<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 24th OCTOBER 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1640/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.T.S.Nagabharana,Shruthalaya,# 61, 3rd Cross,Banashankari 1st Stage,S.B.M Colony,Bangalore – 560 050.V/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Citi Bank,Opp. Surana College,South End Road,Basavanagudi,Bangalore.2. Citi Bank,NA #2, Club House Road,Chennai – 600002.India.Advocate – M.V.Kini & Co.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <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 rectify the defect with regard to the transaction of Rs.28,935/- done in the name of “Taylor and Francis Boo’ and pay compensation 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 /> <br /> Complainant is the regular customer of the OP having a credit card since last 15 years. He was prompt in making payment of the amounts in due. With all that to his utter shock and surprise on 24.04.2008 he received the bill / statement claiming Rs.30,108-48 on an allegations that he utilized his card and transacted for the amount of Rs.28,935/- payable by 17.05.2008. Immediately he contacted the OP and intimated them that he never transacted with the card on that day as noted in the statement. All his efforts went in futile. OP did not heed to his requests and demand but deducted the said amount from his account. OP instead of checking who has made the said purchases and transacted, unnecessarily burdened the complainant to pay the amount. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. It is the responsibility of the card member and the holder to take steps towards safety and security of the credit card issued. If due to their carelessness and negligence some third party mis-utilized the said card and do the transaction, for that OP can’t be blamed. According to OP on 24.03.2008 the said card was used and the transaction was made worth Rs.28,915/-. The said charge was created at HSBC Electronic Data Capturing Machine an Acquiring Bank and the said transaction was approved electronically by Master Card intimation a clearing house. OP has paid the said amount to the HSBC Bank on 25.03.2008 as such they included the said amount in the monthly bill of the complainant. If the complainant is aggrieved by the said transactions he would have raised the dispute within 30 days from the date of receipt of the statement, but no such steps are taken. Complainant disputed the said charge only on 12.06.2008. Complainant would have initiated criminal proceedings against the person who committed the fraud and mischief with regard to the credit card belonging to him. No such complaints filed. There is a contributory negligence on the part of the complainant. The action initiated by the OP are well within the purview of the terms and conditions and those acts and deeds can’t be termed as deficiency in service. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. 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 <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s 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. As it is it is not at dispute that the complainant is the OP credit card holder for the past 15 years. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that he received the bill of payment for Rs.30,108-48 sent by the OP contending that he has transacted to the tune of Rs.28,935/- on 24.03.2008 in the name of “TAYLOR AND FRANCIS BOO” payable by 17.05.2008. It is further contended that complainant never transacted with the said product nor utilized the credit card on that day. Hence he contacted the OP to rectify the said mistake, but it went in vain. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP.<br /> <br /> 7. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. It is a bounden duty of card holder to observe safety and security with respect to the said card being mis utilized by any other third party. Without knowing the operation of the said card it cannot be transaction. There appears to be some kind of negligence on the part of the complainant in not keeping the safety and security of his credit card.<br /> <br /> 8. It is further contended by the OP that on 24.03.2008 complainant did transact using the card for worth Rs.28,915/- at Merchant Establishment, Taylor and Francis. The said charge was created at HSBC Electronic Data Capturing Machine, an Acquiring Bank and it is approved electronically by Master card intimation a clearing house without any manual slip being generated and that the OP has paid the charge amount to the Acquiring Bank HSBC on 25.03.2008. These facts are not at dispute.<br /> <br /> 9. When that is so, it would have been more fair on the part of the complainant to make HSBC as a party to this complaint to ascertain and to know who used his credit card and who transacted on 24.03.2008 but no such steps are taken. It is further contended by the OP that if the card holder disputes the statement of accounts and demands as per the condition No.22. The said dispute should be raised within 30 days from the date of receipt of the statement. But here in this case complainant lodged his complaint only on 12.06.2008. So there is a violation of terms and conditions of the card member agreement.<br /> 10. If the complainant feels that there is a fraud and mis use of the credit card committed by some third party without his consent or knowledge he would have lodged immediate complaint to the police, but no such steps are taken. So viewed from any angle we find the allegations of the complainant appears to be baseless. As such he is not entitled for the relief claimed. Complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 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 24th day of October 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />