SBI Cards Liable For Deficiency In Service For Failing To Reverse Unauthorised Credit Card Transactions Despite Prompt Intimation: Chandigarh Consumer Commission
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to redress an unauthorised credit card transactions despite prompt intimation by the cardholder. The Commission ruled that the complainant...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, U.T. Chandigarh, comprising Mr. Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and Mr. B.M. Sharma (Member), has held SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited liable for deficiency in service for failing to redress an unauthorised credit card transactions despite prompt intimation by the cardholder.
The Commission ruled that the complainant was entitled to zero liability under the RBI Circular dated July 6, 2017, and directed the company to refund the disputed amount along with interest, remove her name from the CIBIL records, and pay compensation.
Facts
The complainant, Roopam Kumar @ Roopam Chawla, was issued an SBI Credit Card bearing No. ending 6048. On 7 December 2017, she received OTP alerts for transactions of ₹10,000 and ₹999 at Airtel Money, despite not having undertaken any such transactions. She immediately informed SBI Cards on the same day, following which her credit card was blocked and a complaint was registered.
She subsequently submitted a transaction dispute form on 28 December 2017 and also lodged complaints before the State Cyber Crime Police, Mohali, and the Banking Ombudsman.
Despite prompt reporting, the opposite party failed to resolve the grievance. The Commission noted that the complainant had deposited ₹17,050 on 26 February 2018 (excluding the disputed amount). Thereafter, the company raised a demand of ₹35,594 towards the disputed transactions, which she deposited under protest on 12 April 2021. Her name was also reported to CIBIL as a defaulter.
Aggrieved by the alleged violation of the RBI Circular dated 6 July 2017 on “Customer Protection – Limiting Liability of Customers in Unauthorised Electronic Banking Transactions”, and alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, she approached the Consumer Commission seeking refund, compensation, and correction of her credit records.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The opposite party appeared through counsel but failed to file its written version within the statutory period of 45 days under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, its defence was struck off.
Observations and Decision
The Commission observed that the complainant had promptly reported the unauthorised transactions on the very same day, i.e., 7 December 2017, and that the credit card was blocked immediately.
Referring to the RBI Circular dated 6 July 2017, the Commission held that:
• A customer is entitled to zero liability where unauthorised transactions are reported promptly.
• The burden of proving customer liability lies on the bank.
Since the opposite party failed to establish that the transactions were authorised and did not comply with RBI directions, the Commission held that it had committed deficiency in service.
Accordingly, the complaint was partly allowed, and the opposite party was directed to:
• Refund ₹35,594 with interest at 9% per annum from 12 April 2021 till realisation;
• Remove the complainant's name from the defaulter list/CIBIL records, if not already removed;
• Pay ₹10,000 as compensation for mental harassment and litigation expenses.
Case TITLE : Roopam Kumar vs. SBI Cards & Payment
Case No.: CC DC/AB1/44/CC/255/2021