Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/307/2023

INDIABULLS CUSTOMER FINANCE LIMITED & OTHERS - Complainant(s)

Versus

NARINDER SINGH DUNGRIYAL - Opp.Party(s)

SABYASACHI MISHRA

28 Feb 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

[ADDL. BENCH]

 

 

Appeal No.	:	307 of 2023
Date of Institution	:	03.11.2023
Date of Decision	:	28.02.2024

 

 

[1]      Indiabulls Customer Finance Limited, SCO 42-43, 2^nd floor, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh.

[2]      Dhani Loan and Services Limited, earlier Indiabulls Customer Finance Ltd., Regd. Office at M-62 & 63, 1^st Floor, Connaught Palace, New Delhi – 110001, through its Managing Director/AR.

…. Appellants

Versus

Narinder Singh Dungriyal son of Sh. Hukum Singh Dungriyal, resident of H.No.267, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh.  

….Respondent

 

BEFORE:

MRS. PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER PREETINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

ARGUED BY:    Sh. Nitesh Kumar, Advocate for Appellants.

Sh. Devinder Kumar, Advocate for Respondent.

 

PER PADMA PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

1]                This appeal is directed against the order dated 05.07.2023, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh (for brevity hereinafter to be referred as “the Ld. District Commission”), vide which, it allowed the Consumer Complaint bearing no.CC/761/2022, in the following terms: -

“12]      Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, we are of the opinion that the deficiency in service has been proved on the part of the OPs. Therefore, the complaint stands allowed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2.  The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to generate a new Statements of Account in respect of the credit card account of the complainant, for the months of November & December, 2021, showing the transactions made from said account to discharge the liability of third party/person/agency unknown to the complainant and to refund the amount thereof to the complainant. The OPs No.1 & 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment & mental agony undergone by him due to their deficient services, along with litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are also directed to correct the status of the complainant in respect of the Credit Card No.3006412011 by removing any adverse remarks or liability and get it updated with CIBIL Authority by sending necessary communication at their end.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay additional compensatory cost of Rs.20,000/- apart from above relief.  

 

2]             For the convenience, the parties are being referred to, in the instant Appeal, as position held in Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Commission.

 

3]                Before the Ld. District Commission, it was the case of the Complainant/Respondent that he obtained Dhani Freedom Card from Appellants/Opposite Parties and after completion of requirements, was issued Credit Card No.3006412011. The Complainant was regular in making due payment of said credit card, but in the months of November & December, 2021, he received debit message about transaction from his credit card for an amount of ₹79,850/- whereas he had not done any such transactions. Accordingly, the matter was promptly reported to the Manager of the Opposite Parties as well as personally visited the office of the Opposite Party No.1, who assured to investigate the matter and to do the needful. However, instead of investigating the matter and taking legal action against the culprits, the Opposite Parties directed the complainant to deposit the outstanding dues of fraudulent transactions so as to avoid financial charges and to save his CIBIL Score.  Even the recovery agents of the Opposite Parties started calling the complainant and also visiting him and forcing him to make payment.  Left with no alternative, the complainant paid an amount of ₹28,687/- to the Opposite Parties, till October 2022. The Complainant vide e-mail dated 02.09.2022 requested the Opposite Parties to provide complete address of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited in whose account the said amount was transferred and also to provide the name & address of the person whose liability was discharged from the credit card of the complainant, but to no avail.  Due to the unlawful act of the Opposite Parties, the Complainant got information that his CIBIL Score was adversely affected, hence the aforesaid Consumer Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Commission, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Parties.

 

4]                In the reply filed before the Ld. District Commission, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, Opposite Parties/Appellants pleaded that the complainant availed loan/credit limit facility on his credit card after furnishing necessary documents and the transactions were not fraudulent transactions and the same were performed by the complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic One Time Password delivered at his registered mobile number.  It was pleaded that the complainant has put a false and baseless story to put cap on his own wrongs and the Complainant is liable to pay the due amount against the loan as per terms & conditions of the agreement.  The cause of action set up by the complainant was denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made.

 

5]                After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the record, the Ld. District Commission allowed the complaint, in the manner, as stated above.

 

6]                Aggrieved against the aforesaid order passed by the Ld. District Commission, the instant Appeal has been filed by the Appellants/ Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2.

 

7]                We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the evidence and record of the case, with utmost care and circumspection.

 

8]                The core question that falls for consideration before us is as to whether the Ld. District Commission has rightly passed the impugned order by appreciating the entire material placed before it. 

 

9]                After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the contentions raised and material on record, we are of the considered opinion, that the instant Appeal is liable to be dismissed for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

 

10]              It is the case of the Appellants that the Ld. Lower Commission while passing the impugned order has failed to appreciate the documentary evidence available on record, which resulted into perverse finding. Also, the directions given by the Ld. District Commission while passing the impugned order is not only illegal but also contrary to the facts & circumstances of the case and in fact, the Respondent/ Complainant owed to the Appellants a sum of ₹55,895/- against the subject credit card and ₹77,666/-against the personal loan.

 

11]              It emerges from the record, when having noticed the fraudulent transactions from his credit card in November and December 2021, the Complainant/Respondent reported the matter to the Opposite Parties, they filed to take any remedial measure and rather took a plea that the said transactions were performed by the Complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic one time password delivered at his registered mobile number.  Having noticed these facts, the Ld. Lower Commission in para 8 of the impugned order has rightly observed that a financial institution, whenever reported about fraudulent transactions by its customer, is legally bound to investigate the matter in detail and then fixed the liability, which has not been done by the Appellants/OPs as there is nothing on record to substantiate as if such enquiry had been done to verify to reach a logical conclusion. All this leads to an irresistible conclusion that the plea taken by the Appellants with respect to the alleged transactions, without carrying out any investigation, is not legally sustainable. So far as the plea with regarding to the said transactions performed by the complainant in a secured manner after validated by dynamic One Time Password delivered at his registered mobile number, the Ld. District Commission has righty rejected the same in the absence of a valid investigation carried out at the end of Appellants/OPs, observing that in the present digital era, the possibility of unauthorized/ fraudulent transactions without getting OTP or phone having been hacked to get access of OTP by fraudulent means, cannot be ruled out, but in any case, the investigation must have been carried out by the financial institution on getting information of fraudulent transaction from his customer, which has not been done by the Appellants.  Furthermore, record showed that the Appellants neither disclosed the complete details of the agency, account number and name of person, in whose account the amount of the transactions in dispute was credited and whose liability was discharged from the credit card of the complainant, despite having been so requested by the complainant vide communication (Annexures C-5 & C-8). Non-providing of such vital information to the Complainant/Respondent is height of high-handedness and tantamount to sheer harassment to gullible consumer as the information withheld would have wide ramifications & repercussions and would help him to go to the root of the matter. While noticing the fact that during a short period of 15 days (from 18th November to 2nd December) 14 payments of electricity bills, 3 to 4 in a day, have been made through the credit card of the Complainant, the Ld. District Commission has aptly observed that a prudent person is not expected to carry out same transaction i.e. payment of electricity bills again & again 3 to 4 times on a day on regular basis.  Thus, the possibility of carrying out the disputed transactions in question by an internal official of the Appellants having access to their system, cannot be ruled out. The Ld. District Commission has thus rightly held the Appellants guilty of deficiency in service, which which certainly caused loss and harassment to the complainant. No case is made for any interference in the well reasoned findings recorded by the Ld. Lower Commission.

 

12]              No other point was urged, by the Learned Counsel for the parties.

 

13]              It is demonstrable from a reading of the impugned Order of the Ld. District Commission that it is certainly not an order passed without reasons or without applying the judicious mind. The facts and circumstances of the case have been gone into, weighed and considered, and due analysis of the same has been made. It also does not appear to be an order passed without taking into account the available evidence.

 

14]              In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, we are dissuaded to interfere with the impugned order rendered by the Ld. District Commission. The appeal being bereft of merit is accordingly dismissed and the order of the Ld. District Commission is upheld.

 

15]              The pending application(s), if any, stand disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order.

 

16]              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

 

17]              The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

 

Pronounced

28.02.2024.

                                                                                                  Sd/-

[PADMA PANDEY]

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (PREETINDER SINGH)

MEMBER

“Dutt”