State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Mr. Rajesh Gupta on 29 January, 2015
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal 11-A, MIRZA GHALIB STREET KOLKATA-700 087. S.C. CASE NO. FA/687/2013 (Arisen out of Order No. 16 dt. 22.5.13 of CDRF, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 373/2011) DATE OF FILING : 28.06.2013 DATE OF FINAL ORDER:
29.01.2015 APPELLANT ICICI Bank Ltd.
Having its registered office at ICICI Bank Tower, 7th Floor And one of the branch offices at 127/A, Sarat Bose Road, P.S. Tollygunge, Kolkata-700 026.
RESPONDENT Mr. Rajesh Gupta Residing at Flat No. D-1, Camac Street Kolkata-700
017. BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE MR.
KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT HONBLE MEMBER : MRS.
MRIDULA ROY HONBLE MEMBER : MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY FOR THE PETITIONER / APPELLANT : Mr. Prasanta Banerjee, Ld. Advocate FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S.: In person : O R D E R :
MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HONBLE MEMBER The instant Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order No. 16 dated 22.5.2013 passed by the Ld. Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 373/2011, directing the Appellant/OP to reverse all the claims from the Complainant/Respondent against two Credit Cards and also to pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within 45 days from the date of order, failing which interest @ 10% p.a. shall be payable for the entire period of default.
The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Complainant/Respondent secured from the OP/Appellant two Credit Cards bearing No. 4477 4735 1805 9006 and 4023 6845 2703 5006 in 2004 and 2008 respectively.
In course of use of the cards, the Complainant/Respondent found from the Bank Statement dated 17.12.2010 (Running Page-31 of Memo of Appeal) that the transactions of Rs. 60,650/- on 4.12.2010 and Rs. 87,675/- on 7.12.2010 with Newstar Gems and further transaction of Rs. 25,500/- on 7.12.2010 with Aakaash Rathtala against Credit Card No. 4023 6845 2703 5006 were shown in the said statement, although the Complainant/Respondent neither effected the transactions himself, nor did he authorize anyone to do the said transactions. Noticing such unauthorized transactions against the said credit card the Complainant/Respondent requested the OP/Appellant-Bank by a letter dated 21.12.2010 (Running Page-32 of Memo of Appeal) to look into the matter and for giving temporary credit of the said disputed transactions. After such request by the Complainant/Respondent, the OP/Appellant-Bank effected Interim Chargeback Credit of the said transactions and the Complainant was informed accordingly by email dated 24.2.2011, time-7.12 p.m. (Running Page-35 of Memo of Appeal), but shortly thereafter the OP/Appellant-Bank made Interim Chargeback Debit of two transactions out of the said three transactions, that is Rs. 60,650/- and Rs. 87,675/-, rendering the said amount payable by the Complainant/Respondent to the OP/Appellant-Bank. After such reversal of the said two transactions the OP/Appellant-Bank provided the concerned Charge slips/Merchant slips to the Complainant/Respondent on requisition.
After getting the Charge slips/Merchant slips the Complainant/Respondent found that those slips bore neither the name of the Complainant/Respondent, nor the signature of the Complainant/Respondent, nor even the expiry date of the Credit Card, although all those features remain present in the Charge Slips of normal credit card transactions as stated. Then, the Complainant/Respondent brought to the notice of the OP/Appellant-Bank all those irregularities in the Charge Slips/Merchant Slips, but the OP/Appellant-Bank, instead of redressing the grievances of the Complainant/Respondent, started threatening the Complainant/Respondent, with dire consequences as alleged. Then the Complainant/Respondent lodged a Complaint with the Shakespeare Sarani Police Station on 4.3.2011. With this factual background the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by such judgment and order the OP/Appellant-Bank has preferred this Appeal.
Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP-Bank submits in the very beginning that the Respondent/Complainant being a businessman by profession the credit card in question was meant for commercial purpose and hence, not a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Ld. Advocate continues that the Respondent/Complainant is bound to pay the defaulting amount to the Appellant/OP as per Terms and Conditions of the Card Facilities. The Ld. Advocate also submits that the Ld. District Forum erred in relying on the absence of signature of the Respondent/Complainant on the Charge Slips/Merchant Slips without cross-checking the same by appointing a handwriting expert or by any other evidence of handwriting. In support of such submission the Ld. Advocate refers to the decisions in Punjab National Bank Vs. Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot, reported in II (2014) CPJ 716 (NC) and Ajay Kumar Parmar Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2012) 12 SCC 406. It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as the Respondent/Complainant had filed a complaint with the Shakespeare Sarani P.S. (Case No. not referred) for criminal investigation, so the present case is not maintainable before the Consumer Fora when the police investigation is pending. The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of the aforesaid position of the case the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being illegal and improper.
On the other hand, the Respondent/Complainant submits that the credit cards in question were in his personal name and were in use only for personal purpose and not for any commercial purpose and hence, the Complainant/Respondent is a Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is also submitted by the Respondent/Complainant that out of the three unauthorized transactions shown in the Bank Statement dated 17.12.2010, i.e. Rs. 60,650/- on 4.12.2010, Rs. 25,500/- on 7.12.2010 and Rs. 87,675/- on 7.12.2010, one transaction, i.e. Rs. 25,500/- on 7.12.2010 was settled in favour of the Respondent/Complainant by Chargeback Credit by the Appellant/OP-Bank upon filing the complaint with the Appellant/OP-Bank, implying thereby that the Appellant/OP-Bank was in the practice of raising claim of transaction without any basis of bonafide evidence. The Respondent/Complainant further submits that the signature on the concerned Charge slips/Merchant slips, which were the conclusive direct evidence of confirmation, by the card-holder under his signature, of the transaction through the credit card and as supplied to the Respondent/Complainant by the Appellant/OP-Bank on requisition, did not agree with the specimen signature of the Respondent/Complainant as on the Credit Card concerned (Running Pages-36 & 37 of BNA by Respondent/Complainant), implying thereby that the disputed transactions relating to the said slips were not bonafide ones.
It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as per Clause XVIII of the Terms and Conditions Governing the Credit Card Facilities, signature of Card Member on the Charge slips/Merchant slips together with the card number noted thereon shall be the conclusive proof of liability incurred by the Card Member. The Respondent/Complainant also submits that it follows from the aforesaid irregularities on the part of the Appellant/OP-Bank that the Appellant/OP-Bank failed to provide secured credit card service to the card-holder and thus the Appellant/OP-Bank was in deficiency in service. The Respondent/Complainant concludes that in view of the aforesaid position of the case the impugned judgment and order should be sustained.
We have heard both the sides, considered their respective submissions and perused the materials on records including the BNAs filed by both the sides.
Materials on records, particularly the evidence of specimen signature of the Respondent/Complainant on the credit card, as available on records (Running Pages 36 & 37 of the BNA by the Respondent/Complainant), does not agree on the face of it with the signatures of the Respondent/Complainant as appearing on the Charge slips/Merchant slips (Running Pages-52 & 53 of Memo of Appeal and 21 & 22 of BNA by Respondent/Complainant) of the disputed transactions. Clause-XVIII of the Terms and Conditions Governing the Credit Card Facilities (Running Page-109 of Memo of Appeal and Running page-54 of the said BNA), as available on records, reads : Signature of the Card Member on such Charge slips together with Card Number noted thereon shall be conclusive evidence of the liability incurred by the Card Member.
The foregoing discussion and the materials on records indicate that the signatures of the Respondent/Complainant as appearing on the Charge slips/Merchant slips (Running Page-159 of Memo of Appeal), which were the conclusive proof of transactions in question, did not agree with the specimen signature of the Respondent/Complainant as appearing on the card itself (Running Page-36 & 37 of BNA by Respondent/Complainant).
Difference in signatures on the Charge slips/Merchant slips are so conspicuous that even a man of ordinary prudence would be able to notice the difference. Moreover, the Complainant in his report to the Customer Care Service appearing at Page-28 dated 8.7.2011 clearly mentioned that he did not receive any SMS alert and the Bank official did not confirm such transactions. The Charge Slips (Axis Bank) at Page-34 did not bear the signature of the Complainant.
The decisions referred to by the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant/OP-Bank, as noted above, are not being discussed here, the facts of those decisions having not been identical with that of the present case.
On the above facts and evidence on records we find no such illegality or impropriety in the impugned judgment and order that warrants interference by this Commission. Hence, the Appeal fails.
Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed and the impugned judgment and order is affirmed. No order as to costs.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT