DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144
C.C. CASE NO. 82 OF 2018
DATE OF FILING: 10/07/2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 30/07/2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member : Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : 1. Ashok Pal, S/O – Sanjoy Pal, Residing at Vill. & P.O. – Madarat (Sardarpara), P.S. - Baruipur, Dist. - South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743610.
2. Ashok Mondal, S/O – Late Rampada Mondal, Residing at Madarat Gayenpara, P.O. - Madarat, P.S. - Baruipur, Dist. - South 24 Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : 1. Amazon Seller Services Authority Corporate Office, 9th Floor, Tanisha Building, 4A Camac Street, Kolkata – 700 017.
2. Credit Card Authority, 1 No. Shakespeare Sarani, A.C. Market Building, 4th Floor, Kolkata – 700 071.
3. Branch Manager, Axis Bank Baruipur Branch, Baruipur Kulpi Road, Kolkata – 700 144.
_______________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
Sri Ananta Kumar Kapri, President
Facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant no. 1 i.e. Ashok Pal made an online purchase of some electronic goods from Amazon.in, worth of Rs. 27,000/- by using the credit card of complainant no. 2 i.e. Ashok Mondal, issued by O.P. no 3 i.e. the Axis Bank. An EMI of Rs. 2,410/- per month was granted to complainant no. 1 by the bank for repayment of the aforesaid money. The said complainant also defaulted in payment of the sum of all the EMIs. Ultimately the O.P. bank i.e. the Axis Bank recovered Rs. 40,700/- from the account of the complainant and thus the bank realized Rs. 13,900/- more than the purchase price of the electronic goods. The bank has turned deaf ear to the demand of complainant no. 1 for return of Rs. 13,900/- to his account and therefore complainant no. 1 has filed the instant case praying for refund of the said amount i.e. 13,900/- to his account and also for compensation etc. Complainant no. 2 has been subsequently impleaded to this case. Hence, this case.
O.P. nos. 2 and 3 have filed the W.V. to contest herein. It is contended by them that the credit card was issued in the name of complainant no. 2 and complainant no. 1 has no locus-standi to use the credit card of complainant no. 2. According to them, there arises no question of deducting Rs. 13,900/- from the account of complainant no. 1. Complainant no. 1 is not a credit card holder; she does not have any account in the bank; she is completely a third party to transaction which took place between the bank authority and the O.P. no. 1 i.e. the seller of electronic goods. That apart, complainant no. 2 cannot transfer the credit card to complainant no. 1 for using the same in any kind of transaction. Complainant no. 1 is not their consumer and therefore the case is not maintainable in law and should be dismissed in limini with cost. O.P. no. 1 has also filed W/V herein but has not turned upto contest the case and therefore the case is heard ex-parte against him.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR CONSIDERATION
- Are the O.Ps guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant?
- Are the complainants entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complainant is treated as evidence of complainant, vide his petition dated 15.11.2018. Evidence on affidavit is filed by the O.Ps no. 2 & 3 and the same is kept in record.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no. 1 & 2 :
In the instant case the allegation of complainant no. 1 is that the O.P. bank has deducted Rs. 13,900/- more from his account maintained with the bank i.e. O.P. no. 2 and 3. The facts of the complainant are that he purchased some electronic goods worth of Rs. 27,000/- through online shopping from O.P. no. 1 by using the credit card of complainant no. 2 and therefore the O.P. bank should have deducted Rs. 27,000/- from his (complainant no. 1) account. But, the O.P. bank has deducted Rs. 40,700/- i.e. Rs. 13,900/- more than the purchase price of the electronic goods and he is therefore entitled to get back that excess money to his account. On perusal of the material on record, it is found that complainant no. 1 has not been able to furnish any document before the forum to prove that the aforesaid money i.e. Rs13,900/- has been deducted by the O.P. bank from his account. It is without any dispute that complainant no. 1 used the credit card of complainant no. 2 for making online shopping of electronic goods worth of Rs. 27,000/-. So, in the circumstances there arises no question as to deduction of money from the account of complainant no. 1 and if any money is required to be deducted in connection with the said transaction, it is to be deducted from the account of complainant no. 2 maintained by O.P. bank and in whose name stands the credit card. Regard being had to all these facts and circumstances of the case, we do hold that there is no merit in the allegation of complainant no. 1 and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
So far as the complaint of complainant no. 2 i.e. Ashok Mondal is concerned; he appears to be not entitled to any relief in this case. It is true that one credit card has been issued in favour of complainant no. 2 by O.P. no. 2 / bank. Complainant no. 2 is bound to abide by the terms and conditions of credit card. The relevant terms of the said credit card is reproduced as hereunder.
“2.3 The Card is not transferrable, and you should safeguard the same from misuse, by retaining it under your personal control at all time.”
The credit card is not transferable. In the instant case the undisputed fact is that complainant no.2 has transferred his credit card to complaint no. 1 and complainant no. 1 has used the same for purchasing electronic goods through online shopping. Such use of the credit card of complainant no. 2 by complainant no. 1 is unauthorized use of the credit card; this amounts to transfer of credit card by complainant no. 2 to complainant no. 1, flouting the aforesaid terms and condition of the credit card. Complainant no. 2 has acted in violation of the term of the credit card and thus he has been made himself defaulter of the term of credit card. Being a defaulter and violator of the terms of credit card, complainant no. 2 is not entitled to get any relief from the forum and therefore the case should also be dismissed against him and accordingly it is dismissed.
In the result, the case fails.
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complainant case be and the same is dismissed on contest against O.P. nos. 2 and 3 and dismissed ex-parte against O.P. no. 1.
Register-in-charge is directed to supply a copy of this judgment at once free of cost to the parties concerned.
I/We agree Member President
Directed and corrected by me
President
