State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
1. Hdfc Bank Ltd., vs Shek Ariful Haque on 8 September, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD
(ADDITIONAL BENCH)
F.A.No.265/2017 against C.c.No.3/2014,
District Commission , Medak at Sangareddy.
Between:
1.HDFC Bank Ltd., Credit Cards Division, B Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai-600 041.
2. HDFC Bank, rep. by its Branch Manager, B-2, Opp. Jyothi Theatre, Ramachandrapuram, Medak.
Both nos. 1 & 2 are being represented by Mr.Ramesh Anand, S/o.Gajanand, Manager Legal R/o.Hyderabad. Appellants/ Opposite parties And Shek Ariful Haque, S/0.S.K. Sirajul Haque, Age 30 years, Occ:Private employee, R/o.H.No.203, Plot No.184, JPN Nagar, Miyapur, R.R.District. . Respondent/ Complainant.
Counsel for the Appellants M/s.Lotus Law Associates Counsel for the Respondent: M/s.P.L.N. Simham & Associates cORAM Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (J), And Hon'ble Smt.R.S.Rajeshree, Member (NJ).
THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO.
Oral Order : (Per Hon'ble Sri V.V.Seshubabu, Member (J)) ****
01) This is an appeal filed u/s.15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order in C.C.No.03/2014, District Consumer Commission, Medak at Sangareddy directing the opposite parties to re-credit the amount of Rs.65,680. 15 ps. to the account of the complainant which is with the opposite party no.2 bank and to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- besides costs of within a period of one month.
Rs.5,000/
02). The brief averments of the complaint in C.C.No.3/2014 are that the complainant is an employee in Dr.Reddy Labs and having salary account no.08111140026630 with the opposite party no.2 and having credit card account bearing no.4617863004887632 which was issued to him by opposite party no.1 on his salary account bearing no.08111140021724; that on one day the complainant received SMS to the effect that his credit card was used by one TCH*www.ATLAS 95.RU TRAV in Mascow that the complainant was in Hyderabad only and his last online transaction was on 17.3.2013 and last swipe transaction was on 24.3.2013; that immediately he got his credit card blocked by contacting the Customer Care of the opposite parties and also lodged a complaint; that inspite of the same, the opposite parties processed the transaction by debiting the credit card account that he raised a card holder dispute on 25.3.2013 and opposite party customer care informed, not to pay the amount till completion of investigation; that on 13.4.2013 the complainant sent an e-mail requesting regarding the status of investigation; that on 16.4.2013 he received E-mail that the transaction in question was done by an authorised person and as such the amount is to be paid; that the complainant lodged a complaint with Cyber Crime Police, Gachibowli on 26.3.2013 and police investigated the same by obtaining log details of fraudulent transaction and ultimately closed the matter as untraceable; that the complainant approached the Banking Ombudsman and filed a complaint, but it was also closed for want of investigation; that on 6.1.2014 the opposite party no.1 issued notice to the complainant by holding on his funds, in his bank account and informed that if the credit card balances are not cleared by 21.1.2014, the available balance in his account will be adjusted; that this action of opposite party is illegal; hence, thec complaint.
03). The brief averments of the written version of opposite parties is that the complaint is not maintainable either on facts or at law; that it is a frivolous complaint; that the Commission is not having territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute; that the questioned transaction took place by using the credit card details of complainant on the online transaction; that the credit card was registered for verified by VISA (VBV) on 30.7.2012; that there was no change in mobile number and E-mail ID of the complainant in 45 days prior to the date of transaction; that secured level precaution and additional pass word to complete the transaction which is known to the complainant only; that without credit card details and pass word details, no one can conduct the online transaction by using credit card; that the complainant is in Hyderabad and regularly doing online transactions by using credit card; that when there is an allegation of fraud, cheating by some miscreants, the District Forum is not having jurisdiction and it is limited to deficiency in service only; that there is no deficiency in service in the case on hand on the part of the opposite parties as the complainant lodged a complaint with Cyber Police, it is for the police to investigate and the opposite party will give their support to the police in the investigation; that as the authorised person operated the credit card with ful! details and verified by VISA, pass word, the opposite parties are justified in debiting the transaction to the account of the complainant. With these pleas requested to dismiss the complaint.
04). Basing on the pleadings of both sides, the Commission below settled the following points for consideration:
. Whether this Forum lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
ii. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
ii. To what relief?
Before the Commission below, the complainant filed his
evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to Al1. Opposite parties not adduced any evidence. The complainant alone filed written arguments.
On merits, the Commission below allowed the complaint with directions as stated supra
05). Aggrieved by the order of the Commission below, appeal is filed with the following grounds:
i. Order of the Commission below is contrary to lav weight of evidence and probabilities of the case; i. The Commission below has no territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute; ii. The Commission below failed to consider that for making any online transaction using credit card, the card holder alone must know the pass word and other details, as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties; that whenever the allegations of fraud and cheating are there, the District Commission is not havingg jurisdiction;
iv. When an authorised person conducted the transaction, the opposite parties are justified in debiting the account of the complainant; that the Commission below not appreciated the case law relied upon by the opposite parties. With these grounds the appellants/opposite parties prayed to set aside the order of the Commission below.
06). At the time of filing the appeal, the appellants/opposite parties have deposited Rs.25,000/- towards the statutory deposit on 6.4.2016.
07). The points for determination are i. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/opposite parties?
ii. Whether the order of the Commission below is sustainable under law?
ii. To what elief 08). Nobody is examined and no document is marked before this State Commission.
Hcard the arguments of both sides. Written arguments of both sides filed.
For the sake of convenience the parties will be addressed as they arrayed in the complaint.
09). Point nos.1 & 2 Admittedly PW.1/complainant is having two salary accounts viz. one) when he was working in M/s.Sanofa Synthelalo Pvt.Ltd., Goa and another one as an employee in Dr.Reddy Labs; that the credit card was issued in his favour on his bank account, with opposite party no.2 i.e when he worked with M/s.Sanofa Synthelalo Pvt.Ltd., Goa ; that the opposite party no.2 is situated at Ramachandrapuram , Medak, R.R.Dist., the address of the Pw.1 is at Miyapur, Rangareddy Dist. Admittedly, on 6.1.2014, the opposite party no.1 addressed a notice to the complainant that in case of failure to pay the transaction amount, the balance available in his bank account will be hold by using banker's lien. No documentary evidence is placed by the opposite parties that the opposite party no.2 is not having its office in Medak Dist. Therefore, we are of the view that the Commission below is having territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute since as already stated supra the cause of action to withhold the account of PW.1 with opposite parties no.2 is situated with the District Commission Sangareddy, Medak. It is also an admitted fact that online transaction for Rs.65,680.15 took place at Uzbekistan/Moscow by using the credit card in favour of complainant. It was VISA Card and it was operated by TCH www.ATLAS 95.RU TRAV. Here, one must know how the credit card will be operated:
t h e details of name of the customer, month and year of validity and card number will be imprinted on the face of the card; on the back side of the card space will be there for the customer to contribute his signature and also CVV number of the card will be there; by swiping the card on the card machine available with the merchants, transactions can be made by using the credit card. .Pin number will be issued for the use of card, whenever the card was swiped, one has to enter the pin number to authenticate the transaction;
. I f the transaction tookplace online, one time pass word i.e. pin number will be will be sent to the registered mobile number of the customer of the card and after entering the said OTP number or pass word, the transaction has to be authenticated; In either case i.e. by swiping or by entering the OTP pass word or pin sent to the registered mobile number of the customer only, any transaction can be authorised. So, without the knowledge of the credit card details, pass word, pin number or OTP R 6 number no transaction can be completed. All these customer/Pw.1 alone.
details will be known to the contention of the opposite
10). From the beginning, it is the the that without furnishing the card details, pin number, parties miscreants cannot complete the transaction OTP number etc., even disclosure of such hand without successfully and in the case on taken place. It may details by PW.1, the transaction had not at all as it be there.
credit
PW.1 that he used the
It is the contention of the
17.3.2013, and last swipe
card for online transaction on
as such it is almost
transaction was completed on 24.3.2013,
Moscow or Uzbekistan to use the
impossible for him to go to
a s he was in India,
credit card. Therefore, it is his argument, that
the transaction in
more particularly at Hyderabad on the day
Moscow was not at all done
question took place, the transaction at because it by him as such the Bank is liable to reimburse him, the complaint was unnecessarily debited his account even though already raised not to do so .
11). It is important to note that, by disclosing the card details, Credit Card can be used at pin number or OTP number a It is not disclosed anywhere internationally, if it international card.
whether it is international card or national card
by PW.1 an
restricted to India only? So, there is no necessity for a person to
be present at Moscow to complete the transaction.
After completion of transaction by using the credit card by a person with merchant, the Visa would resolve the issue by paying and the Bank is liable to honour the transaction by paying the amount. In the case on hand, the party that used the credit card at Moscow can be considered as authorised person, as card was used with all details including pass word or OTP, pin. In such circumstances, as contended by the opposite parties, it shall honour the transaction by debiting the credit card account of complainant. Under no stretch of imagination it can be considered as deficicncy in service.
12). It is to be observed that by the time notice was issued on PW.1/complainant on 6.1.2014, cyber crime police closed the 1 matter as not traceable;, so also the Banking Ombudsman. The police closed the matter stating that as transaction took place in Uzbekistan, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of India, they cannot investigate or trace the details.
It is the contention of the PW.1/complainant that his name inprinted on the card, is different with the name of the person who used the card; as such the bank should have counter checked with vigilent eye and it should not have passed the transaction in routine manner. As already stated supra, the bank is expected to honour the transactions which were done by following the protocol'. In the case on hand, there is no other go for the opposite parties except to honour the transaction done with the credit card of the PW.1/complainant. It is the argument of the opposite parties that whenever the allegation of fraud and cheating is there, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction and in such cases it shall be decided either by Civil Court or Criminal Court. It is the argument of PW.1 that, he had not made allegation of fraud "
in the complaint. In para 4 of the complaint it is averred that The police have taken the investigation and have addressed an email to the HDFC customer care requesting them to send the log details of the fraudulent transactions". It shows the police have found fraud in the transaction, and PW.1 indirectly supporting the said conclusion. In cause of action para also it is mentioned that the "amount debited to the complainant credit card account incurred due to the fraudulent transaction, that has taken place for no fault of the complainant". In view of the above averments in the complaint, PW.1 cannot contend that no fraud was involved in the transaction in question. In such circumstances, the Consumer Commissions have no jurisdiction to decide the dispute
13) By taking all discussions as made supra , we are of the view that the Consumer Commission has no jurisdiction to decide the dispute in question when there is an element of fraud; likewise the Commission below is having territorial jurisdiction to decide the dispute in case of deficiency in service. Points are answered accordingly.
As we found no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and Commission is not having jurisdiction to
-VCe decide the dispute as the element of fraud is involved, this appeal is to be allowed by setting aside the order of the Commission below.
14). In the result, appeal is allowed without costs by setting aside the order of the District Commission , Medak at Sangareddy in C.C.No.03/2014 in total.
The appellants are permitted to withdraw the statutory amount deposited by them after appeal time.