Date of Filing:14.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 04.09.2010<br /> <br /> 2<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1927 of 2007<br /> <br /> M/s. Orange County Resorts And <br /> Hotels Ltd., St. Patricks Business Complex<br /> 2nd Floor, 21 Museum Road<br /> Bangalore 560 025<br /> Rep. by its Director Abe. T. Ramapuram Complainant<br /> V/S<br /> 1. Citi Bank N.A.<br /> 2 Club House Road<br /> Anna Salai, Chennai 600 002<br /> Rep. by its Regional Manager<br /> <br /> 2. Citi Bank N.A.<br /> # 102/104, Prestige Meridian II<br /> # 30, M.G. Road<br /> Bangalore 560 001 Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> The complainant company was formerly known as M/s. Ramapuram Holiday Resorts Ltd. Now the company is known as Orange County Resorts and Hotel Ltd. Hereto annexed and marked is the copy of the certificate of change of name issued by the Registrar of Companies. Complainants are engaged in the business of hospitability industries having their own resorts as well as managing a chain of resorts around the country having made its mark in the hospitality and service industry by maintaining high standard and quality in facilities, service, courtesy and have thousands of satisfied customers around the world increasing steadily year after year. The opposite party approached the complainants with a promise of genuine and prompt service for installation of their credit card machines in their resorts and their establishments. Under the pretext of non availability of stable telephone lines in the premises called as ‘Eagle Ridge Resort’ at 16th kilometer Beggurkoppa road Bangalore 5600068 managed by complainant, the opposite party had insisted on installing a manual credit card machine for swiping while in most of their other establishments they have installed EDC machines connected to the phone lines. After the initial enthusiasm to get the business and to establish a business relationship with them, the opposite party became very negligent in their services. The opposite party stopped accepting the charge slips over the counters in their banks. Instead they initiated a method by which charge slips were to be dropped into a drop box in the bank, which will be then collected by them at their convenience for which they were not even provided with an acknowledgment. As per the facility, a cardholder is entitled to make the payment of any amount within limit as prescribed by the card issuer to any merchant by swiping the card through the machine and getting authorization for payments from the card issuing bank. The bank by authorization thus undertakes to pay the said amount without any objection or dispute to the merchants on the production of charge slips. In order to settle the issue, complainants resorted to the method of trying to contact the customers directly and after great difficulty, the complainants were able to collect an amount of Rs. 8,310/- (Rupees Eight Thousand Three Hundred and Ten only) from their clients. The complainants state that an outstanding of Rs. 18,903/- (Rupees eighteen thousand nine hundred and three only) is thus due from the opposite party in respect of the claim submitted through the summary form no.803679. dropped charge slips which were duly authorized by opposite party in respect of the payment due to the complainants amounting to a sum total of Rs. 1,92,248/- (Rupees one lakh ninety two thousand two hundred and forty eight only) on 29/05/2006 and 30/05/2006, vide summary forms bearing no.s.803671, 803673, 803678, 808401 and 803677 in the drop box. Vide payment voucher (PV) bearing no.5308896689060606 dated 28/06/2006. Issued by the opposite party after almost thirty days, an amount of Rs. 64,905,61/- was paid by the opposite party to the complainants. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘C’ is the copy of the payment voucher (PV) bearing no.5308896689060606 dated 28/06/2006, issued by the opposite party. The complainant state that after several reminders, the opposite party released a further amount of Rs. 1,18,548.73/- (Rupees one lakh eighteen thousand five hundred and forty eight and seventy three paisa only) vides PV no. 5308896725210607 dated 28/07/2006. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘D’ is the copy of the payment voucher (PV) bearing no. 5308896725210607 dated 28/07/2006, issued by the opposite party. Thus a total amount of Rs.1,83,454.34/- has been paid by the opposite party in respect to the said summary form after deducting service charges leaving on outstanding amount of Rs.6,000/- due to the complainants. The complainants state that an outstanding of Rs. 6,000/- is thus due from the opposite party in respect of the claim submitted through the summary forms mentioned. on 19/08/2006 they dropped 16 charge slips which were duly authorized by the opposite party in respect of the payment due to the complainants amounting to Rs.1,20,475/- i.e 5 charge slips vide summary form bearing nos. 808408 dated 17/08/2006 in the drop box. Vide payment voucher (PV) bearing no. 80849 dated 18/08/2006 in the drop box. Vide payment voucher (PV) bearing no. 5308896756470608 dated 23/08/2006, an amount of Rs. 97,285.51/- was paid by the opposite party instead of paying Rs.1,20,475/-. Out of the 11 charge slips submitted vide summary form no.808409, 3 charge slips were rejected and out of the 5 charge slips submitted vide summary form no.808408 2 charge slips were rejected on the alleged ground that they have invalid card numbers. Here to annexed and marked Annexure ‘E’ is the copy of the payment voucher (PV) bearing no. 5308896756470608 dated 23/08/2006, issued by the opposite party. The complainants addressed a letter dated 19th September 2006 requesting the opposite party to release the amount of Rs.21,708/- payable under the aforesaid 5 rejected charge slips on the ground of invalid numbers. After repeated phone calls by them, the opposite party released a further amount of Rs.18,198/- vide their payment voucher no.5308896804190610 dated 06/10/2006. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘G’ is the copy of the payment voucher (PV) bearing no. 5308896804190610 dated 06/10/2006 issued by the opposite party thus a total amount of Rs.1,15,483.51/- has been paid by the opposite party in respect to the said summary form after deducting their service charges leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,000/- due to the complainants. The complainants state that an outstanding of Rs. 3,000/- is thus due from the opposite party to the complainants in respect of the claim submitted through the summary forms mentioned in this para. The complainants vide its e-mail dated 21/12/2006 requested the opposite party to release the said amount of Rs. 3,000/- . The opposite party has neither complied with the said letter nor replied to the same. The total amount payable by the opposite party to the complainants as detailed here in above is Rs.27,903/-. The complainant further state that non-payment of any dues to the opposite party attracts a huge interest of more that 3% per month and hence the opposite party is also liable to pay them interest in the same manner for delays in payments due to the complainants. In the above mentioned circumstances, The complainants issued a legal notice dated 26/03/2007 calling upon the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.27,903/- (Rupees twenty thousand nine hundred and three only) due to the complainant s as per the charge slips submitted by them and acknowledged by the opposite party and also to compensate the complainants with an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation against the loss of interest, harassment, mental agony, etc., suffered by the complainants. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘I-1’ is the copy of the legal notice. They addressed a letter dated 24th may 2007 reminding the opposite party to make the payment promised by them. Hereto annexed and marked Annexure ‘K-1’ is the copy of the said letter and Annexure ‘K-2’ is the copy of the postal acknowledgement due card where in the opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of the said letter. However, till today they have failed and neglected to comply with the said letter or reply to the same. Hence the complainants are approaching this Hon’ble Forum for redressal of their grievance. The complainants state that it is apparent from the documents annexed hereto, that the opposite party has been very negligent in their service to the complainants and has caused lot of harassment, pain and loss of time in corresponding and telephoning and follow up, just to make the opposite party to do their duty which they ought to have done on their own and hence opposite party is liable to compensate the complainants.<br /> 2. The opposite party filed defence version stating that the complainant company is alien to the transaction entered into between the opposite party and M/s Rampuram Holiday Resorts Limited. It is pertinent to note that all the documents filed by the complainant are either sent from or addressed to M/s. Rampuram Holiday Resorts Limited and the statements sent from the opposite party are addressed to M/s. Rampuram Holiday Limited. Without Prejudice to the above contention, the opposite party submits that the Merchant Establishments are liable to submit the charge slips for payment within 21 days from the date f charge as per clauses-5 & 9(i) of the Merchant Establishment Agreement. A Specimen copy of the Member Establishment Agreement is produced herewith which may be marked as DOCUMENT NO.1. But M/s. Rampuram Holiday Resorts Limited always submitted the charge slips after the stipulated dates. The company used to drop the charge slips in the Drop box of the opposite party to evade the delay in submitting the same. The opposite party processes all valid charge slips received from various Merchant Establishments and makes payment vide cheque along with payment voucher which clearly gives details of valid charge slips processed and invalid charge slips rejected, giving appropriate reason for rejection. But, the Merchant Establishment Agreement/Complainant never questioned the authenticity of the statement. It is pertinent to note that the complainant approached this Hon’ble forum after expiry of one and a half year from the date of receipt of the Monthly statement. The opposite party states that the period of 21 days stipulated for submitting the charge slips is for the reason that the opposite party cannot wait indefinitely to debit the amount to the respective credit card holders or banks as the cards could belong to any Member Bank of the Association. If there is any delay in debiting the amount to the credit card holders, they may raise a dispute and refuse to pay the amount. The opposite party submits that though M/s. Rampuram Holiday Resorts Limited habitually submitted the charge slips belatedly, the opposite party had paid the amount even though not bound to pay, in order to keep good relationship with the customer. Only in case of extreme delay and in case of invalid card number, the payments were rejected and the complainant was duly informed about the reason for rejection of the payment. The opposite parties deny that they have refused to accept the charge slips over the counter and directed the complainant to drop the same in their drop in box. The complainant used to drop the charge slips in the drop in box of the opposite party for their convenience and to evade the delay in submitting the charge slips, however, the opposite parties in their monthly statements, informed the complainant about the delay. But the complainant never questioned the authenticity of the statement. The delay in submitting the charge slips resulted in delay in payment of the amount claimed by the complainant and in some cases, rejection of the charge slips.<br /> 3. Heard the arguments.<br /> 4. The points for consideration are:<br /> 1. Whether there was deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any reliefs?<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. The complaint was dismissed by this forum and the complaint went on appeal to the state commission. The state commission held the complaint is maintainable and ordered the district forum to disposal off the complaint on merits. Therefore, again we can’t dismiss the complaint holding that the transaction was a commercial transaction. Perused the complaint and documents. It is an admitted fact that the complaint has engaged in the business of hospitality industries having their own resorts as well as managing a chain of resorts around the country and has thousands of satisfied customers around the world. The opposite party approached the complainant with a promise of genuine and prompt service for installation of their credit card machine in their resorts and their establishment. As per the facility, a card holder is entitled to make the payment of any amount within limits as prescribed by the card issuer to any merchants by swiping the card through the machine and getting authorization for payment from the card issuing bank. The bank by authorization thus undertakes to pay the said amount without any objection or dispute to the merchants on the production of charge slips. The opposite party had insisted on installing a manual credit machine for swiping while in most of their other establishments they installed EDC machine connected to the phone line. The complainant has dropped 15 charge slips in the drop box which were duly authorized by the opposite party in respect of payment out of the 15 charge slips submitted by the complainant the opposite party rejected 11 charge slips amounting to Rs.27,213/- on the alleged ground of late submission there by leaving a balance amount of Rs. 27,213/- . The complainant state in order to settle the issue they resorted to the method of trying to contact the customers directly and after great difficulty, the complainant collected an amount of Rs. 8,310/-, an outstanding of Rs. 18,903/- is thus due from the opposite party. Further the complainant dropped charge slips which were duly authorized by opposite party in respect of payment an amount of Rs. 1,92,248/- out of that the opposite party was released the amount of Rs. 1,83,454/- to the complainant after deduction of his service charge now outstanding of Rs. 6,000/- is thus due from the opposite party. On 19/08/2006 the complainant was dropped 16 charge slips in the drop box in respect of payment out of that the opposite party released the amount of Rs. 1,15,483/- after deducting their service charge now due Rs. 3,000/- from the opposite party in total the amount payable by the opposite party to the complainant as detailed here in above is Rs. 27,903/-. In the above mentioned circumstances the complainant issued a legal notice dated 26/03/2007 calling upon the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 27,903/- as per the charge slips submitted by the complainant and acknowledged by the opposite party. The opposite party filed their version and the defence taken by them is not proper and sufficient and also the opposite party has not mentioned the reasons for refusing the disputed payment. Hence, it clearly shows that the opposite party was deficient in their service. It is not a fit case for granting Rs. 1,00,000/- towards compensation. In the result we proceed to pass the following.<br /> ORDER<br /> 6. The complaint is allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 27,903/- to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order within 60 days the above amount carries interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order till payment / realisation. No order as to costs.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 04TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />