COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 27th JANUARY 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 2573/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Prashanth. D.N.,<br /> S/o. D. Nagaraja Rao,<br /> No. 70, II Main, <br /> AECS 3rd Stage, <br /> Nagashetty Halli,<br /> Bangalore – 560 084.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Venkatesh Prasad)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Mr. Charles Varghese,<br /> Vice President,<br /> Gold Finch Hotels <br /> (MRG Group)<br /> 2/3, Cresent Road,<br /> High Grounds,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Mr. Dayanand,<br /> Kudla Restaurant,<br /> 16, Rajaram Mohan Ray Road,<br /> Bangalore - 560 025.<br /> Repd. by its Manager.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (M.I. Arun)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay Rs.1,766/- an excess amount collected and compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant along with his friends went to OP restaurant on 02.11.2007 and had a lunch. To clear the bill he gave his debit card issued by City Bank Suvidha Account. After sometime when complainant saw his bankers statement, to his utter shock and surprise the said card was swiped twice and excess of amount of Rs.1,766/- was collected. Then immediately he contacted the OP to refund the same, but all his demands went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he is advised to file this complaint as he felt the deficiency in service against the OP and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have collected only Rs.1,766/- the actual cost of the lunch enjoyed by the complainant. If the bank statement of the complainant with respect to Citi Bank shows double entry complainant has to proceed against his Citi Bank, but as far as OP banker IDBI is concerned they have confirmed that only Rs.1,766/- was credited to the OP account. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant and his friends enjoyed the lunch at OP restaurant on 02.11.2007 and OP raised the bill for Rs.1,766/-. According to the complainant in order to pay the said bill he gave his debit card issued by Citi Bank Suvidha. Complainant thought that only once the said card will be swiped and an amount of Rs.1,766/- only will be deducted. But when he verified his statement he noticed swiping of the said card twice and OP collected the double amount as against Rs.1,766/-. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that their Banker IDBI has issued a letter dated 12.12.2008 and confirmed that the transaction is taken only once and the credit of Rs.1,766/- is given only once to the account of the OP. The document to that effect is produced. Though complainant produced the statement of account of Citi Bank, wherein it is shown that the said card is swiped twice one with reference to 730617570267 and 730617580854. But the affidavit of the said bank official is not filed and there is no proof that the said amount is paid twice to the OP because OP account clearly goes to show that OP received only one payment of Rs.1,766/-. Hence for this simple reason we find the defence set out by the OP is acceptable.<br /> <br /> 8. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras, there is no proof of deficiency in service or collection of excess of amount than actually liable to be paid by the complainant. When that is so, complainant is not entitled either for the refund of the alleged excess amount or for compensation. The complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 27th day of January 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br /> <br />