State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sbi Cards And Payment Services Limited & ... vs Mr. Gautam Kr. Chakraborty & Anr. on 24 November, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO. : FA/149/2013
(Arising out
of order dated 07.11.2012 of Consumer Case No. 270/2011 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit - I)
Date of Filing : 07.02.2013 Date of Final Order : 24.11.2014.
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
1. SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited
234/3A, A.J.C. Bose Road,
Kolkata 700 020
P.S. Bhobanipur.
2. SBI Cards and Payment Services Limited,
DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12th Floor
Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City,
Gurgao 122 002, Haryana.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
Mr. Gautam Kr. Chakraborty,
SETU, Flat No. 9,
189, Dum Dum Park,
Kolkata 700055
2. The Group General Manager
IRCTC Ltd. (Eastern Region)
3, Koilaghat Street,
Kolkata 700 001.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Mr.
Kalidas Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy.
MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Surajit Auddy,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. D.
Chakraborty,
Authorised Representative.
Ms. Rima Das,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
24.11.2014.
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order being No. 14 dated 07.11.2012 passed by Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit I in CC Case No. 270/2011 which is as follows :-
that the case is allowed on contest against all the O.Ps. O.Ps are jointly and/or severally directed to reverse the amount in relation to the dues raised for to the transaction in question and are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
Being aggrieved by the impugned order the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 have preferred the instant appeal on grounds, inter alia that the Ld. Forum below failed to appreciate that no transaction would be possible without the knowledge of secured personalized password and, therefore, the Complainant is liable to pay the dues as per terms and conditions of the contract with the Appellants.
The case of the Complainant (Respondent No. 1 herein) before the Ld. District Forum, is that, he has been a consumer under the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 (Appellants herein) in relation to a Credit Card having No. 4006 6760 1992 4201 since last 10 years.
However, from the statement issued by the O.Ps SBI Cards and Payment Services Ltd. wherefrom he found that 26 transactions have been made through the Card from 15.12.2010 to 18.12.2010.
He has specifically mentioned that no SMS alert or any communication through e-mail etc. has been done to that effect. The Complainant has further stated that receiving the statement dated 16.01.2011 the Complainant made several communications to the O.P SBI Cards and also sent a letter to the O.P. No. 3 (Respondent No. 2 herein) i.e. the IRCTC Ltd. to whom, as per the statement dated 16.01.2011 the transactions have been made. But, the O.P. No. 3 declined to entertain the query of the Complainant on the ground that all the disputes regarding the credit card should be routed through card issuing bank only and with the merchant directly. However, the SBI Credit Card Ltd. sent reply stating that all the 26 transactions are valid. The Complainant also mentioned that the O.P. Nos. 1 & 2 informed him that they had replaced his password by his date of birth and the same had not been intimated till the alleged transaction had been done. The Complainant, having no other alternative to redressed the dispute approached the Office of the Director of C.A.&F.B.P. for mediation but the same had failed due to non-cooperation of the IRCTC and SBI Credit Card which led the Complainant to file the instant complaint case before the Ld. District Forum praying for direction to restrain the O.Ps from disturbing the card holder and his family members by not sending any recovery agent, to waive so-called dues, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for causing mental agony.
The Complainant particularly mentioned that he has lodged a complaint with the local P.S. in order to restrain the O.P. regarding the menacing behaviour and pressure tactics to recover the so-called dues.
The O.Ps entered appearance and filed W.Vs denying and disputing all material allegations.
During course of hearing of the appeal Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that as per record from 15.12.2010 to 18.12.2010 transactions were made on 18 occasions through the card of the Complainant. Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has further submitted that the password is necessary for operation of the card and the same is only known to the card holders. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has filed following decisions:- (1) 2014 (2) CPR 776 (NC) Punjab National Bank, through The Manager versus Lt. Col. Jagdeep Gahlot (Retired) and (2) 2012 (4) CPR 620 (NC) National Controlling Equipment Industries versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through its Divisional Manager.
The authorized person of the Respondent Complainant submitted that internet banking is different from the system of operation of the credit card and, therefore, there is no question of password in the instant case.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No. 2 supports the Appellant.
In reply Ld. Advocate for the Appellants has submitted that to determine whether the transaction in question are online transaction or not, the relevant document i.e. the letter dated 16.01.2011 from the Respondent Complainant to the Officer-in-Charge, Lake Town Police Station will reveal that the Complainant Respondent himself averred that the said transactions as online transactions.
Having heard submissions made by both sides and on perusal of the record it appears that the Complainant alleged that 26 transactions from 15.12.2010 to 18.12.2010 through his credit card are not the valid ones. It appears from the record that the Complainant got the statement issued by the SBI Card on 16.01.2011 regarding such transactions and having learnt the same the Complainant rushed to the concerned authorities and made several correspondences to them and also to the IRCTC Ltd. with whom the alleged transactions had been made. It appears from the letter dated 29.12.2010 from SBI Card Ltd. to the Complainant that the transactions were valid by inserting the password of the Complainant.
It also appears from letter dated 09.01.2011 from the Complainant to the Manager, SBI Card Ltd. that he enquired about the matter why the date of birth had been utilized to make the online payment and the change in the password has not been intimated to him so that anyone can misuse the same inserting his date of birth. It also appears from the record that the O.P. Appellant failed to give a suitable reply to that question. The case laws filed by the Appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
Under the state of affairs we are of opinion that the change in password made by the Card issuance authorities should have been intimated to the Respondent Complainant in time so that the possibility of misuse of the card might have been prevented.
In view of this, we are of opinion that the statement dated 16.01.2011 is invalid. The Ld. District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment is affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT