at their internal communication channel disputing alleged two transaction accordingly his card was blocked as a precautionary measure to avoid any misuse. The transaction dispute request of the complainant was taken and case was sent for investigation. Based on the investigation, it  is found that, alleged two transaction were performed in a secured manner and the same were validated by his SBI Card details and Dynamic OTP password delivered on complainant’s registered Mobil number and e-mail id stating “Do not share it with anyone” . In such scenario, the Ops are not having any change back recourse available & as per VISA/Master Rule therefore; case was closed on complainant’s liability. It is further submitted that, any card absent (online/IVR) transaction cannot be done without confidential details of the card i.e card expiry date, CVV wherein, the OP2 always advise their customers not to share their card details to the third party. Additionally, the OP2 submits that, SBI Credit Card has implemented Dynamic OTP as an additional factor of authentication for Online (3D) /Card not present transaction (NCP) providing enhanced level of security to all NCP transaction. The dynamic OTP password and transaction alert were delivered at his registered mobile number and no change in the contract details has been identified. Considering on these facts and transaction has been debited in his card after sharing the card credentials and OTP details with third party and post activation request received from the complainant, the liability of the aforesaid transaction lies with him. The Op 2 specifically denied the contention of the complaint that ,the alleged amount deducted from the card without sharing the OTP. OP2 also  denied the allegation of no step was taken by the Ops for redressal of the complaint and further denied repeatedly request the SBI Customer Care over phone to resolve a complaint  rather ,the Ops has blocked the  credit card of the complainant as a precautionary measure to avoid misuse and that ,this complaint has never suffered any loss or harassment, as such, this complaint is liable to be dismissed .
6. Heard .Perused the material available on record. We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of rival parties.
7. The complainant, to substantiate his claim, has filed the self attested true photo copy of the following documents:- (i)  A copy of Credit Card transaction from dt. 25 July to 5Aug 2023 vide annexure -1,(ii)Written complaint made to CYBER Crime police station vide annexure -2,(iii)  Copies  of SMS particulars with respect to alleged two transaction vide annexure 3  (iii) Photo copy of subject Credit Card vide No. 4155759657926628 vide annexure- 4 of the complaint petition , (iv) Extract of G.D No. 006 dt.24/08/2023 of Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, Kalahandi Police Station remain undisputed. The averment of Complainant petition is supported by an affidavit of the complainant.
8. During hearing of this case the complainant has filed his additional evidence affidavit and proved the contents of his complainant remain un-rebutted. No evidence affidavit as prescribed under C.P.Act 2019 is filed by the Ops.  
9. Learned counsel for the Op 1 submits that, State Bank of India and SBI Card & Payment Services Private Limited are two separate legal entities and they are two separate managements and they can sue or can be sued separately. State Bank of India is carrying on retail banking   and on the other hand, the SBI Card & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. is a Company which used to deals in issuance of SBI Credit Card through its agencies. State Bank of India never persuades its customer to have SBI credit Card as the same is not the function of the Bank. The case filed against the Opp.Party 1/Bank is bad in the eye of law as he has nothing to do while issuing of the subject credit card and as such the Opp.Party No.1/Bank is not a necessary party in the present complaint.  It is further submitted that, the complainant has applied for a Credit Card to the SBI Cards Division and they have issued   the same. The Opp.Party No.1/Bank has no role to play nor has the Bank ever asked any of its customers to have a SBI Credit Card as because SBI Credit Cards department is a separate entity. The complainant himself has admitted that, on dt. 16.07.2023 at about 8 P.M in the evening he received two messages, one from the MOBIKWIK and another from RAZ manrega, so also, he has admitted the facts that, he received two OTP i.e  634117 being sent form MOBIKWIK and another OTP i.e  792029 being sent from RAZ Manrega respectively  then, at the same time he must have shared the OTP to the caller which is against the principle, the complainant might have shared the same out of ignorance; but the same is not an excuse. The complainant has never filed any complainant in the customer care cell of the Op1/Bank regarding alleged fraudulent two transactions. Complaint is relating to service of SBI Credit Card Ltd /OP2 and that,  OP1 is no was liable for any alleged fraudulent transaction so also , no relief prayed against the OP1/Bank  as such this complaint is liable to be dismissed against the OP1. This Commission found much weight on the submission of learned counsel for the OP1 .
10. The Opp.Party No.2 has admitted the facts that, it has issued SBI Card bearing bearing number 4155759657926628. (www.sbicard.com) to the complainant on receipt of application from the complainant and the said card was debited with alleged two transactions. After receipt of a complaint from the complainant regarding transaction disputed, the matter was sent for investigation and on the basis of internal investigation, it is found that, the transaction were performed in a secured manner and the same has been validated by his SBI Card details and dynamic OTP delivered on his registered mobile number stating “please do not share with anyone” and in such scenario, the case of the complainant was closed as per VISA Rule. It is further submits  that ,  any card  transaction cannot be done without confidential details  of the card i.e. card expiry date, CVV  where the Opp.Party always advise their cardholders not to share their card details and the Opp.Party  has also implemented Dynamic OTP as an additional  factor of authentication for online  Card transaction  providing enhanced level of security. It is  further submits that,  in this case, the details were shared with third party, post which said transactions were conducted. In view of the above, no cause of action arose to present this complaint; hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Findings

11. The facts that, the complainant has a saving bank account with Op1/Bank and availed Credit Card facility from the Op2 for consideration  is not disputed as such this commission may safely hold that, the complainant is a consumer of the Ops
12.  It is not disputed that, on dt. 16.07.2023 at about 8 P.M in the evening complainant received two messages, one from the MOBIKWIK and another from RAZ manrega, so also, received two OTP i.e  634117 being sent form MOBIKWIK and another OTP i.e  792029 being sent from RAZ Manrega. So also it is not disputed that,  an amount i.e Rs.18,424.80 (MOBIKWIK0 vide Transaction NO.1807202317655798237 and another amount of Rs. 20,000/- (Raz Manrega) vide Transaction no.1807202317 were debited to the subject SBI  Credit Card of the complainant.
13.  It may not be disputed that, the Ops have an obligation to secure the credential information of its customer. Law is well settled that, it is the obligation of the Bank providing such service, to create a safe electronic banking environment to combat all forms of malicious conducts resulting in loss to their customers.
14. Admittedly sharing of OTP to anyone is the choice of the complainant and if he became prey of the fraudster by sharing of OTP due to his innocence for which no one shall be held liable .But here in this case,the complainant has denied sharing of OTP to any third party .It is seen on the of SMS particulars with respect to alleged two transaction vide annexure 3 of the complaint petition that, “Trxn not done by you ? Report at
15. . The Op2 has submitted that,   “transaction dispute request was taken and case was sent for investigation and based d on the investigation it is found that, alleged two transaction were performed in a secured manner and the same were validated by his SBI Card details and Dynamic OTP password delivered on his registered Mobil number and e-mail id stating “Do not share it with anyone” and that, transaction has been debited in his card after sharing the card credentials and OTP details with third party and post activation request received from the complainant, the liability of the aforesaid transaction lies with the complainant”. However, no investigation report is placed on the record. Nothing material has placed on record to hold that, the Op2 has ever investigated over the complain of alleged two fraudulent transaction dt. 16.07.2023.Rather , the complainant has proved his averment on affidavit evidence that, the alleged amount debited to his Credit Card  without sharing the OTP by the complainant  for which he has lodged a complaint to  the SBI customer care who assured  him   resolved the complaint within 8 days but no step is taken by the  Ops to resolve  his grievance for which he has lodged a complaint in the CIBER Crime & Economic Offences, Kalahandi Police Station .The Complainant has  filed the  Extract of G.D No. 006 dt.24/08/2023 of Cyber Crime & Economic Offence, Kalahandi Police Station placed on the record remain undisputed.
16. It is found that, the Op 2 has simply blocked the Credit Card on receiving of a complaint of alleged two fraudulent transaction and neglected to move further to resolve the grievance of the consumer/ complainant and derailed from its obligation towards his consumers/complainant which squarely proved negligence & deficient service there on the part of the Op2, The complainant has failed to proved that, said debited amount of Rs.18,424/- &  Rs.20,000/-  respectively to his SBI  Credit Card has ever repaid causing any financial loss as such this commission is of the opinion that, the complainant is not entitled to get release of said amount from the Op2.  However, such ach of negligence & deficient service of OP2 certainly caused mental agony to the complainant cannot be denied
17. Nothing alleged against the OP1/Bank so also, nothing claimed against it as such we are of the opinion that, complainant shall be dismissed against the Op1/Bank.
18. Based on above facts & circumstances and settled principle of law, we are of the opinion that, there is  deficiency in service & unfair trade practice on the part of the Op 2 /SBI Credit Card Ltd  resulting  mental agony to the complainant for which the complainant is entitled to be compensated by the Op 2 by way of restoring the said debited amount of Rs.18,424/- &  Rs.20,000/-  respectively to the Credit Card of the complainant and   by restraining themselves from demanding repayment of said amount from  the complainant .And further liable to  pay compensation for mental agony  along with cost of this litigation. However, Claim of the complainant is at higher side as such allowed in part. Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

This consumer complaint is allowed in part against the Op 2(two) and dismissed against the Op1 (one) on contest with the following direction:-

The Ops No.2(two) is  here by directed to restore the said debited amount of Rs.18,424/- and Rs.20,000/-  respectively to the complainant’s SBI Credit Card account  and restrain themselves from demanding repayment of said two fraudulent transaction dated 16/07/2023  or any interest accrued there with the said amount. The Op 2 is further directed to pay Rs.10, 000/- as compensation to the complainant towards  mental agony suffered which includes cost of this litigation.

The Opposite Parties are further directed to comply this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the Ops are liable to pay additional Rs.200/- per day as compensation to the complainant till compliance of this order.

Dictated and corrected by me.

Sd/-

 President

                 I   agree

Sd/-                                                                               

  Member   

  Pronounced in open Commission today on this 4^th December 2024  under the seal and signature of this Commission. The Pending application if any is also disposed off accordingly.  Free copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their perusal or party may download the same from the Confonet be treated as copy served to the parties. Complaint is disposed of accordingly. Complaint could not decide on prescribed period of time in want of quorum of this Commission.