COMPLAINT FILED: 27.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 25th AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> COMPLAINT NO.231/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Y.L. Mahendra,<br /> Karnataka Renewable Energy Development Ltd.,<br /> No.19, A.D.Loganadhan,<br /> INA Cross Queens Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 052.<br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. Citigroup Globel Service,<br /> No.1 Prime Rose Road, <br /> M.G.Road, <br /> Bangalore – 25.<br /> <br /> 2. Citi Bank Card Centre,<br /> NA Mail Room,<br /> 766 Annasalai, <br /> Sakthi Tower,<br /> Bangalore – 560 002.<br /> <br /> Advocate: Sri M.V.Kini <br /> <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 a compensation of Rs.20,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 2. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 3. Complainant is the credit card holder of the OP bank. He did last transaction on 27.09.2008 that to for Rs.132/-. But to his utter shock and surprise in the monthly statement of October 2008 he asked to pay an out standing due of Rs.1,69,697/-. It shows that he has purchased the Air tickets on online by using the said credit card. Complainant never travelled by Air. Though he made repeated requests and demands to OP to set right account and cure the defect and fraud committed but it went in vain. OP is insisting him to pay the balance amount. For no fault of his he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Hence, he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief’s accordingly. <br /> <br /> 4. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP, complainant did utilized the said credit card for the purpose of Air tickets not once but for 11 times amounting to Rs.1,69,697/-. If the said card is misused by some other 3rd party, it is mainly because of the carelessness and negligence on the part of the complaint. Complainant has to keep his credit card, intact and not to disclose PIN number to a stranger. The said transactions are genuine hence OP raised a bill. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they had detailed investigation, the final report awaited. OP as a service gesture reversed the interest and over limit charges. Then directed the complainant to pay the out standing amount of Rs.3,129/-. Complainant has not paid the same, on the other hand filed a false complaint. With regard to the alleged fraud or misuse of the card or loss of the card no separate police complaint is filed. Even he has not caused the legal notice to OP alleging the deficiency in service. Hence the entire complaint is devoid of merits. The claim is false. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 5. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 6. 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 entitled <br /> for the relief now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No.3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 7. We have gone through the pleadings of the both parties, as well as 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 /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative.<br /> <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part. <br /> <br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 8. At the out set it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of the OP bank. According to the complainant he transacted only up to 27.09.2008 that for Rs.132/-. With all that OP made huge claim of out standing due of Rs.1,69,697/- by sending the statement for October 2008. He never a travelled by Air nor he booked the Air ticket. The claim of the OP in that regard is highly baseless. When his repeated requests and demands went in futile, he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. <br /> <br /> 9. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant booked the Air ticket through internet to travel to Bombay. The said booking is made on 13.10.2008 and 14.10.2008 that too not once, but 11 times. That means to say that there is a misuse of the said card. How the 3rd party misused the said card is not known. Those transactions does not appears to be genuine transaction. There is no proof that complainant had ever used his card towards the purchase of the Air ticket and actually travelled on that day.<br /> <br /> 10. Complainant lodged a complaint to OP on 17.02.2009. OP admits that on the basis of the said complaint a detailed investigation is conducted and the final out come of the investigation is awaited. That means to say there is substance in the complaint alleged by the complainant. Para 7 of the version shows that OP with a good service gesture sumoto reversed the interest of Rs.6,770/-. Over limit charges Rs.1,053/-, late payment charges 1,300/- and service taxes Rs.1,127/-. That means to say OP admits the charging of the said amount arbitrarily, other wise there is no need for them to waive such charges. This one conduct of the OP speaks to deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 11. Of course complainant has claimed a compensation of Rs.20,000/-. There is no basis for the same. Complainant himself admits that he did transaction only for Rs.3,042/-. Which he is liable to pay, but according to the OP complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,129/- and it is not paid till the end of October 2008. Keeping all these facts in mind in the interest of justice we find it is a fit case. Where in the complainant deserves some compensation towards the mental agony suffered by him that too due to the hostile attitude of the OP. In our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant keeping open the rights of OP to recover Rs.3,129/- which is due from complainant. With these reasons we answer point No.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> It is further ordered that the rights of the OP to recover Rs.3,129/- the amount in due by the complainant in view of the credit card transaction are kept open. In view of nature of dispute no order as the costs. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <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 25th day of August 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> s.n.m.<br />