BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 706 of 2015
Date of Institution: 8.12.2015
Date of Decision: 26.5.2016
Mr. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan, Asstt.Director/NCB, resident of B-320, New Amritsar,Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Balmer & Lawrie & Co.Ltd., through its MD/CEO/Director/Principal Officer, Core-8, GF, Scope Complex, 7 Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003
- Balmer & Lawrie & Co.Ltd through its Office Incharge Air Force Station, Amritsar
- Balmer & Lawrie & Co.Ltd., through Office Incharge,SCO 53, First Floor, Sector 47C,Chandigarh
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 12/13 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Present: For the Complainant : None
For the Opposite Parties : Sh.Gaurav Sekhri,Advocate
Coram
Sh.S.S.Panesar, President
Ms.Kulwant Kaur Bajwa, Member
Sh.Anoop Sharma,Member
Order dictated by:
Sh.S.S. Panesar, President.
1. Kuldeep Singh Chauhan has brought the instant complaint under section 12 and 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended upto date on the allegations that the complainant has been posted as Asstt. Director of Narcotics Control Bureau under Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India since May,2014. The complainant availed Leave Travel Concession from his department during the period w.e.f. 29.12.2014 to 4.1.2015 from Amritsar to Chennai and back alongwith his family members. For the purpose of travelling, the complainant hired the services of the opposite parties. Opposite party Balmer & Lawrie & Co.Ltd is authorized for the purpose of availing LTC by staff of Narcotics Control Bureau working under Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt.of India. The opposite party has its office throughout the country including Chandigarh and Amritsar. The complainant availed services of the opposite party at Amritsar and got to and fro Air Tickets for the above journey and opposite party No.1 charged Rs. 1,58,044/- from the complainant as per bill No. D-14149912/DEL dated 18.12.2014 and the payment was made through credit cards at Amritsar/opposite party No.2. But the opposite parties insisted and charged 2% more than the billed amount on the plea that 2% of the cost is required to be paid to the bank offering credit/debit card facility. Thus the opposite party had actually charged Rs. 1,61,208/- against bill of Rs. 1,58,044/-. As such opposite party has charged an excess amount of Rs. 3164/- from the complainant. The complainant was further astonished to know that mode of payment on tickets is written as cash whereas the complainant made the payment through credit card. As per the Reserve Bank of India guidelines, such amount is payable by the merchant establishment and not by the customer of the bank, as there is a bilateral agreement between the bank and the concerned merchant establishment in this regard. Thus the complainant has been charged 2% extra over the actual bill on the pretext of payment to the said bank, which is clear violation of RBI guidelines and the bilateral agreement and is bad at law. The complainant also requested to opposite party No.3 at Chandigarh through Fax dated 24.12.2014 but no response has been received from the opposite party so far . Thus it is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. The complainant has prayed for the following reliefs vide instant complaint:-
i) Directions be made to opposite party to refund back Rs. 3164/- excess charges from the complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 18.12.2014 till final payment to the complainant ;
ii) Directions to the opposite party to pay Rs. 50000/- as compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and agony to the complainant .
iii) Further directions be issued to concerned authorities to cancel the license of opposite parties for their act unfair trade practice and charging excess amount from complainant against actual bill.
iv) Cost of the complaint may also be awarded.
Hence, this complaint.
2. Upon notice, opposite parties appeared and filed collective written statement taking certain preliminary objections therein inter alia that present complaint is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties. The complainant has not intentionally made HDFC Bank, State Bank of India and ICICI Bank Amritsar as parties by whom the transaction charges of invoice No. 000020 and invoice No.00021 of Rs. 3164/- have been charged . The complaint has been wrongly filed against the replying opposite parties. The complainant has not made Air India as party whose services have been availed by the complainant. Hence, complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed on this score alone ; that the present complaint has been filed without any cause of action ; that the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer. The complainant has failed to establish any deficiency in service and mere averment of the complainant does not make him a consumer and also to file any claim against the opposite parties. District Forum Amritsar has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint ; that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts. The complainant is not entitled to any relief and the complaint is liable to be dismissed ; that the complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrongs and the present complaint is purely misuse of the process of law ; that complainant after twisting the facts has filed the present complaint and has not disclosed the true facts to the Forum; that the complaint is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost as it constitutes an abuse of the process of law under section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; that the relationship between Air lines i.e. Air India Ltd. and opposite parties 1 to 3 is not a dealership and is a principal to principal relationship and the dealings with the Air lines of opposite parties are independent ; that the averment of the complainant that mode of payment on tickets is written as cash, whereas the complainant had made payment through credit card are two different transactions. It is pertinent to mention over here that the complainant has made payment to opposite parties by way of credit card of State Bank of India and ICICI Bank for booking of tickets for which the charges as commission for making payment to the opposite parties by the complainant has been charged by the banks and not by the opposite parties. The opposite parties have clearly told the complainant at the time of booking of tickets through debit card or credit card, a charge of 2% will be deducted by the bank if the complainant makes payment through debit card. On merits facts narrated in the complaint have been specifically denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with cost was made.
3. In his bid to prove complainant tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of payment receipts Ex.C-2, copy of domestic bill Ex.C-3, copies of e-tickets Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-7, copies of letters Ex.C-8 and Ex.C-9 and closed the evidence.
4. To rebut the aforesaid evidence Sh.Gaurav Sekhri,Adv.counsel for opposite parties No.1,2 & 3 tendered affidavit of Sh.Ravi Shanker,Chief Operating Offier Ex.OP1,2,3/1, copy of notarial certificate Ex.OP1,2,3/2, copy of power of attorney Ex.OP1,2,3/3, copy of bank statement of opposite party account Ex.OP1,2,3/4, copy of letter issued by HDFC Bank dated 16.2.2016 Ex.OP1,2,3/5 and closed the evidence on behalf of opposite parties No.1,2 & 3.
5. We have heard the ld.counsel for the opposite parties and have carefully gone through the record on the file, whereas none appeared on behalf of the complainant to advance arguments.
6. From appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complaint filed by the complainant is bereft of any merit. It is proved on record that the complainant made the payment through debit card for taking his LTC facility for journey from Amritsar to Chennai and back and payment for the purpose was made by the complainant through debit cards from his account in SBI and ICICI Banks. The contention that 2% extra charge amounting to Rs. 3164/- has been made by the opposite parties , is not proved on record . As per statement of account Ex.OP1,2,3/4, it becomes evident that an amount of Rs. 1,57,857.04 paise was credited to the account of the opposite parties on 19.12.2014. Whereas payment to Air India was made by the opposite parties in cash on 18.12.2014 for purchasing the tickets on behalf of the complainant. As a matter of fact charge of Rs. 3164/- was debited by the banks of the complainant for remitting the amount of Rs. 1,57,857.04 paise to the account of the opposite parties. The said amount has not been charged by the opposite parties. As a matter of fact both the banks i.e. ICICI Bank and SBI should have been arrayed as parties to the present case because deficiency in service, if any was on the part of the aforesaid banks. Instant complaint is nothing but an abuse of the process of law and the same deserves to be dismissed.
7. Consequently, instant complaint fails and the same is ordered to be dismissed accordingly. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Forum.
Announced in Open Forum
Dated : 26.05.2016
/R/ ( S.S.Panesar ) President
( Kulwant Kaur Bajwa) (Anoop Sharma)
Member Member
