Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/720/2015

Ethos Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Geeta Gulati

25 Jul 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/720/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	21/10/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	25/07/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Ethos Limited [earlier Kamla Retail Limited] SCO 89-90, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh, through its authorized Signatory, Chief Financial Officer, Raja Sekhar.

 

 …………… Complainant.

VERSUS

 

(1)  Axis Bank Limited, Merchant Services, Sector 34, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

(2)  Axis Bank Limited, Business Banking, 1^st Floor, WZ-G-1/262, Block G-1, Main Najafgarh Road, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, through its Branch Manager.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:    DR.MANJIT SINGH            PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

           SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.
For Opposite Parties	:	Sh. Saurav Goyal, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The succinct facts of the present Complaint are that the Complainant’s customer, Alok Prabhakar, bought a Watch worth Rs.1,68,404.08/- from the Complainant’s duty free shop at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, on 31.02.2013. The Customer made the payment through credit card. The invoice, payment receipt, passport and boarding pass of the Customer are annexed as Annexure C-1 & C-2 with the Complaint. The payment was received by the Complainant on 02.04.2013. On 16.04.2013, the Customer, upon reaching U.S, offered to return the Watch on the pretext, that, his Wife did not like the Watch. The e-mail of the Customer is annexed as Annexure C-3 with the Complaint. When the Customer was informed, that, the Watch cannot be returned back, the Customer, made a charge back request to its issuer Bank. The acquirer Bank, the Opposite Parties, informed the Complainant and requested for the documents pertaining to the issue through e-mail dated 01.05.2013, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-4 with the Complaint. The documents were submitted by e-mail dated 24.05.2013 by the Complainant, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-5 with the Complaint. The Opposite Parties were informed through e-mail dated 24.05.2013 by the Complainant about the non-exchange/return of the Watch. Thereafter, the Opposite Parties through e-mail dated 20.06.2013 requested for the explanation letter, which was mailed by the Complainant on the same day. The Opposite Parties without investigating the matter informed the Complainant on 29.10.2013 (Annexure C-6) that since the Complainant was late in sharing the explanation letter, therefore, the request of the Complainant for not doing the chargeback is declined. The Opposite Parties on 24.12.2013 informed the Complainant through e-mail about the closure of the matter (Annexure C-7). Thereafter, the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 20.02.2014 (Annexure C-8), which was duly replied by the Opposite Parties vide letter dated 02.04.2014 giving assurance for examining the matter. However, since there was no reply and no investigation report for allowing the charge back was shared with the Complainant, the Complainant has thus filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties, in their reply, while admitting the basic facts of the case have admitted that the Cardholder who had purchased the Watch is account holder of issuing Bank (Chase Bank) and has made a payment through credit card of issuing Bank. Complainant has installed the machine at his place of answering Op. The Cardholder raised the dispute with the Bank regarding the transaction and asked to credit the amount. The transaction related to debit/credit cards are being monitored by the VISA between two Banks i.e. issuing Bank and the acquiring Bank. The issuing Bank (cardholder bank) raised the chargeback with the VISA and in turn VISA raised the chargeback with the answering Opposite Parties. The answering Opposite Parties informed the Complainant vide e-mail dated 01.05.2013 that they have received the chargeback from the VISA and requested the Complainant to provide certain documents, as the same has to be provided to the VISA by the answering Opposite Parties, but the Complainant failed to provide the necessary documents within the stipulated period. The answering Op vide e-mail dated 24.05.2013 had again requested the Complainant to provide the mandatory documents, but to no avail. Due to non-submission of the mandatory documents by the Complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days, the charge back amount was credited to the VISA on 19.06.2013 after the due date of 45 days. Thereafter, the Complainant on 20.06.2013 requested the answering Opposite Parties to reconsider the charge back, whereupon the answering Opposite Parties in good faith took up the matter with the issuing Bank (Chase Bank) on 21.06.2013. However, the issuing Bank (Chase Bank) duly reconsidered the matter and declined the same due to non-supply of the required documents vide its e-mail dated 03.09.2013.  While admitting the receipt of legal notice, it has been submitted that the same was duly replied. All other allegations made in the Complaint have been denied and pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      The complainant has filed a replication, wherein it has reiterated all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the written version of Opposite Parties.

 

5.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record, in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that its Customer, while traveling from India to U.S.A., had purchased the Omega Watch from Complainant duty free shop at Terminal-3, Indira Gandhi International Airport New Delhi on 31.03.2013. The payment thereof was made by the Customer to the Complainant through credit card of Chase Bank. On reaching U.S.A., the Customer made a charge back request to his Bank. The Opposite Parties i.e. acquirer Bank on not receiving the requisite documents from the Complainant, within 45 days, debited the charge back in the Complainant’s account, against which the Complainant has instituted the present Consumer Complaint.  

 

8.      A perusal of Annexure C-4 and C-5 placed on record by the Complainant, shows that the AXIS Bank Delhi Team had demanded certain mandatory documents from the Complainant regarding the transaction done by the Customer with the Complainant. We find that due to non-submission of the mandatory documents by the Complainant within the stipulated period of 45 days, the charge back amount was credited by the Opposite Parties to the VISA.  

 

9.      The Complainant has installed a swipe card machine of AXIS Bank (Opposite Parties) at its place. The transactions related to debit/credit cards are being monitored by the VISA between two banks i.e. issuing bank and the acquiring bank. On perusal of e-mail dated 24.5.2013 (Pg. 21 of the paper book), we find that the Opposite Parties had informed the Complainant that charge back has been raised under reason Code 30 i.e. “Service not rendered or merchandise not received”. 

 

10.      As per the guidelines for all the acquiring banks issued by VISA International Operating Regulations, 2013, the disputes regarding the charge back has to be resolved within the period of 45 days from the charge back processing date otherwise the charge back amount will be debited from the acquirer bank. The Opposite Parties in their affidavit have categorically stated that the Complainant have entered into the Merchant Establishment Legal Agreement with the Opposite Parties in which it is specifically mentioned at Clause No.11 under the head “Chargeback & Disputes” that the bank shall be entitled to any time to refuse total or partial payment to the merchant, or, if payment has been made to debit the merchant account with such account or to seek immediate reimbursement from the merchant, notwithstanding any authorization and/or authorization code numbers given by the bank to the merchant in certain situations. Hence, we find that it is the Complainant who had not supplied the mandatory documents as demanded by the Opposite Parties within the stipulated period of 45 days, hence leading to the charge back by the Opposite Parties.     

 

11.      It is noteworthy that the Complainant has not impleaded the Customer namely Mr. Alok Prabhakar, who had bought the Watch in question from its Shop. We feel that it is the said Mr. Alok Prabhakar who can throw light on the entire aspects of the case and depose about the correctness or otherwise of the facts stated by the Complainant in its Complaint. In these set of circumstances, we feel that the present Complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party. 

 

12.      Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to prove that there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties or that the Opposite Parties adopted any unfair trade practice. As such, the Complaint is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. However, the Complainant would have the liberty to have the alternative remedy before the Civil Court.

 

13.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

25^th July, 2016                                         

Sd/-

[DR.MANJIT SINGH]

PRESIDENT

                                               

      Sd/-

[SURJEET KAUR]

MEMBER   

 

Sd/-                          

[SURESH KUMAR SARDANA]                                                                                                   

“Dutt”                                                                           MEMBER