DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 69  of  2021

 

Sri Pinaki Dasgupta,

S/O- Lt. Debendra Ch. Dasgupta,

Indranagar, P.O. Indranagar, 

Agartala, West Tripura- 799005. ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. The State Bank of India, Head Office,

Represented by its General Manager,

Office at- 18 19, Devdas Kamlleg Block, 

Synergy Building 

Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,

Behind National Stock Exchange,

Mumbai- 400051.

 

2.  The State Bank of India,

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For the O.Ps : Exparte.

 

 

 

 

 

F I N A L    O R D E R

1. This case is filed U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by Sri Pinaki Dasgupta of Indranagar, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as “the Complainant”) against, The State Bank of India being represented by the General Manager, Bandra East, Mumbai(here-in-after called as “the O.P. No.1”) and The State Bank of India, TLA House Branch being represented by the Branch Manager, Colonel Chowmuhani, Agartala, West Tripura(here-in-after called as “the O.P. No.2”) alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

1.1 The complainant being a consumer of O.P. No.2 had a Credit Card with limit up to Rs.65,000/- and Debit Card /ATM Card vide No- 5103720429863986. In the month of September, 2020 the complainant purchased a mobile phone for Rs.12,000/- using Credit Card. However, later on the complainant repaid Rs.10,000/- to the O.P. Bank out of Rs.12,000/-. The complainant was informed by the O.P. Bank that Rs.4,640/- remained outstanding towards his credit card expenses. As such, the O.P. Bank claimed sum of Rs.2640/- in excess in place of Rs.2,000/-. Being inquired the O.P. Bank informed that by using the Credit Card of the complainant something was purchased on 09th September, 2020 for Rs.1,600/-, 10th September, 2020 for Rs.240/- and 14th September, 2020 for Rs.800/-, in total Rs.2,640/-. 

1.2 On 21st September, 2020  the complainant lodged complaint with the Bank regarding unauthorized use of his Credit Card but the Bank informed that some person might have hacked the Credit Card of the complainant. Hence, on 14th October, 2020 the complainant lodged G.D. Entry in GBP Out post.

1.3 The ATM Card of the complainant was also hacked and on 30.11.2020 and on 01.12.2020 Rs.1600/- and Rs.4,000/- respectively, in total Rs.5,600/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant which the complainant informed to the Bank but on the complaint no date has been mentioned as to the date of giving information to the Bank. However, on the request of the complainant his Credit Card was blocked but again the O.P. Bank sent a new Credit Card in the name of the complainant in the month of January, 2021 which the complainant did not activate but in the month of May, 2021 the complainant received information from the Bank that an amount of Rs.62,869/- remained outstanding against Credit Card expenses of the complainant including penalty. The complainant informed the Bank regarding this ghostly transaction. Now, the Bank delivered a list of expenses to the complainant from the month of February, 2021 up to the month of April, 2021 for Rs.62,360/-. 

 

2. Summons were issued upon the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not appear as such vide order dated 29.12.2021 the case has been proceeding exparte against the O.P. No.1.

3. The complainant submitted evidence on affidavit along with documents.

4. Hearing argument the following points emerged for discussion and decision:-

Point No. 1:-

5. The complainant has nowhere mentioned that against the use of his Credit Card and ATM Card by the alleged hackers he never received any SMS alert. However, the complainant used his Credit Card and ATM Card time to time which is an admitted position. Even the complainant has admitted that the complainant found Email in his spam box regarding transactions of 9th September, 2020, 10th September, 2020, 14th September, 2020, in total Rs.2640/-. However, the complainant lodged complaint with the O.P. Bank only on 21.09.2020 and thereafter being informed that somebody might have hacked the Card of the complainant, he lodged G.D. Entry on 14.10.2020. Similarly, against his ATM Card the complainant found withdrawal of Rs.1,600/- on 30.11.2020 and Rs.4,000/- on 01.12.2020, in total Rs. 5,600/- and informed the O.P. Bank, although the complainant has not mentioned date of such information. As such, it is difficult for us to presume that the complainant was vigilant in lodging complaint with the O.P. No.2 or that the alleged hacking of account of the complainant is justified hacking for which the O.P. in particular O.P. No.2 can be held responsible. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. No.2 keeping in mind the guideline of Reserve Bank of India. This point is decided in negative against the complainant. 

POINT NO. 2 & 3:-

6. Both the points are taken up together for discussion and decision.

6.1 The complainant has specifically averred that in the month of January, 2021 the complainant received new Credit Card from the Bank and he never activated the credit Card. Therefore, unless activated by himself, there can not be any transaction against that Credit Card. However, as per the complaint the O.P. Bank demanded outstanding amount of Rs.62,869/- from the complainant against the newly issued Credit Card showing spending of various amount from the month of February, 2021 to April, 2021, in total 19 hacks amounting to Rs.62,360/-. The complainant duly lodged transaction dispute with the O.P. Bank but to no good. Hence, this complaint. The O.P Bank inspite of receiving summon has not appeared and as such has not disputed such specific averment of the complainant that his newly issued Credit Card was not even activated. Therefore, this being admitted by the O.Ps and in particular O.P. No.2 by not disputing the same this allegation of the complainant is a acceptable allegation as not disputed by the O.P. and in particular by his pleading to this extent complainant has proved the case. 

6.2 The O.P. in particular O.P. No.2, therefore, can not claim this amount from the complainant. Hence, this is deficiency in service in the part of the O.P. No.2 for which the O.P. are hereby barred from claiming this amount of Rs.62,360/- from the complainant. Rather for driving the complainant to this Commission the O.Ps, in particular the O.P. No.2 is liable to pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as litigation cost by way of compensation. 

7. Both the points are decided accordingly.

 

8. In the result, it is ordered that the O.P. No.2 is barred from claiming Rs.62,360/- from the complainant which has been proved to be illegal demand of the O.P. and the O.P. No.2 shall pay Rs.8,000/- to the complainant as compensation in the form of litigation cost within 30 days from today, otherwise it shall carry interest @7.5% P.A. from today till the date of actual payment. 

9. The case stands disposed of as dismissed.

10. Supply copy of this final order to both the parties.   

 

 

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.