ORDER

The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondent as detailed above, under section 58 (1) (b) of Consumer Protection Act 2019, against the order dated 23.11.2021 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 304 of 2020 in which order dated 22.05.2019 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 130 of 2018 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order 23.11.2021 of the State Commission.

2. While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum. Notice was issued to the Respondent on 06.04.2022. Parties filed Written Arguments on 06.12.2023 (Petitioner) and 20.11.2023 (Respondent) respectively.

3. Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that:

(i) The Petitioner is a subsidiary of SBI and issued a credit card bearing no. 5172526727659943 to the Respondent. On 04.10.2017, an international transaction of USD 700 (Rs.47,946.55/-) was done using the credit card at “Paypal Keanneswart” and received an SMS on her registered mobile no. later on. The Respondent did not receive an OTP for this transaction and reported it as fraudulent. She got the card blocked and subsequently raised the dispute regarding the said transaction. The Petitioner raised a chargeback issue with the merchant and issue temporary credit as per RBI guidelines, but after receiving valid documentation from the Merchant confirming the transaction, the Petitioner reversed the temporary credit and sought payment from the Respondent. The Respondent, however, did not settle the outstanding dues of Rs.67,689.12/-. Hence, the Respondent filed a Consumer Complaint before the District Commission

4. Vide Order dated 22.05.2019, in the CC no. 130 of 2018 the District Commission has allowed the complaint and directed the OP to credit the amount of Rs.47,946.55/- in the account of the Complainant. Aggrieved by the said Order dated 22.05.2019 of District Commission, Petitioner appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 23.11.2021 in FA No. 304 of 2020 has dismissed the appeal.

5. Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 23.11.2021 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

i. The State Commission and the District Commission failed to acknowledge the fact that the subject transaction/disputed transaction is being contended as fraudulent transaction by the Complainant, which required detailed cyber police investigation and verification of the IP address of the Complainant and as communicated in the chargeback validating document.

ii. The State Commission and the District Commission erred in not appreciating the Chargeback validating document being ID:246686461 provided on 04.01.2018 issued by the Merchant, which validated the Disputed Transaction to have been done by the Complainant.

iii. The State Commission failed to appreciate the fact that the Respondent with the malafide intent to evade her liability to repay the credit card dues was falsely alleging that the disputed transaction was a fraudulent transaction.

iv. The Complainant/Respondent is not entitled to any relief in equity against the Petitioner, as she has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before the District Commission and is guilty of concealing correct fact that the disputed transaction was carried out by her only.

v. The State Commission and District Commission both failed to consider that the direction to disburse in favour of the Respondent, the st