Orissa

Cuttak

CC/96/2021

Dr Anirudha Mishra - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N Pattanaik

14 Jul 2023

ORDER

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

C.C.No.96/2021

          Dr.Anirudha Mishra,

S/O: Late Satyendra Narayan Mishra,

C/o: L.N.M Pattnaik,Trupti Niwas,

NeogiColony,Near Jayaram Lenka Cloth Store,

Mangalabag,Cuttack-753001,

Assistant Professor of Department of Anaesthesia &

Clinical Care,SCB Medical Colelge,Cuttack.                 ... Complainant.

 

          Vrs.

 

1.       ICICI Bank,

Regd. Office at ICICI Bank Tower,

Near Chakli Circle,OldPadra Road,

                 Vadodara,Gujurat-39007

Represented through its Regional General Manager.

 

2.       Branch Manager,

ICICI Bank,At:Cuttack Branch,

Bajrakabati Road,Cuttack.                                                 ....Opp. Parties.

 

 

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

 

Date of filing:   09.06.2021

Date of Order:  14.07.2023

 

For the complainant:           Mrs. N.Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps              :                  Mr. M.K.Barik,Adv. & Associates.

                       

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

Case of the complainant bereft unnecessary details as made out from the complaint petition in short is that they had obtained Visa Platinum credit card from the O.Ps bearing no.4375517432505008 with a  limit of Rs.1,75,000/- effective from December,2019 to December,2023.  Since from December,2019 the credit card was lying with the complainant being unused. Suddenly on 31.3.21 in-between 12.16 P.M to 12.27 P.M the complainant had received three text messages in his mobile phone bearing number9437760272 as regards to the use of his credit card wherein three transactions were reflected which were of Rs.10/-, Rs.99,000/- and Rs.50,000/-.  But the complainant has mentioned that he has not used the credit card as obtained by him.  That day itself within three hours he had brought the matter to the notice of O.P no.2 and initiated for blocking his credit card.  The matter was  reported to the S.P,Crime Branch also.  On 1.4.2021 the complainant had communicated the fact through Email to the Customer Care of the O.Ps.  He had lodged a complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station as well as Crime Branch of Cuttack.  The O.P no.2 in response had provided the complainant details of the transactions reflecting that on 31.3.21 are as follows:

Date                Ser No.                        Transaction Details                             Amount.

31.3.21            4947608327    Flip Kart Payments BANGALORE        Rs.50,000/-

31.3.21            4947608520    Flip Kart Payments BANGALORE        Rs.50,000/-

31.3.21            4947664271    JEO PAY MUMBAI                               Rs.10/-

31.3.21            4947790414    Sugal& Damani UTILI Mumbai            Rs.99,000/-

05.4.21            4957690438    Interim chargeback Credit                      Rs.10/-

05.4.21            4957690851    Interim chargeback Credit                      Rs.50,000/-

05.4.21            4957690855    Interim chargeback Credit                       Rs.99,000/-

On 24.4.2021 the complainant received another Email from the O.P no.2 which is as under:

Date                Ser No.                        Transaction Details                             Amount.

17.4.21            4985812612    Interim chargeback Credit                         Rs.10/-

17.4.21            4985812926    Interim chargeback Credit                         Rs.99,000/-

17.4.21            4985814457    Interim chargeback Credit                         Rs.50,000/-

The complainant has further mentioned that as per the transaction reflected those were with one Sugal & Damani Utili,Mumbai and the money was debited to the said firm with which the complainant has no connection nor had he ever indented anything from the said firm and thus, the transactions debiting his money on 31.3.2021 was completely illegal as he had never used his credit card neither has any nexus with the said Sugal & Damani Utiliti firm of Mumbai nor had shared any OTP.  He had received letters from the bank regarding outstanding amounts and to deposit those unwillingly.  The O.Ps had reverted back a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the account of the complainant out of three transactions as shown to be made by utilising the credit card of the complainant, when he complainant had repeatedly persuaded for the same.  He had repeatedly asked the O.Ps to revert back his total money debited in the other two transactions but no heed was paid to his such requests even though repeatedly made by him.  Having knocked all corners when the complainant was thoroughly harassed, he had approached this Commission claiming the amount of Rs.99,010/- that which is not sent back/reversed to his account by the O.Ps alongwith interest thereon @ 12% per annum, further with a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards deficiency in service by the O.Ps  and for their unfair trade practice thereby causing mental agony and harassment to him together alongwith financial loss.  He has further prayed for the cost of his proceeding and for any other reliefs as deemed fit and proper. 

            Together with his complaint petition, the complainant has filed several copies of documents In order to prove his case.

2.         The O.Ps have contested this case and have filed their written version jointly wherein they have urged that the case of the complainant is not maintainable which is liable to be dismissed since because the complainant has filed this case with an ulterior motive and with malafide intention to cause harassment to them.  They have denied all the allegations as made by the complainant in his complaint petition but have admitted about the credit card facility obtained by the complainant bearing No.4375517432505008 on 19.12.2019 having a limit to the extent of Rs.1,75,000/-.  On 31.3.2021 three transactions were made by using the said credit card of the complainant to the tune of Rs.10/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.99,000/-.  After getting information from the complainant on 31.3.2021, the O.Ps had blocked the credit card of the complainant that day.  On getting allegation from the complainant, internal process was carried on and investigation was made.  As per the R.B.I guidelines the Turn Around Time (TAT) for the same is 90 days and if from such investigation the customer is found to be liable, in that case, the amount is to be recovered from the customer’s account.  It was noticed from the investigations that the alleged three transactions were online transactions wherein customer had visited the respective merchant website and had executed the transactions wherein the credit card number, card verification value, (CVV), expiry date of the credit card and the OTP were shared.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, the card holder is responsible for the security of his card alongwith the OTP and should ensure the safe-keeping of it in order to avoid any financial liability arising out of any misuse.The transactions as alleged by the complainant were allowed as the system is CVV, expiry date and OTP specific and not person specific.  The O.Ps have further mentioned that the transaction of Rs.50,000/- was reversed to the aforementioned card account on the same day.  Thus, according to the O.Ps, until and unless the CVV,Credit card number, OTP had not been compromised by the card holder either knowingly or unknowingly, such transactions could not have been done.  The amount reverted back was due to the incomplete transaction by use of the credit card in question and other two transactions of Rs.10/- and Rs.99,000/- were not reversed as those transactions were already affected.  Thus, it is the submission of both the O.Ps that they had never  practised any unfair trade nor were they deficient in their service. 

            In order to prove their case, the O.Ps have also filed copies of certain documents alongwith evidence affidavit of Legal Manager but when the evidence affidavit of the said Legal Manager is perused, the same appears to be the reiteration of the averments as made in the written version of O.Ps.

            The complainant has also filed his evidence affidavit thereby reiterating the complaints as averred in the complaint petition.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition and the contents of the written versions of the O.Ps, 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 complaint petition, the written version, the evidence affidavits as filed from either sides and also after perusing the copies of several documents as available in the case record, it is noticed that the complainant had availed Visa Platinum credit card facility from the O.P bearing Card No.4375517432505008 with limit of Rs.1,75,000/- valid from December,2019 to December,2023 which is not disputed.  It is not also in dispute that on 31.3.2021 there were three number of transactions amounting to Rs.10/-, Rs.99,000/- and Rs.50,000/- respectively through the credit-card of the complainant.  The complainant disputes that right from the day of procuring the credit card he had never used the same for any transaction, nor had he shared any OTP with any one and that he is not acquainted with the Sugal & Damani Utili, Mumbai with whom the said alleged three transactions have been made.  The matter has been reported by him immediately to the O.Ps that day resulting in blocking of his credit-card and thereafter he had submitted his complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station as well as Crime Branch of Cuttack.  On perusal of the copy of the guidelines of the RBI dt.6.7.2017 as filed by the O.Ps and after going through the evidence affidavit of the Legal Manager, Santosh Kumar Panda of the O.Ps and comparing those with the averments of the written version, it is found out that in order to have a successful online transaction by means of a credit-card, the credit-card holder after going through the Website of the Marketeer had to indent his articles, share the details of the credit card as regards to the credit card number, date of expiry, CVV and the OTP thereof in order to make a successful transaction.  The complainant here alleges that the alleged three transactions were not done by him and that he had not shared any OTP with anyone.  Be that as it may, the conclusion in any judicial proceeding cannot be based on conjectures and surmises rather, it should be based upon clinching evidence when a particular person is to be found to have done or omitted something which is contrary to law and to the Act. Here,  mostly we are to rely upon preponderance of probabilities as per the C.P.Act.  The simple allegation of the complainant blaming the O.Ps here in this case without any iota of evidence do not suffice.  Though the matter was reported by the complainant to the Cyber Crime P.S and to the Crime Branch, outcome of such investigation is yet unknown.Accordingly, this Commission arrives at a definite conclusion that after analysing the facts and circumstances, coupled with the copies of documents as available in this case, when the three transactions as alleged to have been made by usingthe credit-card of the complainant which according to him, was in his possession right from the date of it being procured, the sharing of details of the said card and OTP tilts our eye brows. The O.Ps are thus in no way found to be deficient in their service or to have practised any unfair trade as they were in no way found connected with the details of the credit-card concerned.  Hence, 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 14^th day of July,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.     

                                                                        

                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                       President

 

                                                                                           Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                     Member