STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI First Appeal No. A/22/789 (Arisen out of order dated 08/07/2022 passed in Complaint No.199 of 2021 by District consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai)

SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Through its Authorized Representative, Office at Unit No. 401 & 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E 1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034 And Office at DLF Infinity Tower, 'C", 10th, 11^th and 12^th Floor, DLF Infinity, Block No. 2, Building No. 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana 122 002 Email: PayalM.Chhabra@sbicard.com …..Appellant/Original Opposite Party Versus Kamlesh D Vyas Age: Adult, Occupation: Chartered Accountant, Residing at Flat No. 301, Siddheshwar Heights, CHSL, Mogal Lane, Mahim, Mumbai-400016 …..Respondent/Original Complainant Corum:

Mr. Mukesh V. Sharma, Presiding Member, Mr. Satish A. Munde, Member For the Appellant(s): Advocate Asha Bhuta For the Respondent(s): Respondent

JUDGMENT

(Dated 26/09/2024)

Per Mr.Mukesh V. Sharma – Presiding Member:

(1) This appeal has been filed by the appellant, SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., against the order dated 08.07.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Central Mumbai, Parel, in Consumer Complaint No. 199 of 2021, whereby the District Commission partly allowed the complaint of the respondent, Mr. Kamlesh D. Vyas, and directed the appellant to reverse the amounts of Rs. 93,030/- and Rs. 5,000/- with applicable interest and GST, and also to pay Rs. 50,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation costs.

(2) Facts of the case is that the respondent, Mr. Kamlesh D. Vyas, a senior citizen and a practicing Chartered Accountant, alleged that on 09.02.2020, two unauthorized transactions amounting to Rs. 93,030/- and Rs. 5,000/- were conducted on his SBI credit card, which he did not initiated or authorized. Upon receiving notification of these transactions, the respondent immediately reported the matter to the appellant and had his card blocked. A police complaint was also lodged. Despite the respondent's prompt actions, the appellant debited the disputed amounts from the respondent's account. Dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint to the Banking Ombudsman, which only resulted in a partial reversal of Rs. 49,015/-, the respondent filed a complaint before the District Commission.

(3) The respondent submitted before this Commission that, despite the pendency of the present appeal and the stay granted on the operation of the District Commission's order, the appellant continued to send recovery agents to his residence, causing undue harassment. The respondent argued that these actions, including frequent visits by agents, continuous messages, and phone calls to him, as well as to his relatives and friends, were deliberate attempts to intimidate and harass him, particularly given that an order had already been passed in his favor. The respondent provided copies of written notes of arguments, asserting that the conduct of the appellant's representatives was in clear violation of principles of fairness and justice while the appeal was still pending.

(4) The appellant, through its authorized representative, admitted to sending agents to the respondent's residence as part of their "recovery process." The respondent contended that this not only amounted to harassment but also indicated contempt for the judicial process, as the appellant was fully aware that the matter was sub judice. The appellant’s continued recovery efforts, despite these assertions, appeared to be a calculated attempt to undermine the authority of this Commission.

(5) Upon reviewing the documents, including the affidavit of the appellant's representative, it is evident that the appellant’s actions raise serious concerns. The appellant’s defense that these were part of a standard recovery protocol does not justify its disregard for the ongoing legal proceedings. We condemn