CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.272/2013
MS. NAYANTARA SOOD
WIFE OF Mr. ANMOL AVINASH NAYYAR
RESIDING AT C-771,
NEW FRIENDS COLONY,
NEW DELHI-110065…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/S. BANK OF INDIA
NEHRU PLACE
NRE FRLHI-110019.…..RESPONDENTNo.1/ OP
- MR. V RENGANATHAN
CHIEF MANAGER
NEHRU PLACE BRANCH
M/s. BANK OF INDIA
NEHRU DELHI-110019.…..RESPONDENTNo.2/ OP
- MR. C.R. KHANDEKAR
SENIOR MANAGER
CARD PRODUCTS DEPARTMENT
HEAD OFFICE, M/S. BANK OF INDIA
STAR HOUSE, C-5, “G” BLOCK,
BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST),
MUMBAI 400 051.…..RESPONDENTNo.3/ OP
Date of Institution-16/05/2013
Date of Order- 01/07/2022
O R D E R
DR. RAJENDER DHAR– Member
The complainant has instituted this present complaint on 16.05.2013 against the opposite parties (OP1, OP2 and OP3)
The Complainant has filed a consumer complaint under section 12 of CPA 1986 against opposite parties/ respondents for deficiency in services provided by them. The brief details of the complaint are that the complainant along with her husband Shri Anmol Nayyer, residents of New Friends Colony, New Delhi who hold a bank account in the name of M/s. N consultants bearing No. 60120811000030 with Nehru Place branch of OP1 i.e. SBI Nehru Place. Husband of the complainant Shri Anmol Nayyer was issued a primary credit card No. 4340713000147693 and subsequently the complainant was also issued an add on credit card bearing No. 430713000147701 by OP1. It has been further stated that OP1 is a premier nationalized bank prior to that it was a private bank in 1906 and subsequently it was nationalized in year 1969. OP1 i.e. SBI is engaged in trade of providing services in relation to interalia banking including usage of credit card and has various branches in 29 countries including aboard in Paris. OP2 is the chief manager employed with OP1 and is in charge of its operation at Nehru Place branch. Similarly OP3 is the senior manager employed by OP1 at head office and is heading the card products department. That, on 1/6/11 at 21:27 pm the complainant’s husband received an SMS on mobile number informing him that an amount of Rs. 12,126.04 paisa has been debited on his wife’s credit card No. 4340713000147701 and thereafter again at 22;14 pm he received another SMS informing him that an amount of Rs. 43,417.82 has been debited on the same credit card. Complainant’s credit card was debited vide 3 separate transactions which were carried out at Paris. When in fact the complainant and her husband both were present at India at relevant time. Complainant has enclosed true copies of charge slips showing in Euros 183, Euros 655.24 and Euros 783.66 been spent in Paris by one person named Wong Yan Chuen holding a Chinese passport bearing No. K00552775 have also be enclosed with the complaint Annexure A1 colly.
The complainant’s husband immediately on 1/6/11 at 23:15 pm lodged a complaint with customer care of OP1, OP1 informed him that it is a case of fraud and aforementioned amount shall be credited upon investigation. Additionally complainant’s husband also made a union complaint dated 24/06/2011 along with the acknowledgment receipt by OP1 have also been enclosed as Annexure “A2”.
Assessing the gravity of the offence arising out of incident of 01/06/2011 the complainant along with her husband authorized one Shri Fahim Ahmed to
visit PS New Friends Colony on 04/07/2011 and filed a criminal complaint with SHO, PS New Friends Colony recorded daily dairy entry No. 87B dated 04/07/2011 on the basis of complaint made by shri Fahim Ahmed true copy of complaint dated 04/07/2011 and its acknowledgment is enclosed with complaint marked as Annexure “A3”.
It is further stated that on 07.07.2011 the complainant through her authorized representative forwarded her complaint to General Manager of OP1 which is dated 24/06/2011 along with copy of criminal complaint dated 04.07.2011 made to PS New Friends Colony. Copy of the E-mail dated 07/07/2011 addressed to General Manager- OP1 has been enclosed with complaint as Annexure “A4”.
On 08/07/2011 on the issue of complainant’s refund as a priority, OP2 and OP3 replied to the complainant stating that her credit card had not been hot listed on 01/06/2011 as the transactions were done at Paris, true copy of e-mail dated 08/07/2011 sent by the OP3 to interalia OP2 to the complainant has been enclosed along with the complaint as Annexure “A5 Colly”
On 22/07/2011 complainant’s AR wrote to OP1 enquiring about the status of the complainant’s refund. The Assistant General Manager of OP1 replied on 29/07/2011 to the complainant forwarding the charge slips of the transaction which was done on 01/06/2011 and sought advice whether the same had been signed by the complainant by tallying with her signatures. The Assistant General Manager of OP1 further requested for specimen signatures of the complainant vide his e-mail dated 29/07/2011. True copy of e-mail dated 22/07/2011 and true copy of e-mail dated 29/07/2011 have been enclosed along with complaint as Annexure “A6 Colly”.
The complainant received a letter dated 30/07/2011 from OP1 informing her that it had obtained the documents pertaining to the transactions of 01/06/2011 from the acquiring bank for payment of retrieval fees of Rs. 560 and the same had been forwarded to her for confirmation of the transaction. True copy of letter dated 30/07/2011 sent by OP1 has been enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A7”.
As per the request of OP1 to provide the specimen signatures of the complainant, same were sent to OP1 on 05/08/2011 and it was again informed
that on the date of transaction i.e. 01/06/2011 which was done in Paris using complainant’s credit card she was present in New Delhi along with her husband. True copy of e-mail dated 05/08/2011 sent by complainant to OP1 has been enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A8”.
Since no information was received with regard to status of credit card refund, an e-mail dated 09/08/2011 was sent on behalf of the complainant to OP1 stating despite having been provided with specimen signatures of the complainant no information has been received till 17/08/2011. It was informed to complainant’s husband that no response was received on behalf of the complainant. True copy of e-mail dated 09/08/2011 sent on behalf of complainant to OP1 and true copy of e-mail dated 17/08/2011 sent by OP3 to complainant’s husband are also enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A9 Colly”.
OP1 vide letter dated 19/08/2011 pertaining to 3 transactions which took place on 01/06/2011 confirmed to her that it has lodged the claims with an acquiring bank/ merchant bank for the refund of the disputed transactions. True copy of letter dated 19/08/2011 sent by OP1 to complainant has been enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A10 Colly”.
On 05/09/2011 the Assistant General Manager of OP1 wrote to Card Product Department with copies marked to OP2 and OP3 proving details pertaining to the Credit card of the complainant and asking it to refund to the Complainant Rs. 43, 417.82 and Rs. 12,126.04 urgently. However, OP3, wrote to OP1 on 05/09/2011 confirming that it has received the information and same had been submitted for charged back on 20/08/2011. OP3 further stated that charge back will be settled within 45 days and their reply from acquiring bank in relation to complainant’s refund could be expected by 03/10/2011. True copy of e-mail dated 05/09/2011 is enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A11 Colly”. On 19/092011 complainant’s husband received response from OP1 forwarding e-mail dated 12/09/2011 received by it from OP3 stating that charge back claim had been rejected and it would not be in a position to reverse the transaction dated 01/06/2011. True copy of e-mail dated 19/09/2011 and e-mails are enclosed with complaint and marked as Annexure “A12 Colly”.
The complainant has further stated in her complaint that OPs are liable
for causing deficiency in services by not honouring their contractual obligation to safeguard the money of the complainant, and refund an amount on account of misuse of her credit card. The OPs have caused great prejudice to the complainant and they are causing her unnecessary harassment and financial loss. Thereafter, OP’s are also liable to pay damages of Rs. 1, 00,000 over and above the refund amount. A legal notice dated 27/02/2013 was sent by complainant to OPs in relation to recovery of Rs. 56,353.75 paisa along with the compensation for deficiency in service. True copy of legal notice dated 27/02/2013 sent to OPs along with original registered AD receipts and reply notice dated 05/05/2013 have been enclosed with complaint filed as Annexure “A13 Colly”.
It has been further stated by the Complainant that OPs were still aware of the terms and charge back of transaction similar to those which had occurred in relation to the transaction in Paris using details of complainant’s credit card. The complainant has further stated that despite repeated assurances by OPs regarding refund of Rs. 56,353.75 no refund has been given to her. She has further stated that in addition to this amount she is also entitled for interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% per annum for the date of said refund became due till payment is realized. She has further stated that it appears to her that OPs have misappropriated this amount which has been legally debited using particulars of the complainant’s credit card. The complainant has further stated that she once again tried contacting OP1, OP2 and OP3 and requesting them to process her refund but all efforts failed. OPs have deliberately with malafide intent refused and neglected from paying the said amount to the complainant. Although, OPs had acknowledged the error/ illegality committed as a result of using complainant’s credit card and wrongfully debited the said amount. The complainant has further reiterated that OPs are liable for causing deficiency of service by not honoring its liabilities in relation to complainant’s refund and thus OPs have caused great prejudice, harassment to the complainant since 01/06/2011 therefore OPs are also liable to pay damages of Rs. 1, 00,000 over and above the refund amount. It has been further stated that OP2 and OP3 are officers of OP1 who are responsible for the administration of the claims of OP1. OP2 and OP3 took an active part in the discussion of the refund and follow up the transaction with the complainant therefore; OP2 and OP3 are equally liable towards the complainant.
The complainant is a resident of New Friends Colony South Delhi. OP1 is having his office at Nehru Place. OP2 and OP3 are employed with OP1 and hence this Commission has the jurisdiction to entertain the said complaint of the complainant. It has been further stated that OP1 despite agreeing to refund the said amount to the complainant but OP3 refused the refunded the amount therefore, the cause of liability is still subsisting. The complainant has further stated that the said complaint has been filed well within the period of limitation as per Section 24A and Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
In the end complainant has prayed following:-
- Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 56,353,76 to the complainant along with the interest of 18% per annum from the date 01/06/2011 it became due till payment is made on account of delay and deficiency on the part of OPs.
- Direct OPs to pay complainant damages of an amount of Rs. 1, 00,000/-.
- Direct OPs to pay the complainant cost of litigation.
- Pass any such order as may be deemed fit in the interest of Justice.
Based on the proceedings and submissions by the complainant, complainant was admitted, notice under Section 13 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 was served to OPs.
Written statement was filed by one Shri Vinod Assistant General Manager of bank of India Nehru Place Branch being the authorized representative. In the preliminary objections it has been stated by OP that the complaint is abuse of process of law. The complaint is baseless, frivolous and has been formulated on wrong and misleading facts and is devoid of any merits whatsoever. Hence each and every allegation made in the complaint is denied. OP has further stated that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has utterly failed to prove any deficiency of services on the part of OP. There is no documentary evidence or otherwise which points out error and deficiency on the part of OP. Merely on bald averments no case is made out against the OP and hence complainant cannot seek any relief from this Hon’ble Forum under CPA 1986. OP has further stated that complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no commission of deficiency in services by OP, there is no fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which was required to be maintained by or under any law from time to time enforced or had been undertaken to be performed by OP in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. OP has further stated that the said complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost of Rs. 10.000/- on the complainant under Section 26 of CPA 1986 as the same is frivolous, malafide and vexatious resulting into the litigation and other expenses by OP’s for contesting the present complaint.
The OP has reiterated that complaint is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action either wholly or in part has ever arisen in favour of the complainant. The present complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law this Hon’ble Forum and as such the same is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs. The present complaint has been filed by the complaint with a sole objective of harassing and blackmailing the OP and to extort huge amount of money without any material on record.
OP has reiterated that there was no deficiency in services on their part, on the request of the complainant and add on card was issued to OP.
In fact Shri V. Ranganathan is employed with card product department, head office at Mumbai. OP has further stated that on our specific request, charge slip for the transaction of Euro 183.00, Euro 685.24 and Euro 783.66 were provided to OP by VISA, same were forwarded to complainant. There was no passport number or name mentioned on the first 2 transactions and only the 3rd transaction of Euro 783.66 was having the passport and name.
OP has further submitted that presence of card holder is not necessary for using the credit card for making payments. A bank has no hold on usage of credit card by any person till specific request is made by the card holder to get it hot listed.
OP has further stated that on receiving the complaint, it was treated on priority basis and card was immediately hot listed and information regarding 3 transactions was provided by the complainant to OP via VISA. However, there was no name and passport number in first two transactions only 3rd transaction of EURO 783.33 was having passport number and name. OP has further stated that they have never given assurance for refund of the complaint.
The OP i.e. Bank of India in its foregoing paras has further mentioned that there have been some exchange of emails/letters between the complainant and the OP for acquiring the amount that would be refunded to the complainant subject to refunding the same by the merchant’s bank however no such representation or to that effect any communication has been received from the complainant side. The OP has further contended that at no point of time assurance for refund was given by the OP to the complainant rather they have further submitted that charge is a process which any bank has to undergo in case of a disputed transactions and in such a case the issuer bank will inform the acquiring bank that the card holder has disputed the transaction and will ask for the proof of such transactions and for the same reason acquiring bank has a time limit of 45 days to reply which is informed to the card holder. OP has again reiterated that there is no deficiency in services by not honouring their contractual obligation to safeguard the money and as such OP is not liable to pay any damages to the complainant. OP has reiterated that the complainant has put baseless false and frivolous demands on OP without any substantiated proof of the factual transaction. Stating further that they have never agreed for refund of amount of Rs. 56,353.75 paisa to the complainant or for their deficiency in services. In the end OP has reiterated that the said complaint is baseless and false one and the complainant should be directed to pay damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the OP and there is no deficiency in services rendered by OP and has prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary cost on the complainant since it is frivolous and has been filed just to harass the OP and to harm its reputation.
The complainant has filed rejoinder in which has negated all the contents/ issues of reply filed by the OP. Had there been no fault of OP e-mail dated 05/09/2011 would not have been sent by Senior Manager, Assistant Manager of OP/ respondent No.1 at Nehru Place branch of the Card Product Department of OP i.e. Bank of India asking Card Product Department to arrange to refund these amounts urgently.
The complainant also filed its evidence by way of affidavit reiterating his contention and also filed various documents in support of his claim and which have been exhibited on record as EX. CW1/1 to EX. CW1/18.
The OP has filed evidence by way of an affidavit stating that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed since there is no deficiency in services by OP and reiterating that there is no inadequacy in quality nature and manner of Performance which they are required to maintain under any law, hence no cause of deficiency of service is made out against the OP. OP has also reiterated that such matters which are involves disputed transactions cannot be decided in summary jurisdiction as per the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in decided case titled “North Star Gems India limited versus Bank of Madura”. Also since the matter is reiterated with payments and has no investigation as informed by the complainant therefore this matter involves complicated question of law and facts and same cannot be adjudicated in summary jurisdiction. OP has further stated in its evidence that there was no passport number or name mentioned on first 2 transactions and only 3rd transaction of euro 783.66 was having passport number or name. Therefore further contending that presence of card holder is not necessary for using a credit card for making payments and bank has no hold on usage of card by any person till specific request is made by card holder to get it hot listed. OP has further stated in its evidence that after received a complaint from the complainant the said credit card was hot listed but no assurance was made for refund of an amount. OP has also contended that once a card is present for transaction then transaction cannot be disputed on the ground on signatures not tallying hence no cause made out against the OP.
Written synopsis was also filed by the complainant in which he has reiterated his contentions and submissions as also in his complaint. Reiterating her contention that 3 transactions were carried out in Paris when in fact the complainant and her husband both were present in India. 3 transactions i.e. Euros 183, €655 0.24 and €783.66 were carried out by Mr. Wong Yan Chuen holding a Chinese passport K00552775 on a single day i.e. 1st June 2011.
Despite assurance by OP2 and OP3 through email regarding refund of an amount of ₹43,417 0.82 and ₹12, 126.04 has been refunded to her. Emails received have also been enclosed in the evidence by the complainant. She has further submitted that it is a misuse of her credit card by OP and all 3 transactions have been made by one Mr Wong Yan Chuen at Paris. Despite providing specimen signatures by the complainant as requested by OP1 she did not received any response and same was ignored by OP1. The perusal of email dated 5th September 2011 reveals that explicit directions were given to OP2 and OP3 to refund the amount which wrongly and illegally debited from the said credit card of the complainant despite that she has not refunded the said amount. Wrong and illegal directions of her credit card have caused grave prejudice to the complainant. She has further contended that OP2 and OP3 took an active
part in the correspondence with the complaint and despite assurance no amount has been refunded to her. The complainant has further stated in written synopsis that despite refund of an amount of Rs.43, 417.82/- and ₹12,126.04/- which was to be refunded/ settled within 45 days but OP have absolutely failed to do so hence the claim made by OPs is not substantiated. Contending further the complainant in his written synopsis has submitted that OP have incorrectly applied the judgment of NCDRC and also the facts of the present case are totally different from the facts of the “North Star Gems India limited versus Bank of Madura” judgment case. The complainant has also submitted, copy of regulations of legal guidelines issued by RBI which has been circulated in under FSC.VC.123/2401019/ 99/2000 dated 12th November 1999 smart card/debit cards by banks dated 12th November 1999 marked as “Annexure A”.
In the end complaint has contended that OPs have failed to refund her amount which has caused financial loss, mental agony and harassment and this action of OP is in complete violation of the guidelines/ regulations prescribed by RBI.
Based on the pleadings submissions and evidence and other related documents filed by both the parties this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant who is a card holder who has been issued by OP i.e. Bank of India and its officers have established 3 transactions have taken place on the credit card of the complainant on 1st June 2011 at Paris when both the complainant and her husband were present in India this fact of transaction was brought to the notice of the OPs despite fully knowing about the said transactions have hot listed her card this itself proves the fact that the transactions were under cloud. Thereafter OPs have also objection specimen signature of the complainant for verification purposes but OPs have not stated anything about the veracity/authentication of specimen signature of complainant. OPs have also communicated through various emails that the 3rd transaction that is €783.66 has taken place at Paris by one Mr. Wong Yan Chuen bearing passport No. K00552775 despite admission OP has not even refunded the said amount which has been admittedly wrongly debited from her card through transaction at Paris. On the other hand OP is also stated that physical presence of card holder is not necessary at the time of transaction/using of credit card for making payment this itself leaves many questions unanswered. Also considering the guidelines prescribed by RBI on the issue of RBI has issued circular dated 12th November 1999 which are issued to all scheduled commercial banks. These are guidelines
issued to banks which include safeguards to be observed in respect of smart/ debit cards and have been issued through all the banks for compliance. Despite being aware of guidelines issued by RBI OPs have not adhered these guidelines/ regulations are being of these guidelines provide that bank shall ensure full security of the smart card and on receipt of notification regarding loss theft or copying of the card the bank shall take all action above it to stop any further usage of the card and it also provides that the card holder shall notify the bank immediately about the loss or theft or copying of the card on the means which enabled it to be used.
In the said case the complainant has immediately informed about the misuse of credit card to OP but despite that only exchange of emails have taken place and nothing beyond that. This has caused not only financial loss but also mental agony and harassment to her.
The complainant also filed additional written submissions in which she has reiterated all the issues as submitted by her earlier. She has further submitted that as per RBI guidelines the bank who issues prepaid amount PPI (Prepaid Payment Instrument) issuer shall credit (notional reversal) the amount involved in unauthorized electronic payment transaction of the customers PPI within 10 days from the date of such notification by customer without waiting for settlement for insurance claim if any so far even if such reversal prejudices the maximum permissible limited applicable to that type/ category of PPI (Prepaid Payment Instrument). The credit shall be valued as to the date of the unauthorised transactions.
The complainant has also submitted that the Hon’ble National Commission NCDRC New Delhi in “State Bank of India versus Dr. Subhash Chandra” case reiterated in 2016 SCC on line NCDRC 1303 upheld the order passed by learned State Commission in case where neither the bank is at fault nor the customer. The bank was held responsible for storing the actual amount involved and hence the appellant was entitled to the amount debited from his account.
This Commission directs the OP as follows:-
- OP is directed to refund a sum of ₹56353.76 to the complainant along with the interest of 9% per annum from the date 01/06/2011 on which it became due till the amount is realized on account of deficiency of service is on the part of OPs.
- OP is further directed to pay the complainant an amount of ₹50,000 as damages due to financial loss mental agony and harassment
- OP also directed to pay an amount of ₹10,000 towards cost of litigation.
The copy of the order may be given to the parties free of cost within a period of 15 days from the date of pronouncement and file thereafter may be consigned to record room.
The consumer complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases. The order be uploaded on the website www.confonet.nic.in
The order contains 12 pages and bears my signature on each page.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
