Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

121/2007

Tony Thomas - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.Sridhar

14 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 27.02.2007

                                                                          Date of Order : 14.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (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

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

CC. NO.121 /2007

WEDNESDAY THE 14^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

Tony Thomas,

S/o. Mr. Joseph Thomas,

Sea View Apartments,

H 91 T4, 1^st Seaward Road,

Valmiki Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai 600 041.                                               .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

City Bank N.A,

No.766, Anna Salai,

Sakthi Towers,

Chennai 600 002.                                     ..  Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. M.Sridhar    

Counsel for opposite party     :  M/s. R. Balaji    

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- and also to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs and to pay cost of the complaint.  

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

          The complainant submit that  he is a credit card member of the opposite party bearing No.5546 3792 5412 7002.    The opposite party announced  the fly for sure programme to the credit card holder  if they have been transacted more than Rs.30,000/- for the festival season October 1^st to  December 31^st of 2005.    The complainant also state that  he was attracted the announced sure programme and purchased a handy-cam for a sum of Rs.35,000/-  in order to be eligible to avail the offer for fly for sure programme. The opposite party also informed the complainant on 23.12.2005 through email that the complainant  is qualified for such fly for sure program.  Hence the complainant  sent the booking request form to the opposite party for himself and his mother Mrs. Meena Thomas at Cochin which was confirmed by the opposite party.    Thereafter the complainant contacted the opposite party several times and sent reminders; but the opposite party fell into deaf ears.    On 18.5.2006 the opposite party sent an email to the complainant the delay in contacting the complainant and undertook that  the complainant will be called within 21 days for travel confirmation.  On 1.6.2006 the complainant confirmed  his date as 7^th July 2006 to Goa and 10^th July 2006 to Cochin.   Thereafter the opposite party compelled the complainant  rescheduled trip instead of 4^th August 2006 as date of departure to Goa and return on 7^th August 2006 to Cochin.  Thereafter the opposite party informed the complainant that an e ticket was issued to his email id and SMS to the mobile phone at about 4.30 p.m for the flight 5.30 p.m. Hence the complainant was not able to board a flight within such short time of one hour.   Therefore the complainant  requested for cancellation of his ticket and reissue new tickets for his travel.  On 27.9.2006 the opposite party informed the complainant that the offer was cancelled.   Hence the complainant issued legal notice to opposite party on 27.12.2006 claiming damages and refund a sum of Rs.35,000/-.  But the opposite party has received the notice and not sent any reply.     As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

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

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   It is true that the complainant is a credit card holder of the bank and that the bank had offered a scheme whereby cardholders spending or using the credit cards for higher amounts more than Rs.35,000/- were eligible for a “fly for sure” programme which meant the bank after scrutinizing the aspects relating to the credit card and the usage as prescribed by the bank, will ensure free return  air tickets to the card members of their choice “to and fro”.    The complainant had opted for such scheme and had utilized the card as prescribed under the progamme and had submitted his choice of travel indicating the destination, date etc. for his travel.    Owing to certain technical reasons, the travel of the complainant could not be organized and the same was intimated to the complainant and thereafter the trip was offered to be rescheduled and intimated as admitted by the complainant.   Further the opposite party state that the non joinder of Wonderman India Private Limited the programme coordinator as party will not prove the complaint and this is also admitted by him.    Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A13 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and no document marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- towards purchase of handy cam as prayed for ?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 lakhs towards compensation for the mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

5.   POINTS 1 & 2 :

        Heard both sides.  Perused the records  (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents also.   Admittedly the complainant is a credit card member of the opposite party bearing No.5546 3792 5412 7002.   It is also admitted that the opposite party announced  the fly for sure programme to the credit card holder  if they have been transacted more than Rs.30,000/- for the festival season October 1^st to  December 31^st of 2005.    The learned counsel for the complainant contended that he was attracted the announcement and purchased a handy-cam for a sum of Rs.35,000/-  in order to be get eligible to avail the offer for fly for sure programme.   The opposite party also informed the complainant on 23.12.2005 through email that the complainant  is qualified for such fly for sure program.  Hence the complainant  sent the booking request form to the opposite party for himself and his mother Mrs. Meena Thomas at Cochin which was confirmed by the opposite party vide email Ex.A4.    Thereafter the complainant contacting the opposite party several times and sent reminders; but the opposite party fell into deaf ears.    On 18.5.2006 the opposite party sent an email to the complainant admitting the delay in contacting the complainant and undertook that  the complainant will be called within 21 days for travel confirmation.  On 1.6.2006 the complainant confirmed  his date as 7^th July 2006 to Goa and 10^th July 2006 to Cochin as per Ex.A5.   Thereafter the opposite party compelled the complainant  rescheduled the trip instead of 4^th August 2006 as date of departure to Goa and return on 7^th August 2006 to Cochin.  Thereafter the opposite party informed the complainant that an e ticket was issued to his email id and SMS to the mobile phone at about 4.30 p.m for the flight 5.30 p.m.   But no record produced.    On the other h and as per Ex.A13 it is seen that the ticket is improper and was cancelled later.   Hence the complainant was not able to board the flight within such short time of one hour.   Therefore the complainant  requested for cancellation of his ticket and reissue new tickets for his travel.    On 27.9.2006 the opposite party informed the complainant that the offer was cancelled.  The customers are not entitled to offer for that as per Ex.A13.  Hence the complainant issued legal notice to opposite party on 27.12.2006 claiming damages and refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- expended towards handy-cam.   The opposite party sent a reply stating that Wonderman India P. Ltd  the partner of the opposite party in the fly for sure program.   The opposite party has received the notice but not sent a reply. 

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank who is a partner of Wonderman India Private Limited as per Ex.A6.  The opposite party and Wonderman India Pvt. Limited  announced  offer a scheme namely “fly for sure programmes for the card holder spending or using the credit card for more than Rs.35,000/-; entitled a free return Air tickets.  Accordingly the complainant also eligible for such programme.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant opted for such scheme and  submitted his choice of travel indicating the destination, date etc.   But due to the technical reason the travel of the complainant was not organized and the same was duly informed to the complainant.  Thereafter  a reschedule trip was offered to the complainant and duly informed to the complainant regarding the date and time of travel and due ticket was issued.   The complainant himself cancelled the ticket with an allegation that the confirmation of ticket was informed only one hour before  the boarding of flight.  But the  complainant has not  filed any document to prove that.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant knowing fully well that the Wonderman India Pvt. Limited  is the programmer and was not impleaded as a party who is a necessary party in this case.   Further the complainant contended that the claim of
Rs.35,000/- the cost of the handy-cam never arise because the complainant has not produced any record to prove for such purchase of the handy-cam. Equally the complainant is not entitled to any compensation towards mental agony arise in this case because the offer was rescheduled and was informed to the complainant is admitted and the complaint  himself voluntarily cancelled the ticket is proved through the  document.    Similarly the complainant has not impleaded Wonderman India Pvt. Ltd as a necessary party.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th day of February 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-  2.11.2005 - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A2- 5.11.2005  - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A3- 9.11.2005  - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 23.12.2005         - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A5- 18.5.2006  - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A6- 19.5.2006  - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A7- 1.6.2006    - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A8- 24.6.2006  - Copy of email from the opposite party.

Ex.A9- 3.7.2006    - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A10- 26.9.2006         - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A11- 27.9.2006         - Copy of email from the complainant.

Ex.A12-          - Copy of retrieve booking of Goair download.

Ex.A13- 27.9.2006         - Copy of search flight status.

OPPOSITE  PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.