State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Gopal.M.T. Son Of Late Thimmegowda, vs M/S.Sbi Cards Andpayments Services ... on 29 November, 2023
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/848/2019 ( Date of Filing : 28 May 2019 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 30/03/2019 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/201/2016 of District Bangalore 3rd Additional) 1. Gopal.M.T. Son of late Thimmegowda, aged about 53 years, No.28, 10th B cross, 7th Main, Magadi Road, Aghrahra Dasarahalli,Near Ambedkar Stadium,Bangalore-560 079 ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. M/s.SBI Cards andPayments Services Pvt.Ltd. DLF Infinity Towers, Tower-C, 12th floor, Block-2, Building-3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon-122002, Haryana,India 2. The Managaer, M/s SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Brigade towers,
2nd floor, Cambridgge road,
Halsuru, Bangalore-560008
Bangalore Karnataka 3. The Director, M/s SBI Cards Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit No.401 and 402,
4th floor, Agarwal Millennium Towers,
E-123, Nethaji Subhash Place,
Wozipur, New Delhi-110034
Delhi Delhi 4. The Manager M/s WWW.MOBIK.WIK.COM,
1st floor, Plot No.758,
Udyog Vihar, Phase-V, Gurgaon,
Haryana-India
Gurgaon Haryana 5. The Manager, M/s Bharathi Airtel India Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at:
5th, 6th & 7th floor,
Interface building, No.7,
Link road, Malad west, Mumbai-400064
Mumbai Maharastra ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 Nov 2023 Final Order / Judgement
29.11.2023
ORDER
Mr. RAVISHANKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant not present - Heard learned counsel for respondent.
2. The learned counsel for respondent submits that this respondent had issued a credit card in favouf of the appellant and during May 2015, they have issued a fresh credit card which is valid up to 2017. Subsequently, they have issued demand notice for a bill amount of Rs.4,870/- and Rs.3,000/- towards credit card transaction, but, the complainant denied to pay the said amount and alleged that he had not utilized the said card for transaction of the abovesaid amount and filed a complaint before the District Commission and claimed to set aside the bill issued. The District Commission after trial dismissed the complaint for the reason that the appellant had made a transaction with www.mobikwik.com towards offer made by some unknown person for appointment and the transaction made through card for an amount of Rs.4,870/- and another payment of Rs.3,000/- at Mumbai and Delhi respectively. The said transactions are not within the control of this respondent. They have provided a separate pin for the transaction unless and until the pin number mentioned, the transaction will not successful. It was only due to the negligence on the part of this appellant, this fraudulent transaction took place. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and dismissed the complaint.
3. The Order passed by the District Commission is in accordance with law. Infact the mobikwik.com also refunded the amount of Rs.7,500/- to the complainant. The said facts were not disclosed before this Commission by the appellant and filed a false appeal to set aside the Order passed by the District Commission in order to gain wrongfully, hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal.
4. On perusal of the appeal memo, certified copy of the impugned Order passed by the District Commission, it is noticed that the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission for the reason that the appellant/complainant has not established the deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/Opposite Parties. We are of the opinion that the appellant ought to pay the credit card bills as and when it was tendered. It is also an admitted fact that an amount of Rs.4,870/- and Rs.3,000/- were transacted only after providing pin and a separate pin which was provided to the appellant. When the transaction was successful, the appellant subsequently cannot allege that the said transaction as fraudulent transaction and shift the liability on the respondent for his own negligence. The District Commission rightly dismissed the complaint. There is no valid ground urged before this Commission. Hence, the following;
O R D E R The appeal is dismissed.
Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as to the Concerned District Commission.
Sd/- Sd/- (Sunita .C. Bagewadi) (Ravishankar) Member Judicial Member KCS* [HON'BLE MR. Ravishankar] PRESIDING MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi] MEMBER