Order No. 34 dt. 30/06/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a trader of computer and he earns his livelihood through the said business. For the purpose of his business he hired the services of o.p. bank. The function of POS terminal installed by the bank is that the complainant being authorized to accept credit card from his customers and the bank is liable to debit the amount of the customer and credit the amount to the complainant’s account. As per usual course of business the complainant sold two laptops along accessories to o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 presented a credit card for payment of Rs.90,984/- being the value of the said transaction. The o.p. bank duly settled the transaction vide TID No.33314817 on the same day but o.p. no.1 did not credit the amount of transaction in favour of the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case making allegation against o.p. bank for adopting unfair trade practice and prayed for direction upon o.p. no.1 to release the fund of Rs.90,984/- along with interest and compensation of Rs.1 lakh and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.
The o.p. no.1 contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant entered into a Merchant Establishment Legal Agreement with o.p. bank in respect of credit card transaction. In the said agreement it was stated that the bank will credit the complainant’s account with some of transactions made on valid credit card. The o.p. no.1is not liable for crediting the amount in respect of using by the credit card holder of a counterfeit card. As per the agreement it has been specifically stated that in case of acceptance of valid card from foreigners the merchant will verify the identity of the card holder with his valid passport and note the passport number, country of issuance of passports and the local address of the card holder and keep it for records along with the copy of the terminal receipt. None of the above steps have been complied or undertaken by the complainant in respect of the concerned transaction. The complainant was provided with training regarding the using of the credit card during the transactions in respect of the credit card but the complainant did not follow the said instructions provided in the training programme. The o.p. no.1 further stated that on 2.2.11 the complainant allegedly sold two laptops to o.p. no.2 and o.p. no.2 offered the credit card bearing no.4264287793953601. The complainant while found that the amount was not credited to the tune of Rs.90,984/- in his account and while the complainant raised the point as to why the amount was not credited to his account the complainant was informed by o.p. no.1 regarding the entire fact but in spite of knowing the said fact the complainant filed this case without any cogent reason whatsoever for which o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
In spite of receipt of notice the o.p. no.2 did not contest this case by filing w/v and as such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the o.p. no.2.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the facility of POS?
- Whether the transaction of Rs.90,984/- was illegally withheld by o.p. no.1?
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. bank?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that in order to run the business the complainant obtained the POS facility of o.p. bank. There is an agreement to that effect that whenever a credit card holder will purchase any article from the complainant through POS system by availing of the credit card facility it is the duty of the bank to debit the amount from the account of the credit card holder and credit the said amount in the account of the complainant. But the complainant had a transaction with using of the said POS issued by o.p. no.1. The o.p. no.2 purchased the laptops with accessories worth of Rs.90,984/-. At the time of purchase o.p. no.2 availed of the credit card facility and accordingly the goods were delivered to o.p. no.2. In spite of having the transaction on 2.2.11 the complainant found that o.p. no.1 did not credit the amount in the account of the complainant. Since there was unfair trade practice adopted by o.p. no.1 the complainant filed this case praying for the reliefs as made out in the complaint petition.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. no.1 argued that before installing the POS issued by o.p. no.1 gave training to the complainant regarding the operation of the said POS vis-à-vis the protection of the amount involved in the transaction by using by visa card, debit card, credit card, etc. It was specifically stated that as agreed between the parties as per the agreement which has been produced by o.p. no.1 that in case of acceptance of valid card from the foreigners the merchant will verify the identity of the card holder with his valid passport and note the passport number, country of issuance of passport and the local address of the card holder and keep it for records along with a copy of the terminal receipt. Subsequently when the said fact was brought to the notice of o.p. no.1, the o.p. no.1 thoroughly checked and noticed that the said card was a counterfeit and the said fact was informed to the complainant. In spite of giving such information to the complainant, the complainant made false allegation against the o.p. no.1 alleging that there was unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. no.1. In view of such background o.p. no.1 prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had the privilege of user of POS issued by o.p. no.1. It is also an admitted fact which is crystal clear from the documents filed by o.p. no.1 that before availing of the POS from o.p. no.1 an agreement was entered into between the parties which is known as Merchant Establishment Legal Agreement. In the said agreement it was categorically stated as to the mode of user of said POS as well as the acceptance of visa card, debit card, credit card, etc. Before handing over the POS to the complainant a training was also provided by o.p. no.1 to the complainant. It is also an admitted fact that the transaction took place and o.p. no.2 perhaps a foreigner purchased two laptops. It is curious enough that the complainant failed to note of the necessary documents at the time of said transaction viz. before acceptance of valid card the merchant will verify the identity of the card holder with his valid passport and note the passport number, country of issuance of passport and local address of the card holder and keep it for record with a copy of terminal receipt. But it is curious enough that the complainant totally ignored the mandatory precaution ought to have been taken as per the said agreement but the complainant ignored the same, therefore he has suffered loss. Subsequently when the fact was brought to the notice of o.p. no.1 it as detected that the credit card was counterfeit one, thereby the amount was not credited in the account of the complainant. In view of such fact and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by both the parties we hold that there was no unfair trade practice or any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. thereby the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.191/2011 is dismissed on contest against o.p. no.1 and dismissed ex parte against the o.p. no.2 without cost.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
