Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/81

Harsh Goyal - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sandesh Arora

02 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 81 dated 05.02.2019.                                                Date of decision: 02.06.2022.

Harsh Goyal son of Sh. Satish Kumar, resident of House No.122, Moti Bagh, Near Phullanwal Byepass, Pakhowal Road, Moti Bagh Colony, Ludhiana-141013.                                                                                                                                                                                           ..…Complainant 

•  

1. SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd. Unit 401 and 402, 8^th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1, 2, 3, Neta Ji Subhash Place Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034 through its Managing Directors and Chief Executive Officer.

2. Hardayal Prasad, MD and CEO, SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd., Unit 401 and 402, 8^th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E-1, 2, 3, Neta Ji Subhash Place Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034,

IInd Address:-

DLF Infinity Towers, Tower-C, 10^th-12^th Floor, Block-2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

3. Mr. Saurabh Gaur, Senior Manager-cum-Grievance Redressal Officer, D DLF Infinity Towers, Tower-C, 10^th-12^th Floor, Block-2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana through its Senior Manager.

4. Manager Customer Care Services, SBI Card and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity Towers, Tower-C, 10^th-12^th Floor, Block-2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana.

5. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dugri Branch, Phase-II, Ludhiana.

6. Branch Manager, State Bank of India, 13393, Passi Chowk, Opp. House Fed Flats, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                   …..Opposite parties 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         Sh. Sandesh Arora, Advocate.

For OP1                         :         Sh. Anand Sabehrwal, Advocate.

For OP2 to OP6             :         Complaint against OP2 to OP6 not admitted                                                         vide order dated 04.04.2016.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is a holder of SBI credit card No.5172526727983483. The card was received by the complainant on 15.02.2017 from OP1. The wife of the complainant called the OPs customer care on their toll free number to get the said credit card activated. An employee of the OPs replied that their executive representative will call back within five minutes for the activation of the card. Barely after three minutes, the wife of the complainant received a call on her landline number 22-66194245  and the caller introduced as Abhishek Sharma. He asked the last four digit of the credit card and the name of the complainant for confirmation. Thereafter, he told the complainant that an OTP has been sent on the mobile number of the complainant and asked her to share the same with him to activate the card. Under good faith, the wife of the complainant shared the OTP with Abhishek Sharma considering him to be an employee/representative of SBI Credit Cards  Ltd. Thereafter, Abhishek Sharma again stated that he had sent one more OTP and asked for the same but this time the wife of the complainant refused to share the same and instead asked for his mobile number. The said representative gave his mobile number as 74849-96755. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant kept on calling the said number. However, in the meanwhile the complainant and his wife received a message that a transaction of Rs.5,000/- has been made on credit card at Paytm mobile solution on 17.02.2017. The complainant immediately sent an email to SBI Card as well as customer care of SBI Cards for blocking the credit card and reported the fraud played by the representative upon which the card was blocked by the OPs. Thereafter, the complainant received email from SBI  card stating that the card had been blocked. The complainant was further advised through email to get issued another SBI card for future. On 21.02.2017, the complainant sent an email to the OPs for clarification of the fraud played by the representative of the OPs to which a reply dated 02.03.2017 was received wherein it was mentioned that investigation for the said transaction had been completed and it was found that a transaction was performed in a secured manner as the same was validated by complainant card CVV and dynamic one time password. All these facts also showed that a defective enquiry was conducted by the OPs. The complainant is a reputed  bank manager of Union Bank of India and he deposited Rs.5,000/- for fraud and Rs.574/- as card issuance charges which was not applicable. In the end, it has been prayed that the OPs be directed to reimburse the amount of Rs.6637/- along with interest @18% per annum and also be directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.11,000/- as litigation expenses.

2.                Complaint was not admitted as against OP2 to OP6 as per order dated 04.04.2016.

3.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP1, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable. According to OP1, the transaction was not fraudulent as alleged by the complainant. The transaction was performed in a secure manner which was validated by CVV of the card as well as one time password. It is further pleaded that one time password was subsequently delivered on the registered mobile of the complainant. Moreover, no transaction can be carried out without confidential  details of the card such as card expiry date, CVV number etc. and OP1 always advised its client/card holders not to share the card details with any third party. Therefore, it cannot be said that the transaction was fraudulent in any manner. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainant filed rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

4.                In evidence, the complainant submitted his affidavit as Ex. CA along with documents Ex- A/1 to Ex- A/14 and closed the evidence.

5.                On the other hand, learned counsel for OP1 tendered affidavit Ex. RA of Sh. Punit Babbar, Authorized person of OP1 along with documents Ex. R1 and Ex. R2 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard the complainant and the learned counsel for the OPs and have also gone through records.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the complainant has argued that the disputed transaction of Rs.5,000/- was fraudulent in nature as the person calling from the helpline services of the OPs asked the OTP from the complainant to enable him to activate the card and apart from that charges of Rs.576/- were wrongly and unnecessarily imposed. The fraudulent transaction was immediately reported to OP1 vide mail Ex. A1 but despite that the OPs have not withdrawn the demand of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant. According to the counsel for the complainant, the complainant is not responsible for the amount of Rs.5,000/- and charges imposed as the said transaction was a fraudulent transaction and was not carried out by the complainant. Rather the said transaction was fraudulently conducted by representative namely Abhishek Sharma of OP1.

8.                On the contrary, OP1 has argued that on inquiry and investigation, the transaction as found to be a valid one as the transaction was completed using OTP which was sent on the registered mobile of the complainant and without sharing the OTP, the transaction could not have been completed. The counsel for OP1 has further contended that OP1 cannot be held liable for a mistake committed by the complainant in sharing the OTP. The counsel for OP1 has further pointed out that OP1 keeps telling his clients especially card holders not to share the card details or OTP with anyone to prevent fraudulent transactions.

9.                We have heard the above contentions raised by the counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

10.              It is the admitted case of the complainant that somebody called the complainant and asked for the last four digits of the card as well as the OTP number. It is a matter of common knowledge that no online transaction using a credit card can be successfully completed unless and until OTP delivered on the registered mobile of the card holder is shared or used to complete the transaction. The complainant claims himself to be a manager of nationalized bank and has been working in such a responsible capacity, the complainant would have been aware enough with regard to the way and means in which the credit card is supposed to be used. It is a matter of common knowledge that to avoid the fraudulent transactions while using the debit or credit cards, a system of OTP has been put in place. The OTP is sent exclusively on the mobile of the card holder prior to completion of the transaction and the said OTP is to be used which is exclusively in the knowledge of the card holder only. Unless and until the OTP is used, the transaction can only be completed. On inquiry also, it was found by OP1 that the transaction was completed on the basis of the OTP sent to the registered mobile of the complainant which was exclusively in the knowledge of the complainant. Therefore, in case the complainant shared the OTP with somebody else, OP1 cannot be held responsible for the same even if the transaction was not carried out by the complainant. Therefore, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that the OPs are bound to refund the amount of Rs.5,000/- and the other charges in respect of the transaction which had carried out through OTP sent on the registered mobile of the complainant.

11.              As a result of above discussion, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

12.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Harsh Goyal Vs SBI Card                           CC/19/81

Present:       Sh. Sandesh Arora, Advocate for complainant.

                   Sh. Anand Sabherwal, Advocate for OP1.

                   Complaint against OP2 to OP6 not admitted vide order dated                      04.04.2016.

 

                   Arguments heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.  Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:02.06.2022.

Gobind Ram.