State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sh. Ashok Tandon vs Punjab National Bank on 24 April, 2024
H. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION SHIMLA.
First Appeal No.: 202/2023
Date of Presentation: 15.09.2023
Reserved on: 03.04.2024
Date of Decision: 24.04.2024
...........................................................................
Sh.Ashok Tandon S/o late Sh. Mam Chand, R/o
Cottage No.3, Megha City, Basal Road, Chambaghat,
Solan, 173213.
.......... Appellant/Complainant.
Versus
Punjab National Bank, Regent House, The Mall
Shimla, 171001, through its Zonal Head.
.......... Respondent/Opposite Party.
...........................................................................
Coram
Hon'ble Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President.
Hon'ble Mr. R.K. Verma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting?1Yes
For the Appellant: Mr.Sanjay K. Sharma,
Advocate.
For the Respondent: Ms.Jyoti Chauhan, Advocate.
........................................................................
1
Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the order?
Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank.
F.A.No.202/2023
Justice Inder Singh Mehta, President
O R D E R:
Present appeal is preferred against the order dated 17.07.2023 of learned District Commission, Shimla, in consumer complaint No.36/2020 titled Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank.
Brief facts of the Case:
2. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was credit card holder of opposite party/Punjab National Bank and was using the same for his regular expenses. On 21.08.2019, the complainant received a phone call from a lady namely Ms.Anu, ID No.315516, who introduced herself as PNB employee and told the complainant that call has been made for KYC and verified the card details from the complainant.
Thereafter, complainant received a message that a transaction of Rs.22,279/- was done from his credit card. Immediately, thereafter the complainant reported 2 Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023 about the disputed transaction and he was informed by the bank officials that the transaction of Rs.20,779/- was done on www.MOBIKWIK.com and transaction of Rs.1500/- was done on PAYTM. The credit card of the complainant was blocked on the same day. The complainant also reported the matter in writing to the Superintendent of Police (Cyber Crime), Shimla and a complaint bearing No.CC/19/D/C/533 dated 22.08.2019 was registered. The complainant time and again requested the opposite party/PNB to resolve his grievance, but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint.
3. The complaint filed by the complainant was opposed by the opposite party/PNB by filing reply and stated that the complainant had disputed the transaction of Rs.20,779/- and Rs.1500/- on 21.08.2019 in his credit card account, which got completed after successful authentication of OTP. As per the credit card 3 Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023 invoice, the order was placed by the complainant through www.mobikwik.com for amount of Rs.20,779/- and Rs.1500/- were sent through paytm transaction. Refund out of total amount was given by www.mobikwik.com on 26.08.2019 and the amount so credited was Rs.10,389.60/-. On receiving the information through customer care, the credit card of the complainant was blocked to stop further transactions. No call was ever made by the employee of opposite party/PNB for verification of the credit card of the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party/PNB. A prayer for dismissal of complaint was made.
4. Rejoinder denying the objections of the reply and reasserted those of the complaint were made.
5. Thereafter, the parties led evidence in support of their respective pleadings. 4
Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023
6. After hearing the parties, learned District Commission dismissed the complaint of the complainant.
7. Feeling aggrieved by the order of learned District Commission, the appellant/complainant preferred the instant appeal before this Commission.
8. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and have also perused the record carefully.
9. Learned counsel on behalf of the appellant/complainant has submitted that the appellant/complainant was the customer of respondent/PNB and the bank had issued credit card in favour of the complainant. On 21.08.2019, complainant received a call for KYC purposes and after that a message was received by the complainant that transaction of Rs.22,279/- was done from his credit card. Factually, the complainant/appellant did not enter into any contract or online transaction with any of the party, therefore, such amount cannot be debited from his 5 Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023 account. He further submitted that after receiving the message of transaction, complainant immediately intimated the same to the concerned Branch Manager, on the same day. Complainant also made complaint before Cyber Crime Shimla on 22.08.2019 and thereafter, the complainant also sent several e-mails to the Bank, but no action has been taken by the bank till date. He further submitted that the impugned order is bad in law and same is required to be set aside. He prays that the appeal of the appellant/complainant be allowed. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble National Commission titled Parveen Kumar Jain Vs. HDFC Bank Ltd. Revision Petition No.2082 of 2017.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel of the respondent/PNB has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference and prays that the appeal of the appellant/complainant be dismissed. 6
Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023 FINDINGS
11. The admitted fact which emerges on record is that the complainant was credit card holder of opposite party/PNB.
12. It is also an admitted fact emerging on record that a sum of Rs.22,279/- was withdrawn from the account of the complainant on 21.08.2019.
13. The allegation of the complainant is that on 21.08.2019, one Ms.Anu, employee of PNB asked the complainant to disclose the details about his credit card for the purpose of KYC and after disclosing the details to said employee immediately complainant received message that a transaction of Rs.22,279/- has been done from his credit card. However, the opposite party has denied the aforesaid fact that Ms.Anu was the employee of the opposite party/PNB.
7
Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023
14. It is admitted fact coming on record that the credit card was in the possession of the complainant and he himself has shared the credit card details. No FIR has been registered in the instant case regarding the disputed transaction. Therefore, no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice can be attributed to the opposite party/bank.
15. As far as the judgment relied upon by the appellant/complainant is concerned, same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
16. In view of the above stated facts, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned District Commission and same does not require any interference.
17. Consequently, appeal of the appellant/complainant fails and same is hereby 8 Ashok Tandon Versus Punjab National Bank. F.A.No.202/2023 dismissed and the order passed by learned District Commission below remains upheld.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Certified copy of order be sent to the parties and their counsel(s) strictly as per rules. File of learned District Commission along with certified copy of order be sent back and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.
Justice Inder Singh Mehta President R.K.Verma Member Veena 9