SRI. SAJEESH.K.P    : MEMBER

    The complainant has  filed this complaint  under Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019,  seeking direction against the  OPs to cancel and take back the  credit card facilities of the complainant with  the OP and to drop all further proceedings with respect  to the credit cards stand  in the  name of the complainant and also pay Rs.2,00,000/- as the compensation for   mental agony and to pay cost of the proceedings.

Complaint in brief :-

   The complainant is an account holder of 1^st OP and had dealing with latter  for several years.  On the compulsion of 1^st OP, complainant purchased a credit card of 1^st OP and on January,2019, complainant got a  call from 2^nd OP to provide credit card number and  OTP.  After the incident 2^nd OP enquired that whether the  complainant had done  any transaction with the credit card and  the complainant took the transaction statement and came to  understand that an amount  of Rs.5046/- and Rs.5047/- was withdrawn on 31/1/2019 and  an amount of Rs.4800/- and Rs.4998/- was withdrawn on 1/2/2019.  The complainant has no connection with the said transaction or withdrawals and this was intimated to 1^st OP on 22/3/2019 an amount of Rs.4800/- was refunded by 1^st OP.  But no efforts made by 1^st OP to resolve the issue of complainant and  the complainant was facing threatens from 1^st OP and its agency to repay the due amount which the complainant sent a lawyer notice to  OPs stating all the real facts.  The complainant has no liability towards the unfair trade practice and deficiency in service  practiced by the OPs and the complainant suffered monetary loss and hardships and hence filed the complaint.

       After filing the complaint, commission has sent notice  to both OPs and both OPs  entered appearance before the commission and filed their version accordingly.

Version of  OPs in brief:

     All facts are denied by OPs except those specifically admitted.  The OPs admits that the complainant availed credit card facility but it was issued upon the request of complainant.  The complainant admitted that he had shared OTP and credit card number to scammer through telephone which the OPs cannot be held liable for loss of money as the  bank always warn their customers that not to share any credentials.  The complainant had neglected  all the instructions.  The OPs have already informed the complainant to prefer  a  police complaint against the scammer .  The OPs found that the complainant violated the regular guidelines from  the bank and  hence not liable for refund for disputed amount.  The complainant is liable to repay the amount since  he  utilized the credit card.  There is no deficiency in service from the side of the bank and hence not liable to redress the grievance as prayed  by the complainant and hence complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          Due to the rival contentions raised by the OPs to the litigation, the commission decided to cast the issues  accordingly.

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service from the side of  OPs?
2. Whether there is any  compensation  &  cost to the complainant?

       In order to answer the issues, the commission called evidence from both parties. The  complainant produced documents which is marked as Exts.A1 to A9.    Ext.A1 is the credit card statement issued by 1^st OP to the complainant dtd.2/3/2019, Ext.A2 is the copy of lawyer notice  sent by complainant to 2^nd OP dtd.29/1/2021, Ext.A3 is the  letter sent by 2^nd OP to  complainant dtd.12/1/2023, Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by 2^nd OP to complainant dtd.12/1/23, Ext.A4 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant to 2^nd OP dtd.23/3/23, Ext.A5 is the  copy of lawyer notice  sent by complainant to  the Manager, SR Agencies, Kochi, dtd.23/3/23, Ext.A6 is the postal receipt, Ext.A7 is the letter sent by  2^nd OP to complainant dtd.10/4/23, Ext.A8 is the notice sent by Adv.Pradheesh Chacko to  the complainant dtd.14/3/23 and Ext.A8 is the notice sent by Adv.Pradheesh Chacko to complainant dtd.13/4/23.    The complainant adduced evidence  through proof  affidavit and examined as PW1.  OP has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence. Both sides filed argument note.

   Let us have a clear glance  in to the evidences before the commission  in order to answer the issues raised.  Both issues are considered together.  In the present case, parties agreed only to the  point that the complainant is the customer of OPs and former is a credit card holder of OPs.  The dispute arise between the parties on the basis of loss of money from the complainant through his credit card bearing number 5535830100189276. The complainant stated that he lost his money Rs.5046/-, Rs.5047/-,Rs.4800/- Rs.4998/- respectively from the credit card No. 5535830100189276 on various date(31/1/2019, 1/2/2019).  On the perusal, the commission found that no evidence was produced by the complainant to show that the above said amounts was debited from the  credit card ending 9267.  Ext.A1 is the credit card statement of  card number  ending 5976, which is the another card issued by OPs produced by complainant which he stated that he has not made any transactions so far. Moreover, in the complaint and chief affidavit and the cross examination of complainant, he stated that he lost his money through the credit card ending number 9267, which the complainant failed to produce any evidence to substantiate  his claim.  The complainant clearly admits that he had shared his  card number and OTP to a third party and he lost his money.  Ext.A2, the lawyer notice indicates that  certain amount was withdrawn from complainant’s account through the credit card ending number 9267.  But, the complainant never produced any statement  before the commission to substantiate the claim and also admits that complainant, himself shared his credit card details and OTP to another person believing the call was made from OP’s Chennai branch.  On the perusal of Ext.A3, it is seen that the complainant had a due of Rs.85392.63/- which the OPs  demanded the repay with regard to the card number 5976, not with card ending  9267.  The complainant has the grievance  with regard to the  withdrawal of amount  from the card ending 9267 and he has no complaint with regard to the card ending 5976, which as per Ext.A3, issued by OPs indicates a due of Rs.85392.63/-.  As per Exts.A4&A5 the complainant stated that he never requested  for any credit cards and not liable for any  dues as stated in Ext.A3.  The withdrawal of Rs.5046/- Rs.5047/-, Rs.4800/- and Rs.4998/- was made without the knowledge of complainant.  During the cross-examination of complainant, he deposed that the said amount was gone to net bank account and he also deposed that the amount of Rs.4800/- was credited from Overseas Net bank account and the amount was credited  after the intervention of Cyber cell.  Exts.A8&A9 , shows that the OPs have initiated  settlement proceedings to extract the dues made by complainant.  The commission perused the  complaint, affidavit, argument note, de[positions of complainant, and it is seen that complainant apparently admits that he had received a  call, which he believes that it is from OP and the complainant shared the card details and OTP.  There is no evidence before the commission to prove the averment that the OPs made the call to complainant and demanded card details and OTP number.  Moreover, the  Consumer Protection Act prevails on the principle “Caveat Emptor” and being a business man, complainant should aware of the guidelines laid by RBI to the customer of bank and  the customers  are solely liable to the loss sustained if they shared their  card number  or OTP received to them, which  in this case  complainant himself admitted that he had shared card number and OTP.  Hence the commission came into a conclusion that the loss suffered by  complainant here in only due to his negligence which he admitted all through the complaint, proof affidavit and cross examination, that he lost his money by sharing his credentials to a third party which the OPs have no role  and hence the deficiency in service from the side of OPs are not proved and thereby the complaint is liable to be dismissed with no cost.

   The complainant failed to prove deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against opposite parties and hence the complaint is dismissed with no cost.

Exts:

A1- credit card statement issued by 1st OP to the complainant dtd.2/3/2019,

A2- copy of lawyer notice  sent by complainant to 2nd OP dtd.29/1/2021,

A3 - letter sent by 2nd OP to  complainant dtd.12/1/2023,

A4 - copy of lawyer notice sent by complainant to 2nd OP dtd.23/3/23,

A5- copy of lawyer notice  sent by complainant to  the Manager, SR Agencies, Kochi, dtd.23/3/23,

A6 - postal receipt,

A7-letter sent by  2nd OP to complainant dtd.10/4/23

A8- notice sent by Adv.Pradheesh Chacko to  the complainant dtd.14/3/23

A8 -notice sent by Adv.Pradheesh Chacko to complainant dtd.13/4/23

PW1-Mohammed Ashraf- Complainant

Sd/                                                   Sd/                                                     Sd/

PRESIDENT                                             MEMBER                                               MEMBER

Ravi Susha                                       Molykutty Mathew                                    Sajeesh K.P

eva           

                                                                        /Forwarded by Order/

                                                                   ASSISTANT REGISTRAR