ORDER

SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS.  PRESIDENT

1.     This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties (herein referred to as OPs) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in claiming the amount fraudulently paid to the merchant which was recovered, by sending SMS and calls through recovery agents, not issuing credit card statement from June 2017, till date of the filing of the complaint, to issue NOC in respect of credit card SBI IRCTC No.4377485654922871, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.

2.     The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is the credit card holder bearing No.4377485654922871 issued by OPs. On 24.06.2017 there were three unauthorized transactions of Rs.26,000/- each totaling Rs.78,000/- and the said amount was debited to his account as if it is an online transaction made with 'GOOGLE OCTRA'. It was a fraudulent transaction. No password was given to him or sent to his mobile number. When he came to know that, it was a fraudulent transaction, he immediately contacted the customer care and raised the dispute as advised by the charge back at SBI.com. narrating the full incident.  After verifying at their end a sum of Rs.78,000/- was re-credited to his account.  By that, the matter should have ended.  As a precaution, he got the card blocked. Inspite of the such blockage, there was a couple of attempts to use the said card to further transact fraudulently which was declined.

3.     Again he contacted the customer care,/charge back team and informed the same. To his surprise, in the credit card statement, for month of August 2017, Rs.78,000/- was being shown as due amount as though the said amount was reverted back due to the fraudulent transaction against which he made a complaint which was considered and rolled back.  Inspite of it, he has been receiving SMS, and calls from recovery agent, time and again harassing him inspite he informing them that the amount has been rolled back and no transaction has taken place. Even he brought to the notice the letter written by OPs that the merchant has returned the amount and the dispute closed in customer favour due to direct credit received from merchant in the month of July 2017 itself.

4.     Inspite of it, he has been receiving SMS and calls from the recovery agents to pay the amount which has put him under embarrassing position and under mental agony and hardship.  When he requested the OPs to desist from sending SMS and calls from the recovery agents, and requesting them to inform the authorities that the said transaction shall not affect his CIBIL score, inspite of it, OPs have been negligent and have not issued No Due Certificate and still the recovery agents are demanding the amount to be refunded. Hence there is deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and unfair demand from the OPs and hence the complaint.

5.     Upon the service of notice, OPs appeared before the commission and filed the version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and that there is no cause of action for the complainant to file the complaint and further after a lapse of 4 years, from the date of transaction i.e. 24.06.2017, this complaint is filed which is barred by time.  His grievance is issuance of bills raised for seeking payment towards his credit card upon fraud.  There is no unfair trade practice as defined under the Consumer Protection Act. The four digit secret pin /password would be sent to the registered mobile number of the card holder whenever there is an attempt to transact with the card or the internet banking.  When such being the case, the complainant in order to enrich himself has filed a false complaint.  Complainant is well aware of MITC. Complainant is not entitle for the damages before information regarding fraud played and subsequent frauds, the liability of the card issuing company is only Rs.1,000/-.  OPs are not responsible for any dispute with regard to the merchant establishment transactions. Any disputes should be settled directly by the card holder with merchant establishment and failure to do so, will not relieve the card holder of any obligation of the card issuer. 

6.     When the complainant do not pay the arrears of the amount, OPs upon issuing of a notice, recovery would be done in accordance with law.  The complaint is to be dismissed since the reversal has been made as per the documents produced by the complainant.  For every transaction made transaction fee and finance charges, and for delayed payment, delay charges, would be levied and it is the duty of the card holder to pay the same. Under the circumstances by denying all the allegations made against it in the complaint, prayed the commission to dismiss the same.

7.      In order to prove the case, both parties have filed their affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard.   The following points arise for our consideration:-

1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

8.     Our answers to the above points are:-

POINT NO.1 & 2 :    In the Negative

                                For the following.

REASONS

POINT No.1 & 2:-

9.     On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the parties, it becomes clear that, the complainant was a credit card holder with OPs and the same was fraudulently misused on 24.06.2017, and a sum of Rs.26,000/- was utilized three times amounting Rs.78,000/- which was immediately reported to the customer care of the OPs who directed him to contact charge back SBI.Com and when he approached the said team and after investigation, it was found that there was a fraudulent transaction and further the merchant had directly paid the amount and hence the amount was reversed.

10.   The matter would have ended there only, but for the OPs raised the said amount as due in the bill for the month of August 2017. The said bill has been produced by the OPs wherein it is mentioned that the said amount Rs.26,000 X 3 is due.  In the next bill for the month of September, a sum of Rs.26,000/- is shown to be credited and in respect of 2 other transaction nothing is coming forth. On the other hand, OP has written to the ombudsman that direct credit received from merchant on 24.06.201 7 a sum of Rs.26,000 X 3, and above dispute has been closed in customer favour due to the direct credit received from the merchant in the month July 2017 only, and hence there is no delay at their end in resolving the customer issue when this is taken into consideration, OP has cleared the issue then and their itself, whereas it ought not to have raised the said amount as balance in the further credit card statement for the month of August 2017.

10.   Further as could be seen, even after blockage of the credit card there was an attempt by unscrupulous element to use the said card which was denied or declined.  The documents produced by the complainant and OPs do not reveal except the statement of August 2017 that OPs have demanded the said amount. Whereas, since the complainant has transacted afterwards the amount is due which he has to pay.  In view of this and as complainant has failed to produce any of the SMS demanding the amount in particular the disputed transaction of Rs.26,000 X 3 and by the recovery agents, we are of the opinion that no issue lies with the OPs in respect of the same.  However, we hereby direct the OPs to furnish the account statements from August 2017 onwards till the filing of this complaint to the complainant and also in case there is any due from the complainant, the complainant has make good the said payments and after paying the same, OPs are directed to inform the authorities in respect of the CIBIL score. As we are of the opinion that no deficiency is made out, complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs prayed in the complaint. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:-

ORDER

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
2. However, OPs are directed to furnish the account statement/credit card statement to the complainant from August 2017 till filing of this complaint.

3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.

Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.

(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 11^th day of MARCH  2022)

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

ANNEXURES

1. Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:

Ex P1: Copy of the card statement.

Ex P2: Copy of the email correspondences.

Ex. P3: Copy of the transaction disputes.

Ex P4: Copy of reply by bank to the Banking ombudsmen.

Ex P5: Email correspondences complainant and OP.

Ex P6: SMS.

Ex P7: Copy of credit card statement through email.

Ex P8: Copy of Legal notice dtd: 08.07.2020.

Ex P9: Acknowledgement.

2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:

RW-1:Mr.Masthan Vali Munna, Asst. Legal Manager- OP.

Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s

Ex R1: Copy of the letter dated 17.06.2018.

Ex R2: Copy of the reply dated 17.06.2018.

Ex R3: Copy of the Monthly statement Dt.20.07.2017 & 20.08.2017.

Ex R4: Copy of the merchant slip for the three transaction dt:24.06.2017.

Ex R5: Copy of the Email Correspondences.

Ex R6: Copy of the monthly statement.

Ex R7: Copy of the application form.

Ex R8: Copy of the notice.

Ex R9: Copy of the Dispute form.

Ex R10: Copy of the card holders agreement.

MEMBER                   MEMBER                  PRESIDENT

RAK*