The Court of Justice of the State of São Paulo (TJSP) decided to maintain the conviction of Pag Seguro for not blocking the account of a user who had her cell phone stolen. The amount of compensation reached R$5,500 for moral damage, in addition to the refund of the R$9,900 transferred from the account by the criminals – totaling an account of R$14,500.
According to the 21st Chamber of Private Law of the TJSP, the case was framed within the Consumer Defense Code (CDC) as a situation that caused damage to the client, regardless of any question related to guilt. In this case, the financial institution is objectively liable for the event, in accordance with article 14, § 3, of the CDC.
The conviction of Pag Seguro
Image: Tero Vesalainen/Shutterstock
Pag Seguro tried unsuccessfully to argue that the fault, in the case, was exclusively the customer who, according to the institution, should have better protected the device.
However, according to the records, the user had her cell phone stolen and contacted the bank to request the blocking of the account she owned, as she had the financial institution’s application installed on the device.
The attendant who received the call, which would have lasted 27 minutes, did not authorize the block, which later gave criminals enough time to divert the R$9,900 from the user’s account.
For the rapporteur of the case, judge Décio Rodrigues, it was “evident that the financial institution did not fulfill its part of the contractual relationship, because, despite being aware of the illicit and that the appellee did not transfer the amount, which was duly challenged, did not carry out its reversal”.
He also argued that “there is no doubt that the debt was unenforceable, having been characterized as the defendant’s poor provision of services, insofar as it was not possible to block the account as soon as the cell phone was removed.”
Also according to Rodrigues, the unsuccessful attempt to resolve the issue caused “anguish, annoyance and frustration”, in addition to “disruption, shame and emotional exhaustion”, which would have constituted compensation for moral damages.
“Those who need to seek solutions to problems through customer service services, by whatever means, are most often forced to face a real via crucis to vehemently test the patience of consumers by subjecting them to long waiting periods, transfers of the matter to various agents, without the situation being promptly resolved, especially in urgent cases, such as the one in the case, in which the issue of time was essential for the fraudsters to act”, added the magistrate.
The sentence condemning the bank was unanimously upheld.
Via: ConJur
