BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

COMPLAINT NO. 236 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:
RUPESH KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT
VARSHNEY

VERSUS
RBL BANK LTD. ...RESPONDENT

INDEX
SR. PARTICULARS PAGE
NO. NO.(S)
1. REPLY ON BEHALD OF RESPONDENT-
RBL BANK THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE ALONG WITH
AFFIDAVIT.
2. ANNEXURE: R/1- TRUE COPY OF OTP
LOG
3. ANNEXURE: R/2- TRUE COPY OF
LIABLITY LETTER
4. ANNEXURE: R/3- TRUE COPY OF
FALCON
5. ANNEXURE: R/4- TRUE COPY OF SMS
LOG
6. ANNEXURE: R/5 (COLLY)- TRUE COPY
OF APPLICATION DOCUMENT
7. ANNEXURE: R/6 (COLLY)- TRUE COPY
OF SALES CALL RECORD
8. ANNEXURE: R/7(COLLY)- TRUE COPY OF
ACCOUNT STATEMENT
9. AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT
UNDER SECTION 65B OF THE INDIAN
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

THROUGH:
KAMTI & ASSOCIATES
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT BANK
E-259, LGF, GREATER KAILASH-1,
NEW DELHI-110048
PLACE:
DATED: __. __.2024
 BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

COMPLAINT NO. 236 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:
RUPESH KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT
VARSHNEY

VERSUS
RBL BANK LTD. ...RESPONDENT

REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT- RBL BANK LTD.

THROUGH ITS AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

I. That the Respondent at the outset denies all averments made in the
Complaint filed by the Complainants under Section 35 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service
rendered by the Respondent, as if traversed seriatim and nothing
thereof shall be deemed to be admitted for want of specific denial
unless specifically admitted herein below.

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSION AND OBJECTIONS

II. That the Respondent, RBL Bank Limited, is a body corporate

incorporated under Companies Act, 1956 of India and
successfully continuing under the Provision of Companies Act,
2013 having its registered office at
________________________________ and relevant branch at
_______________________________. The present reply is
 being filed, signed and verified by _______________________
presently working with the Opposite Part at RBL Bank
Ltd.______________________________ and is duly authorised
to represent the Respondent. The Authorized Representative
(hereinafter as “AR”) is well conversant with the facts and
circumstances of the present matter based on record and
information as maintained by RBL Bank Ltd. in relation to the
present matter.

III. That it is most humble that the Complainant, in a manner

demonstrating malicious intent, has deliberately withheld
pertinent facts and has failed to present them in truthful manner.
It is in these circumstances the Respondent herein seeks the
liberty of this Hon’ble Commission to place on record the correct
facts as follows:
a.It is hereby stated that the Complainant, Mr. Rupesh
Kumar Varshney, is the lawful possessor of a credit card
issued by the Respondent, namely, RBL Bank. The said
credit card, bearing the number 4391230892476211,
falls under the category of Platinum Choice Supercard.
The aforementioned card was duly issued to Mr.
Varshney on the 15th day of April, 2022.

b.It is to be noted that the Complainant approached the

Respondent Bank on the 5th day of May, 2023, and
lodged a complaint pertaining to a fraudulent transaction
on amount Rs. 50,998.98 that occurred on the 20th day
of March, 2023, using the aforementioned credit card.

c. The aforementioned complaint was subjected to

scrutiny by the vigilance team of the Respondent. Upon
thorough investigation, it was discerned by the
Respondent that the Complainant had indeed confirmed
 receiving a call via WhatsApp and inadvertently
compromised his card credentials by clicking on an
unidentified link. This information was obtained during
the course of the investigation.

d. It is crucial to highlight that the transaction in dispute

was facilitated online and necessitated the use of a One-
Time Password (OTP). It is noteworthy that every
transaction is secured through Two-Factor
Authentication (2FA) and is executed using an OTP,
which is dispatched exclusively to the registered mobile
number or email ID of the cardholder. The OTP contains
details such as the name of the merchant and the
transaction amount. Upon validation of these details, the
transaction is approved. Consequently, the Complainant
is held accountable for the payment of the said amount.

e. In the current scenario as well, the disputed transaction

could only have been executed following a Two-Factor
Authentication (2FA) process, which necessitates the use
of an OTP. This OTP was dispatched solely to the
registered mobile number of the Complainant.
Consequently, it is inferred that the Complainant was
cognizant of the disputed transaction, thereby negating
the possibility of it being a fraudulent transaction.

f. Subsequent to the culmination of the investigation

conducted by the Respondent, a response was
communicated to the Complainant. It was clarified that
since the disputed transaction was facilitated online and
necessitated the use of an OTP, it could only have been
executed using the OTP sent exclusively to the
Complainant’s registered mobile number. Therefore, it is
 inferred that the Complainant was fully aware of the
alleged disputed transaction.

g.It is of significance to note that the Respondent received

the credit card application from the Complainant, post
which the application was duly processed. Furthermore,
during the sales call, the Complainant explicitly
consented to the processing of the case on the
Respondent's recorded line. The Complainant was a
regular user of the aforementioned credit card issued by
the Respondent Bank. However, after utilizing the credit
limit of the said credit card, the Complainant failed to
remit the outstanding amount within the prescribed time
frame. This clearly indicates the mala fide intentions of
the Complainant.

h.In light of the aforementioned facts and assertions, it is

respectfully submitted that the Complainant has not
approached this Hon’ble Commission with clean hands
and has deliberately concealed material facts from this
Hon’ble Commission. It is to be noted that the disputed
transaction was an OTP-based online transaction, and
the OTP could only have been received on the registered
mobile number of the Complainant. Therefore, the
present complaint, filed under Section 35 of the
Consumer Protection Act, 2019, seeking a refund of Rs.
82,363, is predicated on entirely frivolous and erroneous
grounds against the Respondent. This warrants dismissal
of the complaint against the Respondent/RBL Bank,
accompanied by exemplary costs.

PARA WISE REPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE

1. That the content of para 1 are matter of record.

2. That the content of para 2 are denied for want of

knowledge and the Complainant may be put to strict proof
of the same.

3. That the content of para 3 is admitted to the extent

contrary to matter of record and all remaining assertions
are categorically denied. However, it is hereby submitted
that during the course of the investigation conducted by
the Respondent's vigilance team, it was ascertained that
the alleged disputed transaction was an online transaction
enabled by a One-Time Password (OTP). This transaction
could only have been executed using the OTP, which was
dispatched exclusively to the registered mobile number of
the Complainant.
4. That the content of para 4 is admitted to the extent
contrary to matter of record and all remaining assertions
are categorically denied. However, It is hereby submitted
that the Complainant approached the Respondent Bank on
the 5th day of May, 2023, and lodged a complaint
regarding a fraudulent transaction that transpired on the
20th day of March, 2023.

5. That the content of para 5 are matter of record.

6. That the content of para 6 are matter of record.

7. That the content of para 7 is wrong and denied.

However, it is hereby submitted that the disputed
transaction was not fraudulent. The Complainant was
well-informed about the said transaction as it was
 executed using an OTP, which was sent exclusively to the
Complainant’s registered mobile number. Thus, the
Complainant had full knowledge of the transaction in
question.

8. That the content of para no. 8 is wrong and vehemently

denied. However, it is hereby submitted that the
Complainant's allegation of the disputed transaction being
fraudulent is incorrect. The said transaction was an online
transaction enabled by a One-Time Password (OTP). This
transaction could only have been executed using the OTP,
which was sent exclusively to the Complainant's
registered mobile number. Therefore, it is inferred that the
Complainant was fully aware of the transaction in
question. Thus, the claim of the transaction being
fraudulent is unfounded.

9. That the content of para 9-13 is wrong and vehemently

denied. However, it is hereby submitted that the
Complainant has defaulted on the payment of the
outstanding amount due on the credit card issued by the
Respondent Bank within the prescribed time frame.
Consequently, the Respondent has issued a
Recall/Demand notice to the Complainant, urging the
settlement of the outstanding dues. Furthermore, as per
the statement dated November 12, 2023, the total amount
due was INR 79,359.44. As per the subsequent statement
dated December 12, 2023, the total amount due escalated
to INR 82,363.08, which remains outstanding against the
Complainant. This clearly indicates the Complainant's
negligence in fulfilling his financial obligations.
10. That the content of para 14 is wrong and denied.
Hovever, the averments made in the preceding paragraphs
may be referred to as a response to this paragraph.

11. That the content of para 15 is matter of record.

12. That the content of para 16 is matter of record.

13. That the content of Prayer clause are vehemently denied.

It is denied that the Respondent has any liability towards
the Complainant and the facts and averments stated
hereinabove are being reiterated to the para under reply.

AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE

THROUGH:
KAMTI & ASSOCIATES
COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT BANK
E-259, LGF, GREATER KAILASH-1,
NEW DELHI-110048
PLACE:
DATED: __.__.2024
 BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

COMPLAINT NO. 236 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

RUPESH KUMAR ...COMPLAINANT

VARSHNEY

VERSUS

RBL BANK LTD. ...RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT

I,______________, S/o ________________, aged about ______

years, working as _______________with RBL Bank at
________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:-

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Respondent and

as such well conversant with the facts of the present case and

am authorized to depose the present Affidavit.

2. That the accompanying reply has been filed on behalf of the

Respondent and the same has been prepared by the counsel

under my instructions and the contents of the same may be read

as part and parcel of this affidavit as the same have not been

repeated herein for the sake of brevity.

3. That the contents of reply are true and correct to the best of my

knowledge and nothing material has been concealed.

4. That all the annexures annexed along with the accompanying

reply are true copies of their originals.

DEPONENT
VERIFICATION:

Verified at _______ on this ___ day of ________, 2024, that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge

and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT
 BEFORE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALIGARH, UTTAR PRADESH

COMPLAINT NO. 236 OF 2023

IN THE MATTER OF:

RUPESH KUMAR COMPLAINANT

VARSHNEY

VERSUS

RBL BANK LTD. RESPONDENT

AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF AUTHORIZED

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT UNDER
SECTION 65B OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872.

I,______________, S/o ________________, aged about ______

years, working as _______________with RBL Bank at
________________________, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare
as under:-

1. That I am the Authorized Representative of the Respondent in

the above captioned complaint and am well conversant with the
details of the matter and am competent to swear to this
affidavit.
2. That I state and submit that the emails and online document
which are annexed with the reply in the above captioned
complaint and the same has been printed from my computer
that was in my lawful control and during the relevant period the
said computer was operating properly. I took the print out of
the soft copy of the said emails and other documents and posted
the same to my counsel.
 3. That I state and submit that the print-out of the above
mentioned emails and other document is a true and verbatim
copy which is story in the computer terminal and that there has
no distortion of the content of the said document as mentioned
hereinabove.
4. That I say that the contents of the affidavit are true and correct

to the best of my knowledge.

VERIFICATION:

Verified at _______ on this ___ day of ________, 2024, that the

contents of the above affidavit are true and correct to my knowledge

and no part of it is false and nothing material has been concealed

therefrom.

DEPONENT