BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION- IV, N/E, NANDNAGRI, DELHI

C.C. NO. 114/2022

IN THE MATTER OF:-

PRAMOD KUMAR ….. COMPLAINANT
VS
HDFC BANK & ORS..............................OPPOSITE PARTIES

REJOINDER/REPLY ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT TO THE

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 1 & REPLY
OF OPPOSITE PARTY NO. 3

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:-

PRELIMINARY SUBMISSIONS/OBJECTIONS

1. That the complainant is having saving bank account no.

07091050004947 with OP no. 1 and had been availing the services

of the credit card HDFC VISA bearing no. 4893 772413 6032. The

OP no. 1 charged with penalty total Rs. 68,182/- from the

complainant’s account through 22 entries though the complainant

neither did any shopping online or offline nor transacted to anyone

else.

2. That when the complainant’s credit bill payment was due of such

huge amount showing transaction on dated 3rd and 8th September

2020 of Rs. 12,148 and Rs. 16,999 respectively, the complainant at

once filed
 complaint to the OP no. 1 regarding the forged transactions in to the

account of the complainant. It is further submitted that after

continuous multiple charges in September 2020 to December 2020

on different occasions, the complainant again contacted the OP no.1

regarding the charges in December 2020, the OP no. 1 intimated

about the shopping from the OP no. 3 i.e. Amazon for which the

complainant was quite shocked as he had neither received any OTP

in his mobile phone for the same nor did any online shopping nor

shared any of his bank details to anyone. Moreover, it is quite

shocking that 22 entries show shopping charges from Amazon i.e.

OP no. 3 whereas the complainant does not have any account on the

Amazon as he has never bought anything from the Amazon i.e. OP

no. 3. The complainant has never given anyone his phone to use for

any purpose.

3. That the complainant is also not well educated therefore, the

complainant could not figure it out that the OP no. 1 is playing fraud

upon the complainant by taking charges and penalty from the

complainant’s account. The complainant’s wife is illiterate and his

children are of tender age (Minors). The complainant has a private

job and earns as much to fulfil the basic needs of the family. It is

further submitted that the complainant doesn’t have that much

source of
 earning to enjoy online shopping every month or on daily basis as

shown in the credit card statement.

4. That the complainant made complaint in cyber cell on dated

18.12.2020 as well as the complainant made multiple manually &

online via mail id to OP no. 1 and OP no. 3 by supplying all the

relevant documents fraud played upon him, none of the opposite

parties responded to the complainant. After the complaint to the OP

no. 1 in December 2020, the complainant got his credit card with the

OP no.1 blocked even then, on 12th of each month January, February

and March 2021, Rs. 3,692/-, Rs. 3739/- and Rs. 3,785/- respectively

got debited from the new credit card of the complainant bearing no.

489377XX XXXX 9639.

5. That despite requests made by the complainant online and manually,

the OP no. 3 did not provide details i. e. name, address, mobile no.

PAN, order id, invoice details, details of the product ordered etc. of

the account holder of the OP no. 3 who used their platform for the

shopping. The OP no. 3 remained negligent and allowed its platform

to carry out unauthorized transactions. OPs didn’t take suitable

actions nor do they coordinate with each other to refund the amount

to the complainant. No tangible efforts have been made by the OP

no. 1 to track down the culprit and ensure the refund the money in

the account of the complainant.

6. That for no fault of the complainant, the bank officials have

subjected the complainant to mental harassment due to which the

complainant spent several sleepless nights and the complainant has

been falsely accused of having used/ swiped the credit card online

for which, the complainant has no knowledge of the unauthorised

fraudulent usage and protect the consumers. The bank has ignored

and negligently failed to adhere to all the norms prescribed by the

RBI in regulating and ensuring that credit card holder remain relaxed

and in making the overall environment more secure.

7. That in a move to curtail rising credit card frauds, with cyber-attacks

becoming more unpredictable and electronic payments system

becoming vulnerable to new type of misuse, it is imperative that

banks introduce certain minimum checks and balances to minimize

the impact of such attacks and to arrest/minimize the damages as per

the RBI circular to all blocks prescribing a host of higher security

standards for card payments and card accepting swipe machines. The

dispute relates to deficiency in services on the part of the opposite

parties since it had failed to discharge its bounden duty to protect the

consumer from the financial frauds especially in view of guidelines

and norms set by the RBI in the light of rising credit card frauds.

8. That the new norms which have been issued under powers acquired

by RBI under the Payment and Settlement act of 2007 mandate

penal
provisions on the failure of the banks to adhere the legal provisions as

required by the RBI.

REPLY TO PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS/ PRELIMINARY

SUBMISSIONS OF THE OP NO. 1 & 3

That the contents of the preliminary objections/

submissions of the written statement of the opposite party no.

1 and reply of OP no. 3 are wrong, baseless and concocted

hence denied totally unless specifically admitted except matter

of records. The allegations against the complainant are

vehemently denied. The contents of the complaints of the

complainant and preliminary objections/ submissions of

rejoinder/reply to the WS of OP no. 1 and reply of OP no. 3

may kindly be referred to for the sake of brevity.

REPLY TO PARAWISE REPLY OF THE OP NO. 1 AND 3

That the contents of the parawise reply to the

written statement of the opposite party no. 1 and reply of OP

no. 3 are wrong, baseless and concocted hence denied totally

unless specifically admitted except matter of records. The

 allegations against the complainant are vehemently denied.

The contents of the complaints of the complainant and

preliminary objections/ submissions of rejoinder/reply to the

WS of OP no. 1 and reply of OP no. 3 may kindly be referred

to for the sake of brevity.

The contents of Prayer clause of the written

statement of the opposite party no. 1 and reply of OP no. 3 are

wrong, baseless and concocted allegations against the

complainant hence vehemently and strongly denied. The prayer

clause of the written statement of the OP no. 1 and reply of OP

no. 3 is liable to be dismissed with heavy costs being frivolous

and misconceived. The contents of the prayer clause of the

complaint of the complainant may be referred by the Hon’ble

court for the sake of brevity.

COMPLAINANT
Delhi
Dated 20.04.2023 through
VISHAKHA MITTAL
Advocate/LAC
(O) 1175/E, Main Road
Babarpur, Delhi 32
(M) 8506880938