AMITA VATSA Vs. CITI BANK N A

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.02.2010 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, 'the State Commission') in Appeal No. 1570 of 2009 Citibank N.A. Vs. Amith Vatsa and in Appeal No. 2469 of 2009 Amita Vatsa Vs. Citibank N.A. by which, while allowing appeal of OP, order of District forum allowing complaint was set aside.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/Petitioner while shopping at Shopper's Stop at Bangalore during February, 2008 was asked whether she will be interested in taking up a card which will enable her in availing discounts based on the points. After few weeks she was sent a card which was bearing a joint logo and name of Shopper's stop and Citi Bank. She found her name appearing in the card was totally incorrect. She called up Citi Bank and told that she do not want any credit card which has been sent to her. She was travelling between Bangalore and Calcutta. During journey this card was misplaced or stolen. The card was blocked on her request but she shocked to know that the card has been misused for an amount of Rs.54,195/- on June 26, 2008. She was shocked and told that this is a fraudulent use and no payment to merchant should be given unless it is investigated. Complainant stated that she received letter from Citi Bank stating that the disputed charge has occurred prior to the report of loss of the card. Therefore, they regret their inability to help in this regard. Complainant received the card statement from the Citi Bank on 27.7.2008 stating that details of purchases made using the card and also confirming that a payment of Rs.48,000/- has been received against purchases. However, the fact that neither the complainant has made any purchase nor has made any payment. The series of events shows inaction and irresponsible behavior on the part of opposite party. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before District forum. OP resisted complaint and submitted that opposite party had issued credit card with a limit of Rs.60,000/- as per application. Complainant could have returned the card to the opposite party for rectification. If the complainant had reported the loss of card immediately, the opposite party could have blocked the card and use of the card by unauthorized person could have been avoided. Card member is responsible for wrongful use of the card. Complainant was negligent in handling the card. Complainant reported opposite party about the loss of card on 28.6.2006. As per the card member agreement, Card holder is bound to pay all the charges prior to the intimation. OP immediately blocked the card on receipt of the complaint. Denying any deficiency on the part of O P, prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District forum after hearing both the parties, allowed complaint and directed OP to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation and also reverse charges or write off due amount in respect of credit card. Both parties preferred appeal before learned State Commission and learned State Commission vide impugned order dismissed appeal of complainant and allowed appeal of OP and dismissed complaint against which, these revision petitions have been filed.

(3.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.