1. The complainant’s case in brief is that the complainant is a retired Government employee aged about 66 years and the complainant’s credit card number is 0004047457524051793 and the same was issued by SBICPSL. Though the complainant gets a fixed monthly pension (i.e; Rs 47,000 per month), the SBICPSL issued a credit card to him on his fixed deposit in the bank and not on his monthly pension. On 22.10.18 he received the credit card and same was kept in safe place which was never taken out for any transaction or any other purpose. The complainant never used the same for any transaction but surprisingly and most shockingly on 26.03.19  complainant was informed by one Sanjeev Kumar yadav on his registered mobile number with SBI, Bazar Branch, Dumka that purchases worth Rs 10,00,000 has already been made through his credit card.

2. Then the complainant immediately contacted to SBI, Bazar Branch, Dumka and apprised the concerned authorities that despite the fact that he never used his aforesaid credit card for making any purchase/ transaction a sum of Rs 10,00,000 is being claimed from him. And that when he took out monthly statement he was again surprised to learn that though his name was there but the Credit Card number was different. The last 4 digits of his credit card issued by SBICPSL is 1793 whereas the last 4 digits of the credit card shown in the monthly statement is 6628.

3. That despite being apprised by the aforesaid facts the SBI, Bazar Branch, Dumka did not pay any heed to the requests of the complainant. The last      4 digit of his credit card shown in the monthly statement is 6628 and that it appears that on account of certain technical glitches in the internal system/ software of SBICPSL a liability of Rs 10,00,000 and odd is being inflicted on complainant for the transaction/ purchase which was never done by him. In fact pursuant to the issuance of the said credit card complainant never used the same for any transaction. Complainant is innocent and is burdened with an undue and heavy financial liability on account of deficiency in services by the Opposite Parties.

4. The complainant has claimed the following relief that O.P. may be directed to relook into the matter and give clean chit to complainant  and further direct them to pay a sum of Rs 5,25,000 to the complainant by way of compensation and cost of Litigation

5. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 appeared on 19.08.19 and filed his so cause and clearly stated that the complaint is not maintainable either in facts or in the eyes of  law and is liable to be dismissed. There is no cause of action and prima facie evidence against the Answering Opposite Parties. The complainant does not qualify the ingredients of a valid complaint as envisaged in section 2(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

6. It is further submitted that the complainant is bound by the jurisdiction set forth in the agreement executed between himself and SBI Cards and payment services Pvt. Ltd. This is a matter of record that as per card holder agreement there is an arbitration clause, which stipulates that in all events of dispute/ differences between the credit card holder and the SBI Cards the same shall be resolved by appointment of a sole arbitrator and the O.P. shall have the power to appoint the arbitrator. As such this Learned Forum is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

7. It is admitted fact that the O.P. has issued SBI Card bearing no. 0004047457524051793 to the complainant basis receipt of duly filled application form received in the month of October 2018.

8. It is further submitted that SBI & SBI Card are separate and distinct legal entity whereas SBI Card is a Pvt. Ltd. Company incorporated under Companies Act 1956. The grievances of the complainant relates with the SBI Card and SBI has no role whatsoever in this instant complaint. It is further submitted that the complainant was issued with the Credit Card and the Card was secured card, i.e; the card was issued with lien marked on fixed deposit. He has also enclosed copy of application form of the complainant. He further submitted that the said card was debited with following below mentioned transactions amounting to Rs 9,98,810.

9. It is further submitted that the O.P. did not received any dispute form for such transactions whereas received the letter on April 2019 where the complainant disputed the above mentioned transaction. Though O.P. conducted investigation and on the basis of investigation it was found that the aforesaid transaction was performed in the secured manner                              (M- Visa transaction). In such scenario, the O.P. Company didn’t have any chargeback recourse available as per      VISA Rule, therefore, case was closed with cardholder liability.

10. It was further submitted that the complainant is abide by the terms and agreements which is duly provided by the O.P. stating, “ In the event the Card, card number or the PIN is lost, stolen or misused by another person the Cardholder must report the occurrence to SBICPSL.” He has also annexed the Card holder agreement with his so cause.

11. The complainant has never reported any such occurrence to the O.P. and the responsibility to keep the confidential details lies with the cardholder/ complainant only. It is further submitted that the complainant is also abide by the RBI Circular dt. 6^th July 2017, stating, “ in cases where the loss is due to negligence by a customer, such as where he has shared the payment credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the Bank.” He has also annexed the circular with his so cause. It is further submitted that the complainant inadvertently compromised the card details with the third party and due to which said transactions conducted. Therefore, liability for said transactions lies with the complainant only.

12. It is further submitted that the complainant also filed a FIR vide Dumka Town P.S Case No. 84/19 dt. 04.04.19 u/s 419/420 IPC which the O.P. Company replied to the notice received u/s 91 Cr. P.C. which is pending for investigation. Reply and notice is also annexed with so cause. And during the course of investigation the complainant had duly admitted that the OTP was shared post transactions were done. And the O.P. further submitted that the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

13. O.P. no. 3  The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, (SBI), Bazar Branch, Dumka, P.O. + P.S. – Dumka, Dist. – Dumka has appeared on 30.11.19 and filed his so cause and stated that this O.P. is not concerned with SBI Credit Card and the said card was not issued by the SBI Bazar Branch. It is further submitted that SBI Card & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. is an independent institution which renders services under their policies. So that this O.P. SBI Bazar Branch is not responsible and liable for any deficiency in services concerned with SBICPSL. It is further submitted that the SBI & SBI Card have got their separate identities and both have got no concerned with their functioning, whatsoever dealing with their clients. And further prayed to accept the so cause and be dismissed the complaint petition against this O.Ps.

14.   The main point for the determination in this case is that whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief or reliefs as claimed !

                                       Findings

The complainant in support of his case has filed oral and documentary evidence both to establish his case which are as follows.

 CW1 – Geeta Murmu

 CW2 – Haradhan Murmu

And apart from that some documentary evidence has  been filed which are as follows :-

Exhibit 1 – is the SBI Card Prime related to Card No. 4047457524051793. Total 3 sheets.

Exhibit 2 – is monthly statement related to Credit Card no. ×××× ×××× ××19. Total 4 sheets.

Exhibit 3 – is the monthly statement of Card No. ×××× ×××× 6628 for the period of 23.02.19 to 11.02.19. Total 3 sheets.

Exhibit 4 – is the legal notice dt. 3 April’19 u/s 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007.

Exhibit 5 – is the reply of legal notice dt. 03.04.19 by advocate Sri Bijay Kr. Singh dt. 01.05.19.

Exhibit 6 – is the legal notice dt. 03.05.19 issued by SBI u/s 25(1) of the Payment and Settlement System Act, 2007.

15. The O.P. No. 1 & 2 has also filed oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. O.P. witness No. 1 – Subrat Kumar Mishra and also filed the following documents which are as follows :-

Exhibit A – is the special Power of Attorney

Exhibit B - is the application form for Credit Card. Total 4 sheets.

Exhibit C - is the confirmation of the application of the SBI Card and Card Fees acceptance. Total 25 sheets.

Exhibit D - is the RBI circular dt. 6^th July 2017. Total 9 sheets.

Exhibit E - is the notice u/s 91 CRPC and its replies. Total 3 sheets.

Exhibit F – is the letter of Subrat Mishra, legal SBI Card dt. 2^nd july 2019 to the SDPO, Sadar Dumka.

Apart from that during cross examination of witness no. CW2, Haradhan Murmu, his signature was exhibited on certain documents as Exhibit a – f only. On behalf of O.P. No. 3 no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced.

16.  From carefully scrutinizing and analyzing the evidence and documents adduced on behalf of both the parties and also the arguments advanced on behalf of both the parties it is admitted fact that the complainant Haradhan Murmu received a SBI credit card no. 0004047457524051797 issued by SBICPSL but from this credit card no transaction was made by the complainant and the same was kept in the safe place and never taken out for any transaction or any other purpose. And it is also admitted that the credit card lien marked on fixed deposit. It is also admitted fact that the complainant has filed an FIR in the Dumka Town Police Station which was registered as case no. 84/19 dt. 04.04.19 u/s 419 and 420 I.P.C. It is alleged by the complainant in his complaint petition that transaction of Rs 9,98,810  was illegally done from his fixed deposit commission for which the o.P. that is SBICPSL is responsible.

17. On the other hand, O.P. no. 1 and 2 that is SBI Credit and payment Services Pvt. Ltd. has clearly stated that SBI Credit card was issued to the complainant that is application Form which is Exhibit – 1 corresponding to Exhibit – B and on the application Form the complainant has signed on safe place in that Form that is on Exhibit B and thereafter the Card was issued to the complainant, the last 4 digit of the said card was 1793.

18. From carefully going through the monthly statement which is Exhibit – 3 which clearly shows that the transactions was made by Card No. which last 4 digit was 6628. From the perusal of Exhibit E which is in 3 sheets it appears that in Dumka Town Police Station case no. 84/19 a notice was sent to the O.P. u/s 91 C.R.P.C. for some query and certain points in which reply the O.P. No. 1 and 2 has given reply in that case and from the perusal of that document it appears total 3 cards were issued to the complainant which are as follows :-

1. Card No. 0004047457524051793 which was dispatched on 10.12.18 and delivered on 22.10.18 and received by Haradhan Murmu.
2. Card No. 0004047457529006628 which was destroyed on 15^th May and card was blocked by system on 15^th Dec’18 via Mobile App.
3. Card No. 0004047457529006719 which was dispatched on 20^th Dec’18 destroyed on 16^th may’19, RTO region sign shifted.          

19.  Apparently no transaction was made by Card no. which last 4 digit is 1793 as stated by the complainant himself and thereafter it is also apparent that no transaction was made by Card no. last 4 digit 6719. Exhibit – 3 which is the monthly statement and account summary which clearly indicates that the money was withdrawn only from the Card No. last 4 digit 6628. It is further submitted that on behalf of the complainant that he has not applied for new Credit card and in absence of his demands in what circumstances the O.P. issued a second card which last 4 digit is 6628.

20. The O.P. has submitted regarding this allegation that the O.P. Company conducted the investigation and post investigation it was found that the aforesaid transaction was performed in a secured manner that is (M- VISA) transactions. In such scenario, the O.P. Company did not have any charge back recourse available as per VISA rules. Therefore, the case was closed with card Holder liabilities. It is also argued that on behalf of the O.P. with as per terms and conditions the Card Holder agreements which is duly provided by the O.P. stating that in the event the Card, card number or the PIN is lost, stolen or misused by any other person the Card Holder must report the occurrence to the SBICPSL.

21. But here in this case, the complainant has never reported any occurrence to the O.P. Company and he has also not kept confidential details lies with the cardholder/ complainant only. And during the investigation the complainant has duly admitted this fact that O.T.P was shared post investigation transaction was done. The complainant witness no. 1 Geeta Murmu who is none other but the daughter of the complainant in Para 13 has admitted this fact that her father was given information on mobile regarding his PIN and complainant witness no. 2 Haradhan Murmu, complainant himself in Para 13 and 14 has clearly admitted this fact that one call was received on mobile and the OTP was disclosed  and after giving the information regarding the OTP to that person thereafter he received the calls from Sanjeev Kumar Yadav regarding the fraud.

22. It is further submitted that on behalf of the O.P. that the person who committed the fraud and make an alleged transaction after receiving the PIN from the complainant. It is further submitted by the O.P. that the person who committed the said act by changing the mobile no. asked for second card which last 4 digit was 6628 and after making transaction dispatched on Dec’12, 2018 and from the perusal of Exhibit – 3 of the transactions were made through this card from 31.01.19 to 23.02.19 and during that period about Rs 999,168 was made and all the transactions were made in New Delhi. And all the transactions were made in secured manner (M- VISA) transactions in which card presentation was not necessary. It is also submitted that on behalf of the O.P. that in spite of specific transactions and instructions made in the agreement in Exhibit B and Exhibit C and also RBI circulations which is Exhibit D that not to disclose any details regarding the Credit Card to any person.

23. From going through Exhibit D which is circular and RBI dt. 06.07.17 it is clearly mentioned in Para 7, “ A customer shall be liable for the loss occurring due to unauthorized transaction in the following manner :-

1.  In case where the loss is due to negligence by a customer such as where he has shared the payment, credentials, the customer will bear the entire loss until he reports the unauthorized transaction to the bank. Any loss occurring after the reporting of the unauthorized transaction shall be borne by the bank.
2. In cases where the responsibility for the unauthorized electronic banking transaction lies neither with the bank nor with the customer, but lies elsewhere in the system and when there is a delay (of 4 to 7 working days after receiving the communication from the bank) on the part of the customer in notifying the bank of such transactions, the per transactions liability of the customer shall be limited to the transaction value or the amount mentioned in the table whichever is lower.

24. Here in this case, that prior to the information to the Bank all the transactions were made by (M- VISA), and the complainant has not timely informed to the Bank. He informed the bank regarding the above illegal transactions on 26.03.19 and before that day all the transactions were made. Apparently in this case the complainant is sole responsible as he has disclosed his PIN to the 3^rd person and due to negligence he has sustained the loss and the above fraud. For such he has already filed the criminal case in the Police Station which was registered as case no. 84/19 dt. 04.04.19. It is fit case of cyber crime for which the complainant has already taken recourse.

25. Considering above facts, circumstances and documents we come to the conclusion that the complainant was on the fault and due to his negligence that is disclosing the PIN to other person which clearly breach the important guidelines and instructions of the SBICPSL and also of RBI and in that circumstances, O.P. cannot be held liable for the above loss sustained by the complainant. As such we did not found any merit in the complaint petition of the complainant. It is therefore,

                                             Ordered

      That this complaint petition and the same is hereby dismissed without any cost.

                 Let the copy of this judgment be provided to both the parties free of cost. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

File to be consigned to record room along with copy of this judgment.