State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1.M/S. Icici Bank Ltd., vs Mohammed Siraj Ur Rahman on 12 January, 2024
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
FA. No. 439/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN
CC.No.457/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT
CONSUMER COMMISSION-III, HYDERABAD.
Between :
1.M/s. ICICI Bank Limited, represented by its Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Towers, Near Chakli Circle, Old Padra Road, Vadodara -390007, Gujarat, India.
2. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Pvt. Ltd., ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400 051 Maharashtra, India.
3. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Pvt. Ltd., ICICI Bank Tower, 7th Floor Survey No.115/27, Plot No.12. Nanakramguda, Serlingampally, Hyderabad - 500 032. ... Appellants/ Opposite parties 1 to 3 And Mohammed Siraj-Ur-Rahman, S/o.M.F.Rahman, Aged about 40 years, Occ:Business, R/o.H.No.3-4-840-A, Barkatpura, Hyderabad - 15. ... Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellants : M/s.S.Nagesh Reddy Counsel for the Respondent : M/s.M.A.S.Javeed QUORUM: Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, M ember (M -J), & Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J).
FRIDAY, THE TW ELFTH DAY OF JANUARY, TW O THOUSAND TWENTY FOUR.
Order : (Per Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, M ember (N-J) ****
01). This is an appeal filed u/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the opposite parties being aggrieved by the orders passed in C.C.No.457/2017 vide orders dt.26.6.2019 wherein the District Commission has passed the following orders:
2 " In view of the findings on point No.1 to 3, the complaint is partly allowed with the following terms:-
(1) The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.30,494.46 ps. (Rupees thirty thousand four hundred ninety four and forty six paise only), to the complainant.
(2) The opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to pay Rs.2,00,000/-(Rupees two lakh only) towards compensation to the complainant and costs of Rs.5,000/- ( Rupees five thousand only).
Time for the compliance is Thirty (3) days only. If the opposite parties fail to comply the order within stipulated time, the complainant is entitled for the interest @ 8% per annum till realization."
02). For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as complainant and opposite parties as arrayed in the complaint.
03). The case of the complainant is that he is having Savings account in opposite party's bank and that he has availed Credit Card facility and was holding a Credit Card bearing no.5241931120003003; that on 11.6.2017 he received SMS on his mobile that transaction for a sum of Rs.30,494.46 was done using his credit card and the complainant was shocked to see that he has neither received any OTP for the said transaction nor he has made any such transactions. Immediately at around 12 midnight he called Customer Care Service and informed the same. Customer Care executive had blocked the card and registered his complaint on 12.6.2017 and after a lapse of 20 days, the opposite party had issued new credit card and also temporarily credited an amount of Rs.30,494.46 in the account of the complainant and informed that it would take few days to resolve the dispute by conducting an investigation. Upon such assurance, the complainant did not lodge any police complaint or cyber complaint; that on 5.10.2017 at about 8 p.m. the complainant received a message from opposite party bank stating as under:
" Dear customer, it has been verified that disputed transaction was done with your Credit Card. Hence Credit of INR 30,494.46 has been debited."
and debited an amount of Rs.30,494.46, upon which the complainant called the Customer Care Service and enquired for such debit of the amount to which the complainant was informed that upon investigation it has been revealed that the disputed transaction was done with the complainant's credit card; that with 3 this act of the opposite parties in not conducting proper investigation and not generating any OTP for the transaction, they have violated the security checks and not even sending any E-mail statements amount to deficiency of service. Hence, the complainant got issued legal notice to the opposite parties. The opposite parties though received the same, failed to reply. As such, on 20.10.2017, the complainant lodged a complaint before Cyber Crime Police Station, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. Subsequently the opposite parties on 3.11.2017 have sent credit card statement dt.3.11.2017 asking the complainant to pay the deducted amount of Rs.30,494.30 on or before 21.11.2017. Due to such act of the opposite parties, the complainant filed the complaint.
04). The opposite parties filed their written version while admitting that the complainant is a Savings Bank Account Holder and also that he is a holder of Credit Card, had opposed the complaint on the ground that after receiving the complaint from the complainant with regard to the fraudulent transactions, and in good faith immediately blocked the said credit card and had reverted the impugned amount of Rs.30,494.46 to the account of the complainant on 22.6.2017 and after investigation, it has been revealed that the complainant has done several transactions on the same day and one transaction has been claimed as fake and fraud and the complainant had registered the Credit Card with the Merchant Website and explicitly agreed to use the merchant specified process to claim refunds. As such, the merchant website rejected their request to cancel the trade. Since the investigations revealed that transaction was done by the complainant himself, this opposite party was constrained to reverse temporary credit provided to the complainant and in the investigation it has revealed that the ocmplanant has done an international transaction and as per the RBI guide lines for international transactions, no OTPs are generated, only in case of domestic transactions OTP is generated and since the transaction was done by the complainant himself there is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties in not maintaining the security checks.
Hence prayed that the complaint be dismissed with exemplary costs.
405). Before the District Commission, the complainant filed Evidence Affidavit as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A13. Mr.Avinash Peyyala, GPA holder of opposite partie s 1 to 3 filed evidence affidavit as DW.1 . No documents marked on behalf of the opposite parties. Written arguments of the complainant filed.
The District Commission allowed the complaint as stated supra in para no.1
06). Aggrieved by the order of the District Commission, the appellants/opposite parties preferred this appeal with the following grounds:
Order of the District Commission is against principles of natural justice, probabilities of evidence and material on record;
That the District Commission erred in not considering the documentary evidence placed before the Commission, like details of credit card transaction, account statement and nature of transaction which conclusively establishes that the transaction was successful and there was no deficiency on the part of the appellants/opposite parties;
The District Commission failed to consider that confidential information of credit card will not be disclosed by the bank officials such as CVV, OTP etc. and they will be only known to the customer;
The District Commission ought to have appreciated the fact that as per the RBI Guidelines, generation of OTP for any transaction is limited only to domestic transactions and no OTP will be generated for any international transaction and that the present transaction took place in Australia;
The District Commission failed to appreciate that as per the internal policy, in order to maintain good relationship with the customers, the opposite party had transferred the funds to the respondent's account upon receiving the complaint from the respondent/complainant with an intention that the customer does not suffer any loss and was provided with temporary credit;
5
That the District Commission failed to consider that
there was no ground/reason given by the
respondent/complainant for claiming such huge
compensation and the District Commission erred in
awarding compensation of Rs.2 lakhs;
The District Commission failed to consider the
internal investigation report and also the transaction
summary .
Based on the above grounds, the appellants/opposite parties
prayed that the appeal be allowed by setting aside the order of the District Commission.
07). Heard both sides and perused the material on record.
08). Now the points that arise for consideration are i. Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Commission suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with in any manner?
ii. To what relief ? 09). The specific case of the respondent/complainant is that on 11.6.2017 he received a message that a transaction for Rs.30,494.46 was done by using his credit card, but infact he
never done any such transaction. The said fraudulent transaction was informed immediately to the appellants/opposite parties, but however on 5.10.2017 the opposite party who gave temporary credit for the said sum of Rs.30,494.46 had reversed back the amount from his account on the pretext that the said transaction was done by the respondent/complainant himself; that he had neither received any OTP nor any mail prior to such fraudulent transaction done on 11.6.2017.
The appellants/opposite parties opposed the complaint stating that after receiving the complaint from the respondent/complainant, they have conducted an investigation wherein it was revealed that the said transaction was done by using the respondent/complainant's credit card and that the respondent/complainant had registered credit card with the merchant website and had explicitly agreed to use merchant 6 specified process to claim refund and since it was an international transaction, no OTP was generated and that as per the RBI Guidelines for international transactions no OTP will be generated, only in case of domestic transactions OTP will be generated.
10). Before the District Commission, the appellants/opposite parties did not choose to file any documents. As such due to lack of evidence, the District Commission allowed the complaint and passed the orders against the appellants/opposite parties.
The appellants /opposite parties have preferred the present appeal and along with the appeal filed certain documents. But unfortunately the said documents are not supported with any petition to receive the same. As such, in the absence of any petition, the said documents can neither be looked into nor be considered.
Though the counsel for appellants/opposite parties had argued that an investigation was conducted and in the investigation, it has been revealed that the transaction was done by the respondent/complainant himself, but no documentary proof is filed to prove the said contention. Apart from this, the appellants/opposite parties did not choose to file the RBI guidelines which does not mandate for generating of any OTP for international transactions. In the absence of any such proof and guidelines we have no other option, but to confirm that the appellants/opposite parties were deficient in their services. But however, the District Commission had awarded compensation of Rs.2 lakhs inspite of there being no reasons given by the respondent/complainant as to what was the financial loss and mental agony suffered by him. Therefore we feel that the compensation awarded by the District Commission needs to be modified. However, the first part of the order i.e. award of refund of Rs.30,494.46 ps. shall remain unmodified.
11). In the result, appeal is partly allowed by modifying the order of the District Commission and directing the appellants/opposite parties jointly and severally to pay a sum of Rs.30,494.46 ps. and to pay compensation of Rs.2,000/- ( Two Thousand only) to 7 the respondent/complainant. Costs awarded by the District Commission remain unmodified.
Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.
MEMBER(J) MEMBER(NJ)
-------------------------------------------
Dated: 12.1.2024