Delhi

New Delhi

CC/728/2011

SHAHAN SULTAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

26 Nov 2019

ORDER

 

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.728/2011                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

               Sh. Shahan Sultan,

              S/o Late Sh. M.D. Sultan,

               R/o 303, EWS, Silver Oks,

              Gurgaon, Haryana.

 

  ….….Complainant

Vs.

 

        M/s HDFC Bank Ltd.,

      G-3/4, Surya Kiran Building,

        19, K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110001

 

 

                                                                             ………Opposite Party

   ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

O R D E R

 

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the credit card holder of OP Bank vide creditcard No.5289456002676356.  On 9.6.2011, in the afternoon, the complainant found that the credit card of OP Bank as well as City Bank were missing.  The complainant immediately called the customer care centre of OP bank, the official of the OP informed him that his account was already hot listed due to suspicious transaction and an amount of Rs.2,19,216 has already been transacted from the credit card in question.  It is alleged that no sms regarding the transaction was sent to his registered mobile number. 

2.     Thereafter, the complainant immediately escalated the matter to the Fraud Department of OP bank and after, investigation, it was found that the accused was the known acquaintance of the complainant and he had made five transactions at different shops. On 10.6.2011, the complainant gave written complaint of the theft of the credit card in question to the Fraud Department of the OP.  After preliminary investigation, an FIR No.92/11 was registered at P.S DLF Ph.I on 12.6.2011 and 11 articles amounting to Rs.1.5 lacs was recovered.  The complainant on 27,6,2011, sent a request to the OP to issued the No Dues Certificate in terms of the recovery made by the Fraud Department of the OP.  The OP instead of issuing the NOC vide e-mail dt. 30.6.11 asked the complainant to pay the outstanding of Rs.2,19,216.36p against the credit card in question.  It is alleged that the OP is under the legal liability not to claim any amount from the complainant in terms of the recovery made by it against the stolen credit card but the officials of the OP were forcing the complainant to make the payment. This act of OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in services against the OP, hence this complaint.

3.     OP had filed written statement opposing complaint of the complainant. OP denied any deficiency of services on its part.  It was stated that all the incident occurred due to the gross negligence of the complainant, hence, OP is not liable for the same.  It is further stated that the complainant failed to informed the OP bank about the lost of the credit card in question and the first intimation regarding the same was given to the OP on 10.6.2011 i.e. after the incident, hence, as per clause No.8, bank is not liable to reimburse the loss.  OP further denied that  the Fraud Officer, Mr. Pradeep Rana, provided any support to the complainant to investigate the disputed transaction and to catch the culprit on the contrary during investigation it was found that the accused was the closed friend of the complainant for the last four years, hence OP is not liable for any relief as prayed.  

4.     Both the parties filed their evidence by way of affidavits. Parties also filed   written arguments.

5.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar and have perused the record.

 

6. Perusal of the present complaint shows that the case involves the complicated question of facts  on various issues.  The complainant in the present complaint has alleged that OP bank had changed the registered mobile number at its own and hence, the complainant was unable to receive the messaged of the transaction in question.  It is further alleged  by OP that the complainant had failed to inform the OP bank regarding the stolen of the credit card in question before the transaction in question, hence, OP is not liable for the loss incurred.  It is very difficult for us to come to the conclusion that whether any request for changing of registered mobile number was  made or not by the complainant, the same can be verified by the adducing the evidence which is not possible in the present summary proceedings.  Moreover, the complainant has alleged in the present complainant that the alleged transaction was got successful due to negligence of the OP.   The issues referred herein required elaborate evidence which cannot be dealt in summary proceedings by the District Fora.

7.     It is apparent that the complainant is asking for the relief which require lengthy evidence and cross-examination.  The cross-examination of witness is life blood of legal system.  The trustworthiness of a witness can only be examined in cross-examination.  The Civil Court not being a summary trial court can easily go the root of every problem.  Admittedly, the Consumer Forum deals with the complaint in a summary proceeding, where cases involve a great deal of evidence, the same cannot be adjudicated upon by the Forum & for which the party concerned has to approach the civil court where elaborate procedure including recording of evidence is followed.

8.     In case titled Punjab Lloyd Ltd. Vs Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 2 SCC 301, it was held that the complicated question of law should be decided by the regular court. It further held that the decisive test in not the complicated nature of question of fact and law arising for decision. In another case titled LIC & Ors. Vs Surinder Kaur & Ors. Civil Appeal No.5334 or 2006 (Arising or of SLP (c) No.17866 of 2005) decided by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 01.12.2006, it has been held that complex question of facts cannot be decided by the consumer forum under the Consumer Protection Act and such arises can be subject matter of regular Civil Court.

9.     In view of the above, we are inclined to hold that that the present complaint involves complicated questions of facts as well as law regarding the alleged loss in question.  The issues raised in the present complaint required elaborate oral and documentary evidence and the examination of the witnesses for the proper disposal of the matter.  The proper forum for adjudication of the present complaint is Civil Court.  Consumer Protection Act being the special Act where only summary proceedings are taken up and as such the adjudication of the present complaint is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum, hence the present complaint is dismissed with liberty to the complainant to approach the Civil Court as per law. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, complainant can take advantage of the decision rendered in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institution 1995 (3) SCC 583.  

A copy of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  Orders be also sent to www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to record room.

Pronounced in open Forum on 26/11/2019.

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

PRESIDENT

                            (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                           (H M VYAS)

                               MEMBER                                                         MEMBER