Orissa

Cuttak

CC/124/2017

Rashmi Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

Branch Manager,State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

R K Pattanaik & associates

21 Jul 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.124/2017

          Rashmi Mishra,

           W/O:Nibas Chandra Mishra,

           Resident of Plot No.1C/73,Sector-9,

           C.D.A,Cuttack-14.                     ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       State Bank of India,

Represented through the Branch Manager,

BidanasiBranch, Sector-6,C.D.A,

                     Cuttack-14                                                                                                                                      

 

2.       State Bank of India,

Credit Card Division,

Represented through the Branch Manager,

B.M.C.BhabaniMall,Block No.2,

Room No.16,17,Sahid Nagar,

               Bhubaneswar,Dist:Khurda

 

3.       Deepak Khandual,Authorized Agent,

SBI Credit Card Issuing Section,

State Bank of India,MainBranch,Cuttack,m

Near Collectorate Compound,

               Town/Dist:Khurda.                                                                      ...Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   16.10.2017

Date of Order:  21.07.2023

 

For the complainant:          Mr. R.K.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.P No.1              :          Mr. P.V.Balakrishna,Adv. & Associates.

               For the O.P no.2 & 3   :         Mr. R.K.Nanda,Adv. & Associates

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in nutshell is that she had an account with O.P no.1.  She has also opened a fixed deposit account bearing no.30413962423 on 30.6.2008 with the O.P no.1which was being renewed from time to time after the date of maturities on each occasion O.P no.3, had requested the complainant over telephone to avail a credit card facility in order to facilitate her for shopping and other ancillary use.  With much reluctance, the complainant had submitted the credit card form after signing thereon to O.P no.3.  One month thereafter, the complainant had received the credit card by post having no.4726426744673890.  The complainant had kept her credit card in safe custody but six months thereafter, she received a message from O.P no.1 that an amount of Rs.34,289.36p had been credited in her Savings Bank Account bearing no.10077314152 at the O.P no.1 branch.  The complainant was taken aback as she had neither transacted nor deposited any such amount and how such amount was credited to her account.  She could smell something fishy for which on 16.2.2017, she had visited the O.P no.1 bank in order to find out the reason thereof.  She could know that by way of liquidation of her Fixed Deposit A/c. bearingNo.30413962423 on 9.1.2017 which was lying at the O.P no.1 branch, such amount has been credited to her account.  She could further know that the said Fixed Deposit was liquidated at the instance of O.P no.2 towards payment of the credit card dues as provided to her.  The total amount of the Fixed Deposit was of Rs.1,10,911/- out of which an amount of Rs.76,621.64p was transferred to the account of O.P no.2 by O.P no.1 towards payment of credit card dues and the balance amount of Rs.34,289.36p was left in the Savings Bank Account of the complainant.  Such liquidation of her fixed deposit by O.P no.1 at the instance of O.P no.2 was not done with the consent of the complainant.  On 17.2.2017, the complainant had made representation to O.P no.1 in order to enquire about the matter and intimate her about her fixed deposit which was liquidated without her consent and signature.  But when O.P no.1 remained silent, the complainant had made another representation to O.P no.1 on 15.3.2017 in that context.  Ultimately, when no fruitful result yielded, the complainant has approached before this Commission claiming refund of her amount that which was credited to O.P no.2 by O.P no.1 to the tune of Rs.76,671.64p together with loss of interest on the said F.D which was to be matured on 30.6.2018.  Thus, the complainanthas claimed a sum of Rs.17,023/- towards loss of her interest upon her F.D together with compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- towards her mental agony and further has claimed a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards cost of her litigation from the O.Ps.

          She has filed copies of several documents alongwith her complaint petition in order to prove her case.

2.       All the three O.Ps have contested this case but O.P no.1 has filed his separate written version whereas O.Ps no.2 & 3 have filed their joint written version.

          As per the written version of O.P no.1, the case of the complainant is not maintainable but it is admitted by O.P no.1 that the complainant has a Savings Bank Account as well as a Fixed Deposit account with O.P no.1 bank.  It is further averred in the written version of O.P no.1 that the complainant had opted to avail S.B.I credit card facility after knowing about the same from O.P no.3and had executed an agreement thereto keeping security as regards to his S.B. account and Fixed Deposit accounts.  By virtue of the said agreement, O.P no.1 is liable to honour the same when it is so instructed by either of the O.Psno.2 or 3.  According to O.P no.1, the complainant had made several transactions and had not deposited the amount within the time stipulated for which the S.B.I card has no other alternative than to invoke the agreement as agreed upon and make the necessary payments thereto.  Accordingly, it is urged by the O.P no.1 that as per instruction of O.P no.2, the liquidation of the fixed deposit account of the complainant was carried out.  Hence according to the submission of O.P no.1, there was no deficiency in his service nor had he practised any unfair trade as alleged by the complainant for which he has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition as filed.

          From the written version of O.Ps no.2 & 3, it is noticed that both of them have stated about the non-maintainability of the complaint petition which is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost as because the complainant has no cause of action to file this case but had filed this case with an oblique motive only.  According to O.Ps no.2 & 3, the complainant is bound by the jurisdiction of the agreement as executed by herself.  O.Ps no.2 & 3 have also questioned the jurisdiction of this Commission regarding entertaining the petition of the complainant.  According to O.Ps no.2 & 3, by virtue of the application of the complainant bearing no.1918901001446 the credit card facility was provided to her with the secured Fixed Deposit amount of her A/c. bearing No.30413962423 as maintained with O.P no.1.  The complainant had registered FIR before the Cyber Crime Police Station on 27.7.2017 in this aspect.  As per the provisions, in each time of transaction the complainant was provided with SMS alert and she had to share the OTP set to her registered mobile number in order to effect the transaction as opted.  O.Ps no.2 & 3 have further stated that in order to validate the successful transaction through credit card the secured code is necessary which is known to the card holder only and the transaction is to be complete successfully only after sharing the said secret code.   Thus, for a successful transaction through credit card the card number and PIN alongwith OTP is very much required and it is the responsibility of the card holder to ensure all safeguard measures to that effect.  The O.Ps no.2 & 3 were not aware of the card number, CVV number, the OTP etc in order to commit any forge through the credit card of the complainant.  Thus, according to the O.Ps no.2 & 3 the case of the complainant is liable to be dismissed. 

          They have filed copies of several documents alongwith their written version in order to prove their stand.

          Evidence affidavit as filed by O.P no.2, Sri Subrat Kumar Mishra working for gain at SBI Card and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. has stated that as per the summary of the account dt.24.10.2016,24.11.2016,24.12.2016, 24.01.2017 and 24.2.2017 it clearly reveals that the alleged transactions were within the knowledge of the complainant which were duly provided to her including transaction details of 15.10.16 and 16.10.16.

3.       Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written version of the O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if they have practised any unfair trade ?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Issue no.II.

Out of the three issues, issue no.ii  being the pertinent issue is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition, the written versions, the written notes of submissions as well as all the copies of documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that infact the complainant has S.B.Account with the O.P no.1 alongwith a Fixed Deposit Account there also.  She had opted to avail credit card facility after being convinced and consulted with O.P no.3 to that effect.  She has also executed an agreement with the O.Ps to that effect.  By virtue of the said agreement, if any unpaid amount lies due to the transaction undertaken by the complainant through her credit card, the said unpaid amount is to be ratified from the SBI Fixed Deposit account of the complainant.  It is ofcourse the responsibility of the complainant after possessing her credit card, to safely preserve it alongwith its details without sharing/disclosing those to anyone else.

 In order to implicate the O.Ps, here in this case, as alleged by the complainant, it is the duty of the complainant to establish that if at any point of time all the details of her credit card came to the knowledge of the O.Ps including the CVV and the OTP number that had come to her registered mobile phone number so as to come to a conclusion that if the O.Ps were deficient in their service and had practised unfair trade by forging the details of the credit-card of the complainant at any point of time.  Simple allegation to that effect without any cogent evidence do not suffice and such bald allegation as made cannot be considered here in this case so as to rope in the O.Ps as alleged.  Accordingly, this issue goes in favour of the O.Ps.

Issuesno.i&iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him.

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 21^st day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.          

                                                                        

                                                                                                            Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                          President

                                                                                                          Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                             Member