Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

120/2010

S.K.Hussain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd., vice President & others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Nataraj Shankar

18 Dec 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 20.01.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 18.12.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

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

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP., : MEMBER-II

 

C.C. No.120/2010

DATED THIS TUESDAY THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018

                                 

Mr. S.K. Hussain,

S/o. Late Mr. Syed Kasim,

No.16/33, Big Street,

Triplicane,

Chennai – 600 005.                                                      .. Complainant.                                               

 

           ..Versus..

 

1. Axis Bank Limited,

Represented by its Vice President,

No.131, Maker Tower – F,

Cuffe Parade,

Colaba,

Mumbai – 400 005.

 

2. The Senior Vice President (Compliance),

Zonal Head,

Southern Zonal Office,

No.82, Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.

 

3. The Chairman,

Jet Lite (India) Ltd.,

No.13, Community Centre,

Yusufsarai,

New Delhi – 110 041.

 

4.  The Manager,

Jet Lite,

No.1, Link Building,

Kamaraj Domestic Terminal,

Tirusulam,

Meenambakkam,

Chennai – 600 027.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant                 :  M/s. S. Nataraj Shankar &

                                                            another

Counsel for opposite parties 1 & 2 :  M/s. D. Sathyaraj & another

Counsel for opposite parties 3 & 4 :  M/s. Gupta & another

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to pay a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony damages caused to the complainant on account of the illegal, unethical, improper, negligent and incorrect actions of the opposite parties and amount lost on account of the mental torture caused to the complainant with cost to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is a physically handicapped man working  as  a part time Marketing Manager in a garment and allied products export unit at Chennai.   In order to develop the local business and obtain some foreign trade with the consultation with the ministry concerned he had planned to visit New Delhi and to invite one Central Cabinet Hon’ble Minister for his concern ‘PIPOE ENTERPRISES’.   The complainant submits that he proposed to visit New Delhi on 22.06.2009 urgently and booked the Airline tickets of the 3^rd opposite party on 20.06.2009 through online using credit card bearing No.4718 6000 0004 0004 4125.  The confirmed ticket also generated through the computer.  The complainant submits that while reaching the airport on 22.06.2009 and when the printed e-ticket and the credit card were tendered for exchange of regular airways ticket by the complainant to the desk operated by the 4^th opposite party, he was informed that the complainant’s ticket was cancelled since the 1^st opposite party  refused to make payment through credit card caused great inconvenience and huge loss of his business and future career.   The cancellation of e-ticket by the opposite parties 3 & 4 and non-payment for the e-ticket by the opposite parties 1 & 2 are illegal and improper.   The complainant submits that the 4^th opposite party refused to issue the boarding permit and in the whole pandemonium the complainant misplaced his purse containing few other credit cards of other banks, a sum of Rs.20,000/- and visiting cards of some of the VIPs., he had planned to meet.    In the said circumstances, the complainant could not also pay immediately for the flight tickets again and as he felt that as he could not abandon the pre-committed meetings with the Hon’ble Minister and other Dignitaries; also troubled his family members in the early morning to fetch cash and to bring another credit card of some other bank to make payment for his tickets and for his expenses at New Delhi.  The act of the opposite parties caused great mental agony.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as per the definition of 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and also, the alleged deficiency in service of the complainant is not applicable under section 2 (g) of the said act.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that on application after entering into the contract the complainant was issued credit card facility initially and the limit was given upto Rs.4,00,000/- thereafter, it was reduced to Rs.2,96,000/-.   The complainant used the credit card for retail purchase to the tune of Rs.3,90,014.65/-.  The cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- also made and has made partial payment of Rs.2,16,192/- alone.  The total outstanding as on 29.10.2009 was Rs.3,40,132.59 which exceeds the limit of Rs.2,96,000/-.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the process involved in e-ticket booking requires CVV number etc.  If the bank authorizes the transaction, an e-ticket will be generated by Airlines.   If the bank does not authorize the transaction an error message will appear that the transaction is declined.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the allegation of consultation with ministry in New Delhi are not acceptable in the absence of any evidence.   The allegation of mental agony and business loss etc are imaginary and cannot be acceptable inconsideration of the usage of credit card and keeping balance and credit limit etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties 3 & 4 is as follows:

The opposite parties 3 & 4 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 3 & 4 state that there is no nexus in between assertions of the complainant and the amount claimed by the complainant at par with act of alleged omission or commission indicated in the complaint.    The opposite parties 3 & 4 state that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as per definition under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with regards to the unsuccessful transaction of buying of ticket belonging to the opposite parties 3 & 4.  It is submitted that no consideration has been received by the opposite parties 3 & 4 for issuance of e-tickets which has been cancelled since the transaction was not successful as no tickets were issued / generated against credit card No.4718 6000 0004 4125 of Axis Bank, because of the reasons already enumerated in the letter dated:16.11.2009 from Axis bank.  That the present complaint be dismissed for mis-joinder of parties since opposite parties 3 & 4 are not the proper party as this is a bilateral matter / issue between the complainant and the bank.  Opposite parties 3 & 4 was nowhere in the picture and there is no cause of action whatsoever against them.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 3 & 4 and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.    To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Inspite of sufficient time is given, the opposite parties 1 & 2 even after filing application to set aside the Exparte order has not preferred to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 3 & 4 is filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties 3 & 4. 

5.      The point for consideration is:-

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony, deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

The opposite parties 1 & 2 even after filing application to set aside the Exparte order has not preferred to file proof affidavit to prove the contentions raised in the written version.   Written arguments of opposite parties 3 & 4 filed.   The complainant has not filed any written arguments.  Both parties not turned up to advance any oral arguments.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents of the complainant and the opposite parties 3 & 4.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a physically handicapped man working  as  a part time Marketing Manager in a garment and allied products export unit at Chennai.   In order to develop his business, in local and obtain some foreign trade with a consultation of ministry concerned, he planned to invite one Central Cabinet Hon’ble Minister for his concern ‘PIPOE ENTERPRISES’.  But the complainant has not filed any document to prove the said fact including to show his concern.   Further the contention of the complainant is that he proposed to visit New Delhi on 22.06.2009 urgently and booked the Airline tickets of the 3^rd opposite party on 20.06.2009 through online using credit card bearing No.4718 6000 0004 0004 4125.   Ex.A1 is the e-ticket.  The confirmed ticket also generated through the computer as per Ex.A2.   

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that while reaching the airport on 22.06.2009 and when the printed e-ticket and the credit card were tendered for exchange of regular airways ticket by the complainant to the desk operated by the 4^th opposite party, he was informed that the complainant’s ticket was cancelled since the 1^st opposite party  refused to make payment through credit card  which caused great inconvenience and huge loss of his business and future career.  The cancellation of e-ticket by the opposite parties 3 & 4 and non-payment for the e-ticket by the opposite parties 1 & 2 are illegal and improper which amounts to deficiency in service.  But on a careful perusal of records, the complainant has not produced any iota of evidence to prove the status of the credit card having ample amount for proper utilisation.  The complainant also has not denied that he has utilized for various purposes and its maximum limit.   The complainant has not disputed if the credit card limit exceeds, it cannot be used for transaction.  The complainant has not produced any statement of accounts in this case also proves that the alleged deficiency is imaginary. 

8.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as per the definition of 2 (e) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  Equally, the alleged deficiency in service of the complainant is not applicable under section 2 (g) of the said act.   Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that on application after entering into the contract the complainant was issued credit card facility initially and the limit was given upto Rs.4,00,000/- thereafter, it was reduced to Rs.2,96,000/-.   The complainant used the credit card for retail purchase to the tune of Rs.3,90,014.65/-.  The cash withdrawal of Rs.50,000/- also made and has made partial payment of Rs.2,16,192/- alone.  The total outstanding as on 29.10.2009 was Rs.3,40,132.59 which exceeds the limit of Rs.2,96,000/-.  The said contentions were not denied by the complainant.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 to 4 is that the process involved in e-ticket booking requires CVV number etc.  If the bank authorizes the transaction, e-ticket will be generated by Airlines.   If the bank does not authorize the transaction an error message will appear.  In this case, at any point of time, the bank has not authorized for e-ticket and transaction.  The confirmed ticket, Ex.A2 has been generated under the presumption that the opposite parties 1 & 2 will make payment and transaction success.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the allegation of consultation with ministry in New Delhi are not acceptable in the absence of any evidence.   The allegation of mental agony and business loss etc are imaginary and cannot be acceptable inconsideration of the usage of credit card and keeping balance and credit limit etc.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complaint has to be dismissed. 

In the result, this complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of December 2018. 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT

 

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	20.06.2009	Copy of e-ticket – itinerary / receipt
Ex.A2	20.06.2009	Copy of printout of reservation ticket
Ex.A3	18.09.2009	Copy of copy of lawyer notice to the complainant to the opposite parties
Ex.A4	01.10.2009	Copy of acknowledgement cards
Ex.A5	05.11.2009	Copy of letter of Jet Airways (India) Ltd to the complainant
Ex.A6	16.11.2009	Copy of reply letter from the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7	03.12.2009	Copy of notice of Tamil Nadu State Legal Service Authority bearing No.242191/09 issued on behalf of the 1st opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 1 & 2 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  No Proof Affidavit

OPPOSITE  PARTIES 3 & 4 SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

 

MEMBER-I                           MEMBER-II                     PRESIDENT