SBI directed to pay Rs 30,000 to govt official for wrongly blocked credit card

In May 2000 Krishna Kumar, a senior government official got a rude shock, after having a pleasant dinner evening with his family at the time of payment of bill he came to know that his credit card has been put on a high alert. When Kumar gave his credit card for the payment of the bill at the restaurant after the dinner, the restaurant manager told him that his credit card has been put on a high alert, listed as a ‘pick up card’ by his bank and would have to be seized.

When Kumar, a legal adviser with the Ministry of Law verified with the bank authorities about his credit card he was embarrassed to learn that the State Bank of India to “prevent an anticipated misuse by any third party” had indeed blocked his card.

However the ‘assumption’, proved to be costly for the bank when the State Consumer Commission took it to task in its recent order and directed SBI to pay a sum of Rs 30,000 as compensation to Kumar.

Expressing the act as the “grossest kind of deficiency in service”, Justice J D Kapoor, president of the commission, disproved the bank’s plea that it had done so to prevent misuse of the card. Justice Kapoor added, “It was obligatory on part of the service provider to immediately inform the card holder that his card was being blocked.”

The commission observed that “deficiency” of service on part of the bank can clearly be seen from the fact that the bank officials had “not verified” whether the card was in possession of the actual cardholder.

“Although the card was blocked to protect the interest of the customer, such actions are not advisable and it is incumbent upon the bank to inform the customer immediately, so that he can arrange for an alternate source of cash,” the commission noted.

Later Kumar sent a legal notice to SBI claiming damages and then approached the State Commission for redressal. In his complaint he stated that he was yet to get his card back from the authorities.

On the other hand bank on its part gave a statement that it had blocked the card in April the same year, as it had received three requests from an airline to verify a transaction that had been attempted by the cardholder.

The airline had informed that the transaction was beyond the permissible credit limit on the card. Therefore, foreseeing that a third party or the card holder himself was trying to make an “unauthorized transaction”, the authorities blocked the credit card. The bank authorities further added that it had attempted to contact Kumar via phone and courier, although it was unable to present any printed records of the above.

Disapproving the bank’s claims, Justice Kapoor directed it to pay the compensation, considering the “mental agony, humiliation, and loss of reputation” suffered by the complainant.

“The credit card has still not been returned to the complainant, who amounts to further deficiency in service on part of the bank,” Justice Kapoor added, instructed the bank to pay the sum within a month from receiving the order.