Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/39/2016

Pritam Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	39 of 2016
Date  of  Institution	:	14.01.2016
Date   of   Decision	:	11.01.2017

 

 

 

 

Pritam Singh s/o Sh.Man Singh, 1329-A, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh  

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  Axis Bank Limited, Credit card Operations, Gigaplex, 4^th Floor, NPC-1, Building No.1, Plot No.I.T.5, MIDC, Airoli Knowledge Park, Airoli, Navi Mumbai 400708

2]  The Pashtun Restaurant, SCO No.333-334, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160022

3]  Axis Bank Limited, SCO 343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh 160022  

….. Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

For complainant(s)      : Complainant in person.

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Rajeev Bhardwaj, Advocate for OP-1.

  Sh.Manoj Kumar, Authorised Agent for OP-2.

  Sh.Saurav Goyal, Adv. for OP No.3.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, Opposite Party Axis Bank issued ‘Credit Card – Titanium Master Card’ to the complainant. It is averred that on 13.6.2015 the complainant received an e-mail from OP Bank about a scheme titled “Dining Delights” valid for Axis Bank Cardholders, according to which the bank has tie up with 4000 partner restaurants across the country and if the complainant dine there and make payment through Axis Bank Card, minimum 15% discount would be given.  To avail that benefit, the complainant visited OP No.2 Restaurant for meal and made payment of food bill of Rs.805/- through OP Axis Bank Credit Card, but was given no discount by OP No.2. On discussing the matter with OP No.2, it told that the discount would be provided in the form of Cash Back by the bank only.  Then again the complainant visited OP NO.2 Restaurant on 29.6.2015 and paid the food bill of Rs.756/- through OP Axis Bank credit card. However, on both the occasions neither OP NO.1 & 3 gave the benefit of cash back of 15% discount nor OP NO.2 provided the same.  Thereafter, the complainant took the matter with OPs a number of times for entitled cash back amounting to Rs.234/- [15% of 1561 (805+756)], but they did not pay any heed.  Hence, this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs has been filed.

 

2]       Opposite Party NO.1 initially put in appearance through Sh.Saurav Goyal, Advocate, who later on withdrew his Vakalanama on behalf of Opposite Party NO.1 as is clear from order dated 20.9.2016.  Thereafter, fresh notice was issued to OP NO.1 in response to which Sh.Rajeev Bhardwaj, Advocate put in appearance, but since none appeared on behalf of Opposite Party NO.1 on 5.12.2016, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 5.12.2016.

         The Opposite Party NO.2 has filed short reply stating that the complaint is not maintainable against it, as the complainant has no relationship of ‘consumer’ qua OP No.2 as the grievance of the complainant lies with the OP Axis Bank only for non-payment of cash back as committed. It is stated that however a complementary scheme for 15% discount on the food bill was floated, subject to the submission of the credit card prior to the generation of the bill, whereas the complainant has never submitted the credit card before generation of the bill nor he asked for the discount before generation of the bill.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 

         The Opposite Party NO.3 has also filed reply and stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present complaint as the complainant in order to file the present complaint in Chandigarh had made OP No.3 party to the complaint, whereas OP No.3 had no role in the present complaint. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.

 

3]       Replications have also been filed by the complainant thereby reiterating the assertions as made in the complaint and controverting that of the OPs in the reply.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]       We have heard the complainant, authorised agent of OP NO.2 and ld.Counsel for OPs NO.1 & 3 and have also perused the entire record as well as written arguments. 

 

6]       The factual matrix of the case, as narrated by the complainant, is well corroborated in shape of duly sworn affidavit produced on record by the complainant. The e-mail correspondence record exchanged between Axis Bank and the complainant broadly reveals that despite of the assurance of 15% cashback scheme, the OP No.1 failed to redress the grievance of the complainant regarding non-payment of the same. Their inaction forced the complainant to indulge in litigation to get his rightful claim. Even in the present litigation also, OP NO.1 initially put appearance in the notice of the complaint through counsel and failed to file any reply or version to counter the allegations made by the complainant. After withdrawal of Power of Attorney by the counsel for OP No.1, fresh notice was issued whereupon Sh.Rajeev Bhardwaj, Advocate appeared and filed memo of appearance and further on the next date of hearing none appeared on behalf of OP No.1 and thus chose to be proceeded exparte; raising presumption that either the OP No.1 admits the claim of the complainant or has nothing to contradict the same. 

 

7]       It is proved case of the complainant that OP NO.1 despite its commitment under the scheme of “Dining Delights” on Axis Bank Credit Card of 15% cash back on the bill amount, failed to honour the same, is nonetheless an act of deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.1. 

 

8]       The Opposite Party No.2 has taken the stand in the written statement that the complainant never disclosed the factum of having Credit Card issued in his favour by OP Bank whereby he was entitled for 15% discount under the “Dining Delights” scheme of the bank before the generation of the bills in dispute. We feel that the stand of OP NO.2 is belied for the simple reason that the complainant made the payment through that credit card only issued in his favour, which he duly presented for the payment of the bills in question; also failed to prove that the complainant was entitled for the discount of 15% cash back in case he shows the credit card in question before the generation of the bill as alleged in its reply.  Moreover, Opposite Party No.2 has not denied that the complainant was entitled for 15% of discount on the bill amounts. 

 

9]       In the light of above observations, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs jointly & severally. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed as under:-

 

[a]      To refund an amount of Rs.234/- being the cash back amount to the complainant for which he was entitled under the 15% cash back scheme;

 

[b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment for the deficiency in service of the OPs.

 

[c]     To pay Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant. 

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on amount as mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] above from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from paying litigation expenses.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

11^th January, 2017                                                                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER