Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/502/2005

P.S.Krishnamoorthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

American Express Banking Corp & Other - Opp.Party(s)

T.K.S.Gandhi & Others

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   01.09.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   11.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                  : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II  

       

C.C.NO.502/2005

WEDNESDAY THIS  11^TH  DAY OF JANUARY  2017

 

P.S. Krishnamoorthy,

S/o. P.R. Subramaniyan,

No.91, Rasappa Chetty Street,

Park Town,

Chennai 600 003.                                          ..Complainant

 

                                              ..Vs..

1.  American Express Banking Corporation,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.187, Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 006.

 

2. American Express Banking Corporation,

Rep. by its Chief Manager,

Wenger House, Block A,

Cannaught Place,

New Delhi 110 001.                                          ..Opposite parties

 

For the Complainant                   :    M/s. T.K.S. Gandhi & others    

For the opposite parties               :    M/s. K.Suresh Babu & another.

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act to seek direction  to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony due to deficiency of service and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant is the card holder of AMEX card issued by the opposite parties and his credit limit is Rs.46,000/-.  He is regularly settling the bills.   As per bill dated 30.11.2002 the amount of closing balance in the above said credit card cost of Rs.18,485.18 for the period from 30.10.2202 to 19.11.2002.

2.     On 13.12.2002 the complainant along with his co-director and three foreign delegates went to M/s. Park Sheraton Hotel and Towers for lunch and to clear the Hotel bill for Rs.2105.70, when the complainant presented the said American Express card, to his great shock and surprise the hotel officials returned the said card stating that the same was declined.   Unfortunately, on that particular day the complainant did not carry any money with him, as he had full confidence over the said card.  Therefore, he was constrained to send someone to his home and arrange to settle the bill.   But due to the above incident, the complainant has lost his image completely before the said foreigners and it will reflect in his business also and therefore the complainant was put to great tension and agony and torture.  When the complainant later verified about the decline of the card and it was found that there was no valid reason, though the sufficient amount was available to him to meet the expense.   As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service.     

3.     Therefore, the complainant sent a  registered legal notice dated 30.12.2002 for claiming compensation towards damages mental tension, agony etc.   The opposite party sent an interim reply on 7.1.2003, since final reply was not sent as promised, the complainant sent another notice dated 9.3.2003 to comply with the demand as claimed.  Then only the opposite parties sent a reply dated 30.4.2003, which is highly false.  As per the statement of account, the available credit limit of the complainant’s credit card on 13.12.2002 was not Rs.968.38 as alleged by opposite party.   Therefore to give a final opportunity, the complainant sent a rejoinder dated 3.5.2003 but the opposite party has neither sent any reply nor paid any compensation.  Again, the complainant sent another rejoinder of the notice to the 1^st opposite party on 12.11.2004 and the same was received by the opposite party-2.  The 2^nd opposite party only replied on 14.12.2004.  Whereas the 1^st opposite party has not courtesy even to sent a reply ot the above said legal notice.    Therefore, there is no response from the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint.  

4. Written Version of  opposite party is  in brief as follows:

        There is no cause of action.  The allegation made in the complaint are all false.  It is a settled proposition of law that if a case has to be filed against a corporate entity, it must be filed at a place where the main office of the corporate entity is situated.    It is respectfully reiterated that the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum at Chennai has been invoked by the complaint without any legal and factual basis.  Thus the compliant is likely to be dismissed on this ground alone.   As will be observed from the statement of account dated 30.11.2002, the available credit limit for the complainant on that date was Rs.27,514.82.   Further charges totaling Rs.14,470.44, as reflected in the statement of account dated 29.12.2002 were booked  which includes a charge of Rs.12,076.00 at Mustafa Gold Mart, Chennai on 9.12.22002.   The system record shows that this service establishment Mustafa Gold Mart has swiped the complainant’s card twice thus obtaining the approval of the charge of Rs.12,076/- twice on the same day.    Therefore the system recorded approval of two charges of Rs.1,2076 each.    As a result, against the available credit limit Rs.27,514.82 a total expenditure of Rs.26,546.44 was booked in the opposite party ‘s account since the total expenditure was still within the available limit it was authorized leaving available credit limit on the card as 968.38.   

5.     On December 13, 2002, Adyar Gate Hotel asked for approval of an expense of Rs.2105.70 on the card of the complainant.   It was automatically declined by the system as the available credit limit then was only Rs.968.38.   The complainant did not contact the opposite party bank when the charge was declined, otherwise the position would have been clarified and the issue would have been sorted out.   After the complainant spoke to the bank later on December 13, 2002, the position was explained to him and on his clarification the duplicate approval was reversed and the establishment was informed.  It need be mentioned that at the time of declining the charge the complainant had already delayed the payment for over 30 days as will be seen from the statement of account dated 20.6.2002.   In all, the complainant has delayed payment over 30 days eight times as will be reflected in the statements of account dated 29.6.2002, 29.9.2003, 29.12.2003, 29.2.2004, 29.11.2004, 29.3.2005, 29.5.2005, and 29.4.2006. 

6.     So. it is wrong to say that the complainant is prompt and regular in settling the bills and then on to say that on 13.12.2002 there was sufficient amount available in his credit limit to meet the expense of Rs.2,105.70.    It is denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  In fact there was no mistake on the part of the opposite parties in making a double entry of the charge on Mustafa Gold Mart.  There was no reason for the opposite party to reverse the entry between December 9 and 13, 2002 on its own.   Therefore the claim is frivolous, vexatious and untenable in law and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

7.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with for evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and no documents marked on the side of the opposite parties.

 

8.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

9.      POINT NO.1

           The admitted case is that the complainant is the card holder of AMEX card issued by the opposite parties and the credit limit is Rs.46,000/- and using the said card by the complainant on 13.12.2002 the copy of the statement of account which is marked as Ex.A1.  It is further learnt from the evidence of the complainant that when the complainant used the said card on 13.12.2002 to clear the hotel bill for Rs.2105.70 between declined and for which Ex.A2 is marked.   It is further stated by the complainant in his evidence that later on, when he find about the decline of the said card, it was found that there is no valid reason to decline the card though it is found that  sufficient amount was available to meet the expenses.  Therefore, the statement of account is dated 29.12.2002 and 29.1.2003 is marked as Ex.A3 & Ex.A6 respectively.    

10.    Thereafter,  the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.A4 to the opposite party and reply Ex.A5 sent by the opposite party-2, so the complainant again sent the legal notice Ex.A7  to the opposite party and on receipt  they sent Ex.A8 reply notice and for which the complainant had issued Ex.A9 rejoinder legal notice and for that no reply from the opposite party the complainant was constrained to send  legal notice Ex.A10 and the same was received by opposite parties 1 & 2.  The acknowledgement cards were marked as Ex.A11 and Ex.A12 respectively.   It is further stated by the complainant that the legal notice Ex.A10 sent by the complainant to the opposite party-2 but  the opposite party-2 sent a reply Ex.A13 but even thereafter the opposite party has fulfilled the demand of the complainant and because of the decline of the card  without any valid reason suffered much hardship and mental agony and also he lost his image completely before the said foreigners and the same has been reflected in his business also.

11.    While being so, on going through the evidence of the opposite parties, it is stated that there was no mistake on the part of the opposite parties regarding two entries performing to Mustafa Gold Mart, when they did seek two approvals which were given on 9.12.2002.  It is further stated that it is fully wrong to say that on 13.12.2002 there was a sufficient amount available in the credit limit of the complainant to meet expense of Rs.2105.70.  It is further explained in his evidence that from the system records shows that the service establishment, Mustafa Gold Mart had swiped the complainant’s card twice thus obtaining the approval of the charge of Rs.12076 twice on the same day and  as a result, against the available credit limit Rs.27,514.82 a total expenditure of Rs.26,546.44 was booked in the opposite party’s account.   Therefore, it is purely to decline because of the available credit amount was less than the total bill of Rs.2105.70.   It is further seen  from the evidence of the opposite parties that the complainant has not contacted the bank on the day when the charge was declined.  In fact, the complainant had spoken to the Bank later on December 13, 2002 only, immediately the charges who has reversed December 13, 2002.   In such a position, on seeing the evidence of the complainant  as well as averment in the complaint, it is crystal clear that he has simply mentioned that later the complainant verified about the reason to decline the card.  But not mentioned about the particular date in which he was verified is not found in the evidence of the complainant.   So it clearly reveals the facts that the complainant had approached the opposite party’s bank only on December 13,  2002 instead of  9.12.2002.   If he would have approached on the day itself the problem would have been rectified at all as rightly pointed out by the opposite parties in his written arguments as well as proof affidavit.  While so, there is certainly no evidence on the side of the complainant to that effect.  Regarding the non mentioning in the statement of account December 29^th 2002, the opposite party has clearly explained in his written version as well as proof affidavit.

12.    From the foregoing other facts and evidence adduced on the side of both the parties the swiped of the complainant’s card twice Mustafa Gold Mart is vital reason for the reduction of available amount and therefore there is no fault on the part of the opposite parties and thereby there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

 

13..   Point No.2

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  11^th  day  of  January 2017.

        

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 30.11.2002         - Copy of Statement of account of opposite party.

Ex.A2- 18.12.2002         - Copy of letter of Hotel Park Sheraton.

Ex.A3- 29.12.2002         - Copy of state of account of opposite party.

Ex.A4- 30.12.2002         - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A5- 7.1.2003    - Copy of reply of opposite party.

Ex.A6- 29.1.2003 - Copy of Statement of account of opposite party.

Ex.A7- 9.3.2009    - Copy of Legal notice.

Ex.A8- 30.4.2003  - Copy of reply of opposite party.

Ex.A9- 3.5.2003    - Copy of rejoinder legal notice.

Ex.A10- 12.11.2004- Copy of rejoinder legal notice.

Ex.A11-       -       -  Copy of Ack. Card of 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A12-       -       - Copy of Ack. Card of 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A13- 14.12.2004- Copy of reply of opposite party.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.