Date of Filing:05/04/2011

        Date of Order:19/05/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  19^th DAY OF MAY 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 664 OF 2011

P. Senthil Kumar,

No.11/0, 2^nd Main, 2^nd Cross,

Balajinagar, S.G. Palya,

Bangalore-29.                                                                     ….  Complainant.

V/s

(1) Manoj Prem,

Grievance Cell Officer,

HDFC Cards Division,

8, Lattice Bridge Road,

Thiruvanmiyur,

CHENNAI-600 041.

(2) The Branch Manager,

H.D.F.C. Bank,

Richmond Road,

Bangalore-25.                                                                  …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.10,000/-, are necessary:-

          The complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite parties bearing No.46178620 0094 1575.  The opposite parties have sent a statement dated: 04.01.2011 stating that the complainant is due Rs.3,730/-.  Accordingly the complainant paid the entire amount of Rs.3,730/- on 24.01.2011 through ATM by cash and got receipt.  But in the statement dated: 04.02.2011 the opposite parties have shown only Rs.2,730/-  instead of Rs.3,730/-.  As per the direction of the customer Care of the opposite parties, the complainant has lodged a complaint to rectify the same.  Even then they have not rectified.  Hence the complaint.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

The holder of the credit card, statement of the accounts are all admitted.  The complainant has paid only Rs.2,730/- and not Rs.3,730/- as alleged by him.  The ATM transaction record is not a confirmation for cash received but a record of the details of cash deposit as keyed in by the complainant himself for the ATM machine i.e., a physical cash deposited is not the same amount keyed in the ATM machine.  All the allegations to the contrary are denied.  Hence the complaint be dismissed.

3.       Both the parties have submitted that their pleadings and documents be treated as their evidence.  Hence arguments are heard.

4.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether the ATM receipt showing Rs.3,730/- as being received by the opposite parties in cash reflects only Rs.2,730/- and not Rs.3,730/-?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A)        :           In the Negative.

Point (B)        :           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant had a credit card account with the opposite parties.  In the statement of account dated: 24.01.2011 the complainant was shown as due Rs.3,730/- and it has to be paid within the period mentioned therein.  Accordingly as per the ATM receipt of the opposite party dated: 24.01.2011 at 11.22 AM at ATM No.S1ANBG84 the complainant had paid Rs.3,730/- and the opposite party has received it.  But in the subsequent statement the opposite parties had shown that only Rs.2,730/- has been received with respect to the transaction.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  The complainant has requested the opposite parties to rectify it.  Even then it is not rectified.

7.       The contentions of the opposite parties that ATM receipt only reflects that the amount has been paid, it will not reflect actual amount that has been paid, in the sense the ATM receipt is typed by the complainant to suit his convenience but amount paid is less this is an untenable contention.  There is no material to show that a receipt will be issued from the ATM for a higher amount though lesser amount is paid.  This clearly goes to show that the personnel of the opposite parties have done something in the matter; less stay is better.  The opposite parties are at liberty to conduct investigation which is required in accordance with law against its personnel and recover the amount from them for which this order will not come in the way.  Hence under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite parties are directed to see that Rs.3,730/- is credited to the credit card account No.46178620 0094 1575 of the complainant as on 24.01.2011 as the amount received towards the due with respect to the account statement dated: 24.01.2011 within 15 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
4. The opposite parties are also directed to comply with the order and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 19^th Day of May 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                              PRESIDENT