HDFC BANK LIMITED Vs. JESNA JOSE
LAWS(NCD)-2020-12-25
NCDRC
Decided on December 21,2020

HDFC BANK LIMITED Appellant
VERSUS
Jesna Jose Respondents




JUDGEMENT

C Viswanath,J. - (1.) The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short "the Act") has been filed by the Petitioner against order dated 09.04.2013 of the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai (for short "State Commission") in First Appeal No. A/11/99 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioner was dismissed.
(2.) The case of the Complainant is that in the year 2007, Complainant purchased a Pre-paid Forex Plus Debit Card bearing no. 4123310000407245 having a limit of US$ 10,000/-, from Opposite Party No. 2. The card account was opened on 11.08.2007. Sometime in the afternoon of 19.12.2008, Complainant's father received a call from one Mrs. K. Pradeepa claiming to be from the Credit Cards Division of the Opposite Party Bank at Chennai, seeking confirmation in respect of a US$310 transaction attempted on the aforesaid Forex Card. The Complainant's father verified the same with the Complainant, who denied having transacted on the card at all. Thereafter, Complainant's father contacted the Opposite Party and requested for a statement. The Complainant stated that on 20.12.2008, the executives of the Opposite Party Bank informed her father via telephonic conversation that transactions to the tune of US$ 6,000/- had taken place on the aforesaid Forex Card in the past few days. On 24.12.2008, the Complainant registered a Criminal Case on Burbank Police Station, Los Angeles. On 04.03.2009, the Complainant received charge slips for the disputed transactions, however, the said charge slips were in respect of 27 out of 29 transactions. The covering letter which was received along with the charge slips stated that "Transaction monitoring are done in batch mode, hence transactions was alerted only on day 1". As per the Complainant, the statement indicated that the Opposite Party was aware of the fraudulent transactions on 14.12.2008 itself, in spite of which no action was taken by the Opposite Party. Complainant further stated that the signatures on the charge slips and her signatures did not match. The Complainant, thereafter, made several representations to the Opposite Party requesting them to address her grievances and take appropriate action, The Opposite Party, however, did not heed to her requests. The Complainant, thereafter, filed a Complainant before the District Forum with the following prayer: - "(a). "The Opposite Parties be jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 4,18,000/- to Complainant with future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing this complaint till realization. (b). Cost of this complaint be awarded to the Complainant (c). Any other relief as would deem just, fit and proper be awarded to the Complainant."
(3.) The case of the Complainant was contested by the Opposite Parties who stated that the Complainant had already filed a complaint before the Banking Ombudsman and the same being pending, Complaint before the District Forum was non maintainable. It was further stated that though the Opposite Party tried to contact her after a large volume of transactions had taken place on the Complainant's Forex Card. As they were unable to contact her, father of the Complainant was informed of the transactions and thereafter the Card was put on the "Hot List". They also stated that the Complainant had not opted for SMS alerts and therefore messages of her transactions could not be received by the Complainant. They further stated that it was the duty of the Complainant the keep the card safely and the Opposite Party from their end had taken all requisite steps. Opposite Parties thereby denied all allegations of deficiency in service.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.