State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Vishal Sabharwal on 26 August, 2019
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH Appeal No. : 352 of 2018 Date of Institution : 10.12.2018 Date of Decision : 26.08.2019 Manager, Customer Services, SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity Tower, Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block-2, Building-3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122002, India. .....Appellant/Opposite Party No.4. Versus 1. Vishal Sabharwal s/o Late Sh.Ved Parkash Sabharwal, Aged 33 years, R/o 3158, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. Respondent/Complainant. 2. State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400021 through its Chairman/M.D. 3. State Bank of India, Government Medical College & Hospital- 32 Branch, Sector 32, Chandigarh, through its GM/Manager. 4. The Dy.General Manager, Customer Services Deptt., State Bank of India, State Bank Bhawan, 16th Floor, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai 400021. .....Respondents/Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT. MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.
Argued by:
Er. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Vishal Sabharwal, respondent No.1/complainant in person.
Respondents No.2 to 4 exparte vide order dated 14.08.2019.
PER RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER By filing this appeal, opposite party No.4 has laid challenge to order dated 10.10.2018 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short 'the Forum') vide which, the Forum allowed consumer complaint bearing No.192 of 2018 and directed it to reverse an amount of Rs.39,999/- in the credit card account of the complainant against the unauthorized transaction and also credit an amount of Rs.5000/- in the said account towards litigation expense.
2. During the course of arguments, Counsel for the appellant did not dispute issuance of Credit Card bearing No.4032506404566861 by appellant to respondent No.1 (complainant). Rather it was argued by him that there is no deficiency on the part of the appellant and the transaction, in question, could not be done without putting confidential details of the card, which were available with the complainant only. It was also argued that the complainant might have given his card to somebody else for use. He next argued that the transaction, in question, was not fraudulent transaction and was a valid one as the same was done through One Time Passport (OTP) delivered to the complainant. It was further argued that the complainant made transaction himself in a secured manner and shifted the blame on the appellant by reflecting it to be a fraudulent transaction. Lastly, it was prayed that the appeal be accepted and the impugned order be set aside.
3. On the other hand, respondent No.1 (complainant), who appeared in person, refuted the arguments raised by the Counsel for the appellant and submitted that his credit card issued by the appellant was hacked and an amount of Rs.39,999/- was fraudulently transferred from his credit card account to some unknown account by some unknown person by hacking his email ID and credit card details. He argued that as the transaction was a fraudulent one, the appellant offered a reversal of Rs.10,000/- while replying to the legal notice sent by him. He further argued that the Forum rightly allowed his complaint by citing Circular dated 06.07.2017 of Reserve Bank of India whereby detailed instructions with regard to Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions have duly been conveyed to All Scheduled Commercial Banks (including RRBs) and all Small Finance Banks and Payments Banks. It was argued that as per said circular, in case of third party breach where deficiency lies neither with the Bank nor with the customer but lies elsewhere in the system and the customer notifies the bank within three working days of receiving the communication from the bank regarding unauthorized transaction, such customer is entitled to zero liability. Lastly, it was argued that the impugned order passed by the Forum be upheld and the appeal of the appellant be dismissed.
4. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record of the case and the impugned order, we are of the considered opinion, the Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that opposite party No.4, without adhering to the instruction of the Reserve Bank of India issued vide Circular dated 06.07.2017 did nothing to redress the grievance of the complainant with regard to his complaint of unauthorized/fraudulent transaction. It further rightly observed that the offer of the opposite parties to adjust Rs.10,000/- only on payment of complete outstanding amount as well as payment of Rs.5,700/- & Rs.3,500/- to the complainant, as undertaken by them before Banking Ombudsman, was not in consonance with the clear instructions of the Reserve Bank of India on the subject.
5. So far as the argument raised by the Counsel for the appellant qua complainant being himself negligent in not taking due care of confidential information of the credit card and sharing the said detail with someone else, who did the alleged transactions, is concerned, it may be stated here that argument raised is afterthought as the appellant miserably failed to prove the said fact on record. Not only this, once the credit card was in possession of the complainant, who did not share its confidential details to anyone else, the alleged transaction, whereby an amount of Rs.39,999/- was transferred from his credit card account to some unknown account by some unknown person by hacking his email id and credit card details, was fraudulent one. Counsel for the appellant confirmed that money was transferred to the Airtel, IDEA and Oxygen Wallet. It is also pertinent to mention here that once any such kind of credit facility by way of credit card is provided to a consumer, the authority issuing such a card is supposed to ensure that its online operational use may not be hacked by any other person with an intent to extract money from credit card account by hacking the confidential information of the card holder or by hacking the email ID on which OTP was sent, which has happened in the case of the complainant. It is also a fact proved on record that immediately after receiving information qua the alleged fraudulent transaction, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Customer Care of the appellant, which was duly registered and also took up the matter with the opposite parties vide his email dated 30.10.2017. In view of aforesaid circular, since the deficiency lies neither with the Bank nor with the complainant but lies elsewhere in the system, the complainant is definitely entitled to zero liability and the liability is that of the appellant to reverse the fraudulent transaction. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent and convincing evidence on record qua the transaction being a valid transaction, we endorse the view arrived at by the Forum that the appellant clearly indulged into unfair trade practice and was also deficient in service by not reversing the entry of Rs.39,999/- in his credit card account.
6. For the reasons recorded above, we concur with the findings given by the Forum in its judgment and are of the considered opinion that the Forum rightly directed the appellant/Opposite Party No.4 to reverse an amount of Rs.39,999/- in the credit card account of the complainant against the unauthorized transaction and also credit an amount of Rs.5000/- in the said account towards litigation expenses.
7. Hence, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed being devoid of merit with no order as to costs. The impugned order dated 10.10.2018 passed by District Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh in Consumer Complaint bearing No.192 of 2018 is upheld.
9. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
10. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
26.08.2019.
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI] PRESIDENT (PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER (RAJESH K. ARYA) MEMBER Ad