Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/435/2015

Gurtaj Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Senior Manager, Union Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

Jatinder Kumar Puri

28 Oct 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/435/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	13/07/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	28/10/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Gurtaj Singh s/o Sh. B.P.S. Gill, resident of House No.51, Sector 8-A, Chandigarh.

….Complainant

Vs.

 

The Senior Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Sector 8-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh.

 

…… Opposite Party 

 

BEFORE:   SH. P.L. AHUJA               PRESIDENT

          MRS.SURJEET KAUR             MEMBER

         

For Complainant	:	Sh. Jatinder Kumar Puri, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Ms. Karuna Kumari Dogra, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER

 

 

                The facts, in brief, are that the Complainant opened an account bearing no. 511202010013266 with the Opposite Party. The Complainant was also issued Credit/ Debit Card No. 4391 5500 0005 4521. It has been alleged that on 08.04.2015, two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each were made through the said Card at Moradabad. The Complainant has submitted that the card in question remained with him all the times at Chandigarh. As such, on 09.04.2015, the very next day of incident, the Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party to take action against the guilty person (Annexure C-2). However, the Opposite Party vide letter dated 23.5.2015 (Annexure C-3) with a view to evade its liability shifted the entire responsibility on the Visa Card with whom the Complainant has no business. It has been stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Party, seeking its version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Party in its reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case has stated that any transaction for payment through Credit Card swapping device is not possible without physical usage of Credit Card along with its secret PIN. It has been further stated that there was no question of shifting the liability to VISA. Upon receipt of written Complaint dated 09.04.2015 from the Complainant, Credit Card Division of OP-Bank immediately referred the matter to VISA authorities for reversal/refund of disputed transaction and the same was apprised to him also vide letter dated 16.04.2015 and further course of action was also apprised to him vide letter dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure-3 & Annexure-4). All suitable and timely actions were taken by the answering Opposite Party and the Complainant was also provided the receipts of disputed transactions which took place at Moradabad. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service on its part, answering Opposite Party has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

4.      The Complainant also filed rejoinder to the written statements filed by the Opposite Party, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Party have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record, along with the written arguments filed on behalf of both the sides.

 

7.     In the instant case, two transactions of Rs.10,000/- each, were done on 8.4.2015 with Credit Card issued to the complainant by Opposite Party.  A complaint Annexure C-2 was lodged to the Opposite Party to take action against the guilty person. However, the Opposite Party vide letter Annexue C-3 dated 23.5.2015 shifted the entire responsibility on the VISA Card and no appropriate action was taken by the Opposite Party to investigate the matter.

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Party bank is that it had taken appropriate steps prudently and discharged its duty towards the complainant. As per the allegation of the complainant investigation through CCTV footage is not its liability and as per his request the credit card was blocked. It has further been submitted that the matter of the complainant was forwarded to the VISA authorities by credit card division of Opposite Party bank vide Annexure 3 and Annexure 4. The course of action was apprised the complainant as well.

 

9.      The important point which arises for determination in this case is whether the transaction of Rs.20,000/- has been done through the account of the complainant by some unknown person. It is significant that the complainant has alleged that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was used from his account whereas the Credit/ATM Card was with him. It means some unknown person cloned the Credit Card of the complainant.  The question whether the withdrawal of a total sum of Rs.20,000/- from the account of the complainant was fraudulent or withdrawal of the amount was within the knowledge of the complainant, can be decided by detailed enquiry/investigation either by the police or the civil court after examining whole of the record of the disputed transactions. In other words, detailed evidence, production of documents and cross-examination of various witnesses are involved for decision of fraudulent withdrawal, which is beyond the purview of summary jurisdiction of this Forum. However still the question of deficiency in service, if any, on the part of the OPs can be decided by us. 

 

10.      The only point which survives for determination is whether the complainant has been able to prove any deficiency in service on the part of OP or not.  The answer to this question is in affirmative.

 

11.      As per the allegations of the complainant in Para No.4 of the complaint, he immediately on 9.4.2015 brought the matter to the notice of OP bank vide Annexure C-2. The contentions of Para No.4 of the complaint have been admitted by OP No.1 in its written reply.  It means after the transaction of 8.4.2015, the matter was immediately brought to the notice of OP, but it did not take any prompt action.  The OP sent a letter to VISA authorities to look into the matter but nothing fruitful came out of the same.

 

12.      It is an admitted fact at page No.39 in para 10 of the reply of the Opposite Party that complainant is a valuable customer of Opposite Party bank credit card is also issued to him by it. After going through the facts of the case it has come to our notice that even during pendency of the case Opposite Party has not produced any evidence to this effect that any investigation was actually conducted by it and if so what was the result of the same. Since an amount of Rs.20,000/- was debited from the account of the complainant on 8.4.2015 the Opposite Party should have taken the matter to a logical end. However, it seems that despite a specific allegation in the complaint no investigation has been conducted, otherwise the result of the same would have been produced before this Forum. Hence, the above inaction on the part of the Opposite Party and referring the matter to Visa authority with whom the Complainant has no direct concern amounts to deficiency in service towards its customer i.e. Gurtaj Singh for the reasons recorded above.

 

13.      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Party is found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant and having indulged in unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Party, and the same is allowed, qua it. The Opposite Party is, directed  to:-

[a]  To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

[b]  To make payment of Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

14.      The above said order be complied with by the Opposite Party, within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount at Sr. No. [a] above shall carry interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of the present Complaint, till actual payment, besides payment of litigation costs.

 

15.      The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

28^th October, 2015                            

Sd/-

(P.L. AHUJA)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

 (SURJEET KAUR)

MEMBER