BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MYSORE-570023

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.117/2015

DATED ON THIS THE 30^h October 2015

      Present:  1) Sri. H.M.Shivakumara Swamy

B.A., LLB., - PRESIDENT   

    2) Smt. M.V.Bharathi                    

                                   B.Sc., LLB., -  MEMBER

                     3) Sri. Devakumar.M.C.                  

                                                          B.E., LLB.,    - MEMBER

Sri Devakumar.M.C.

Member

1.     The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of the C.P.Act 1986, against the opposite party, seeking a direction not to claim the amount of `20,000/- and interest on fraudulent transaction of credit card occurred on 09.09.2014 and to grant damages of `1,00,000/-  with cost and other reliefs.
2.     The complainant was a credit card holder of opposite party bank since five years.  The complainant submits a fraudulent transaction against the credit card had occurred on 09.09.2014 by withdrawal of a sum of `20,000/- by using the card number without his consent or knowledge by pay U bank, Mumbai.  The complainant immediately reported the fraudulent transaction to opposite party bank.  The opposite party assured for an internal investigation and after two months later, opposite party acknowledged the occurrence of fraudulent transaction, and advice the complainant to lodge a complaint before the police.  The police authorities endorsed the receipt of the complaint, but investigation does not yield any favourable results.  The complainant alleges the demand of `20,000/- by opposite party as illegal.  Hence, this complaint for deficiency in service and seeking compensation for mental agony.
3.     The opposite party though appeared through its counsel, did not come forward to defend the allegations by filing its version.
4.    The complainant filed his evidence by way of affidavit and produced documents.  The opposite party failed to lead evidence.  On perusal of the documents and the written documents, the matter posted for orders.
5.     The points that arise for consideration of this Forum are as follows:-

1. Whether the complainant proves the deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and that he is entitled for the reliefs?
2. What order?

6.    Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:

Point No.1 :- Partly in the affirmative.

Point No.2 :- As per final order for the following

:: R E A S O N S ::

7.    Point No.1:- The complainant is the credit card holder of opposite party bank and was using the same for the lost five years.  The opposite party issued a credit card to the complainant bearing No.5546370227364194.  The complainant alleged that a fraudulent transaction against the said card had occurred on 09.09.2014 by withdrawing a sum of `20,000/- without his consent or knowledge.  The said transaction was done by pay U bank, Mumbai.  Immediately on came to know the fraudulent transaction, the complainant reported the facts to the opposite party bank.  The opposite party assured to make an internal investigation and intimate the results within a month or two.  Further, the opposite party assured a temporary credit of `20,000/- till the completion of the investigation. Two months later the opposite party bank acknowledged the occurrence of the fraudulent transaction and expressed their inability to proceed further and advised the complainant to lodge a complaint with the jurisdictional police and the complaint was endorsed by the police on 19.12.2014, but no development in investigation till date.  In the meanwhile, the opposite party sent a statement of accounts on 21.12.2014, demanding to pay `20,000/-.  The complainant alleges such demand as illegal and against terms and conditions of city bank credit card (Ref. No.6b) which states that ‘The card member is not liable for any misuse on a card of pin after city bank has been informed of the loss unless the member acted with gross negligence”.  The complainant contended that he did not disclosed his pin number to any person nor acted negligently since the complainant had reported the fraudulent transaction of credit card immediately to the opposite party.  The complainant alleged that the opposite party failed to hold an internal investigation with respect to fraudulent transaction of the credit card even after the receipt of the complaint from the complainant.  Further, the opposite party has acted negligently and failed to provide proper service to the complainant and alleged deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and prays for the reliefs.
8.    The opposite did not come forward to defend the allegations.
9.    From the above discussions, we are of the view that the complainant has not acted negligently with respect to the fraudulent transaction said to have been occurred on 09.09.2014 for a sum of `20,000/-.  Further, the acknowledgement of opposite party confirms the occurrence of fraudulent transaction and their inability to take appropriate action against the culprits.  Failure to defend the allegations also support the negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  As such, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs.  Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in the affirmative.
10.  Point No.2:- In view of the above findings, we hereby proceed to pass the following

:: O R D E R ::

1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opposite party is hereby directed not to claim the fraudulent transaction amount of `20,000/- occurred on 09.09.2014 and interest from the complainant.
3. The opposite party shall pay a sum of `15,000/- towards the compensation for deficiency in service and `5,000/- towards mental agony caused to the complainant within 30 days of this orders.  In default the opposite party shall pay interest at 10% p.a. on the said sum of `20,000/- until payment.    
4. In case of default to comply this order, the O.P. shall undergo imprisonment and also liable for fine under section 27 of the C.P.Act, 1986.
5. Give the copies of this order to the parties, as per Rules.