DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C.C. NO.- 304/2017
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal:
08.06.2017 20.06.2017 01.10.2019
Complainant/s:- 1. Madhusudan Dekaviraj
201/5, Debaipukur Road,
Eminent Complex-V, Block- A
3rd Floor, Flat no 302,
P.O- Hindmotor, P.S- Uttarpara,
Dist- Hooghly, Pin- 712233
=Vs=
Opposite Party/s:- 1. The Manager of Axis Bank Ltd.
Sector- I, Block BD 20,
Near BD Market, Kol- 700064
2. The General Manager of Axis Bank Ltd.
Banking Ombudsman, 4th Floor,
15 netaji Subhas Road, Kol- 700001
3. The Manager of
Axis Bank Credit Card Department,
Central Asset Hub, 4th Floor,
Gigaplex, Building no 1, Plot no I.T 5,
MIDC, Airoli Knowledge Park, Airoli, Navi,
Mumbai- 400708
P R E S E N T :- Sri Karna Prasad Burman…………………. President.
:- Sri Subhas Chandra Chakraborty........... Member.
:- Smt. Monisha Shaw …………………………. Member.
Judgment
Unauthorised transaction against the complainant’s credit card number- 4514560000971071 with the Op’s Bank has caused to lodge this complaint for redressal under Section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
The complaint in brief is that the complainant of the instant case is the Account Holder of the Op 1 with SB Account which is his salary account. On 04.07.2016 in between 9:16:42 pm and 9:40:17 pm, six unauthorised transactions happened against the complainant’s credit card account amounting to Rs. 1,04,626/-. After transaction the complainant received phone call from Axis Bank Customer Care representative Mr. Srikant Pawar who enquired about those transactions whether the complainant had made those by himself or not. The complainant replied negatively and he instructed the concerned Op 1 to block the credit card. As per evidence the complainant requested the Op Bank not to make any payment to the Merchant Amazon Seller Services and Paytm. But the Op Bank as per evidences kept in record, made the payment on 05.07.2017. Disputes due to deficiency in service on the part of the Op Bank have been raised from this point as averred by the complainant. The complainant has claimed Rs. 1,22,742.19/- which has been deducted from his salary for the payment of the said unauthorised purchase inclusive of all parties of the Bank. He has also claimed compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony as well as a litigation cost amounting to Rs. 5,000/- has also been claimed.
Cont..............2
:2:
C.C. NO.- 304/2017
The Ops in their W/V has denied all charges of any deficiency in service on their part, rather they have questioned the maintainability of the instant case under the CP Act, 1986 as the instant case is a debtor creditor relationship. The Ops have admitted the complainant as a bona fide customer to their Bank bearing the Visa Credit Card with a number as stated by the complainant.
In their averment it has been mentioned that the said credit card was reset with a new password by generating OTP. As per terms and conditions of the Bank the date as claimed by the merchant Amazon Seller Services and Paytm against the said credit card of the complainant, the Bank is obliged to make payment agreeing all the terms and conditions of the credit card which the account holder of the said Bank herein the complainant has agreed upon when the credit card was issued. So, there is no deficiency on the part of the Ops.
Therefore, on affidavit in a firisti the complainant had filed 12 evidences/documents (kept in record). Of these there remain a copy of FIR lodged with Shakespeare Street Police Station under Kolkata Police Commissionerate and a copy of letter sent to the office of the Joint C.P (Crime) Kolkata Police Commissionerate on 18.07.2016, a copy of complaint lodged with the Banking Ombudsman, RBI dt. 05.08.2016, a complaint lodged with the Nodal Officer Axis Bank Limited dt. 05.09.2016 and reply of receipt from the Office of the Ombudsman, RBI dt. 26.10.2016.
The Ops also have filed some documents/evidences not on affidavit or in Firisti. These contain terms and conditions for a credit card holder with the Op Bank. During the course of proceedings, Op Bank have filed a questionnaire with 29 questions. Reply to the same on affidavit has been filed by the complainant. In his reply to the question number 26(a) the complainant has denied to receive any OTP creation message transmitted to his registered Mobile Phone Number. He has also in reply to question number 25 at para (d) has blamed the Op Bank for sending him alert during the period from 13:06 to 13:15 on 05.07.2016 ie. 4 hours after the said fraudulent transactions. Those denial and reply of the complainant both have not been rebutted by filing any adverse documents on part of the Ops.
Considering the above pleadings and nature and character of this case following points have come out to reach just decision of the case:-
- Is the complainant a Consumer to the Op as per Provision laid down under Section 2(1)(d)(ii)?
- Is the instant complaint within the jurisdiction of this Forum for Trial?
- Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Op?
- To what other relief/reliefs Complainant in entitled?
Decisions with reasons:
Considering the facts of the case and its nature and character all the points being interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience.
Cont..............3
:3:
C.C. NO.- 304/2017
The complainant acquired status as consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of C.P Act as the complainant maintains the Bank Account with the Op Bank and the credit card has been issued by the Op in terms of his Bank Account. The Op has also never denied the complainant as his customer i.e. a consumer.
The Op Bank has its Branch within territorial jurisdiction of this Fora. The claim amount does not exceed the pecuniary limits of this Fora. So, this Forum has both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try this case.
It is evident from the documents (kept in record) filed by both the parties that the complainant has been a victim of fraudulent transaction in his account through committing some cyber crime by some miscreants. But the Bank Authority has also paid no heed to the request of the Consumer for stop payment to the merchant, rather in the interest of their business the Op bank has made up the credit to the Merchant Amazon and Paytm as giving credit will enhance earnings of the Bank. If payments to the merchants were not made by the Op bank, the present complaint became liable to the merchant. It is also fact that though the complainant had lodged complaints to the concerned Police Stations but they had not also come to help to the complainant till the date. The Reserve Bank Authority has taken some steps and suggested to lodge complaint with the appropriate Forum. The Reserve Bank of India in their letter no AOL/OBO/1172/2016-2017 dt. 26.10.2016 at para 3 has told and ‘therefore it appears that the current complaint requires more elaborate documentary proofs, oral evidences for redressal of the complaint, as the Provision of the extant BO Scheme 2006 does not cover such action the complaint is produced to be disposed’.
The statement reveals the fraudulent transactions were actually made and the Bank authority should have the system to detect such fraudulent transactions.
We are of the opinion that the Bank authority has taken no effort to unearth the fraudulent transaction but rather harped on their own string for carrying on their credit business. So, it reveals deficiency in service on part of the Bank authority as people believe in security measures likely to be observed by the Bank in the interest of their customers.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case our considered view is that it should be justified to make direction upon the Op to refund the paid amount to the complainant to avoid multiplicity of cases between the parties in future. The complainant is also entitled to other relief or reliefs and that will be reflected in the ordering portion.
In drawing conclusion we put reliance on the spirit of decision of NCDRC, New Delhi and on decision of SCDRC, Gujrat in cases Abdul Haq vs. Rajasthan State Co-operative Bank Ltd. and in State Bank of India vs. Ikbalbhai Mahommdbhai Garasiya respectively reported in CPJ, September 2019.
Cont..............4
:4:
C.C. NO.- 304/2017
Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Fees paid are correct.
Hence for ends of Justice it is
Ordered
that the instant case be and same succeeds on contest with costs.
The Ops are directed to refund Rs. 1,22,742/- as the principal amount deducted from complainant’s account and a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for causing harassment and mental agony within 45 days from the date of this order. A litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- is to be paid to the complainant immediately.
The Complainant is at liberty to put this order into execution as per Law.
Let the plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Dictated & Corrected By
Member
We concur
Member President
