O R D E R SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., The grievance of the complainant against Ops in brief is, that he is a owner of a car accessories shop by name RPM car Accessories with facility of card swiping machine. That machine is supplied by the respondent and it is used regularly. On a customer purchasing products from him through credit card his credit card will be swiped in that machine if the card is valid and transaction is complete. Thereafter the Ops who supplied that machine will send the moneys of the transaction to him by way of demand drafts deducting service charges. On 26-05-2009 a credit card holder purchased certain products worth Rs.26,000/- under the credit card and when the agent of the Ops came to his shop he handed over a demand draft for Rs.3,408/47ps as against Rs.26,000/- There is slight discrepancy with regard to the date of transaction dated 26-05-2009 by mis-quoting the date by the complainant has 27-05-2009 but that should be taken has transaction on 26-05-2009 as evident from the documents. That he protested and contacted OP 2 and requested to make full payment but they have not responded. He got issued a legal notice demanding to pay the balance amount of Rs.22,000/- Ops have failed. Hence prayed for a direction to Ops to pay him the balance amount of Rs.22,000/- of Rs.26,000/- transaction with damages of Rs.25,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version. Ops have admitted to had entered into a merchant agreement for installation of electronic data capture terminal machine and as per the terms have agreed to pay the complainant amounts of all the transactions less the discount made in his premises and also agreed to pay the amount for each transaction done by the customers. That terms of the agreement laid down that the complainant has to accept valid card to have transparent transaction and subject to the conditions they have agreed to pay the complainant the cost of all the transactions. It is further contended by them that the complainant entertained the transaction on 11-04-2009 of Rs.22,000/- and the credit card as detailed was used in the transaction. That their representative approached complainant for the charge slip copy of the above transaction but the complainant had not maintained any charge slip or bill copy of transaction for which they have paid Rs.22,000/- to the complainant when the complainant did not furnish charge slip they had to deduct Rs.22,000/- from out of Rs.26,000/- out of the transaction that was done on 26-05-2009 with the complainant by another card holder and gave a demand draft for Rs.3408/47ps. Therefore the claim to have adjust Rs.22,000/- of that date transaction from out of Rs.26,000/- payable to the complainant and thereby have contended they have not caused any deficiency in their service and submitted for dismissal of the compliant. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Manager of OP have filed their affidavit evidence by reasserting what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced a Xerox copy of the charge slip dated 26-05-2009 for Rs.26,000/-, a copy of letter of Ops dated 27-05-2009 addressed to him with the copy of the demand draft sent to him for Rs.3408/47ps by the Ops and the copy of the legal notice sent by him to the Ops. Ops have produced a copy of an agreement entered into between the complainant and the Ops regarding installation of the swiping machine which contain terms and conditions with a copy of application given by the complainant to them for installing swiping machine. Heard the counsel for Ops and perused the written arguments filed by the counsel of the complainant. On perusal of the materials placed before us, following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the complainant prove that the OPs have caused deficiency in their service in deducting Rs.22,000/- from out of Rs.26,000/- of the transaction dated 27-05-2009? 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ? Our findings are as under:- Point No: 1 in the negative. Point No: 2:see the final order. REASONS: POINT No:1:: As perused from the contentions of the parties there is no dispute between the parties as to the agreement entered into in installing a swiping machine by the Ops in the business premises of the complainant and the undertaking of the Ops to pay the cost of all the transactions done by the complainant in his business premises through credit cards. The complainant has contended that in connection with the credit card transaction dated 26-05-2009 a credit card holder purchased goods worth Rs.26,000/- and his card was swiped in the swiping machine. The agent of the Ops went to their shop but handed over a demand draft of Rs.3408/47ps as against the amount due Rs.26,000/- and therefore contended that despite demand notice the Ops have not paid that amount and it amounts to deficiency and has prayed for the relief. Whereas the Ops have set up a defense interalia contending that in connection with the transaction dated 11-04-2009 done in the complainants shop they had paid Rs.22,000/- to the complainant but the complainant did not give them charge slip or bill copy in proof of that transaction despite demand. Therefore as contended that in connection with another transaction done in the shop of the complainant by a credit card holder on 26-05-2009 a sum of Rs.26,000/- was payable by them but they deducted Rs.22,000/- from that amount which was paid towards earlier transaction for non-offering of charge slip and therefore paid only Rs.3408/47 ps the balance amount of Rs.26,000/- and therefore have justified their action in doing so. In the course of arguments the counsel for the Ops even made an offer to the complainant if the complainant even now give the charge slip or the bill of the transaction dated 11-04-2009 they are prepared to pay that Rs.22,000/- to the complainant. In that regard the counsel for the Op even filed a memo to direct the complainant to produce bill copy of the transaction dated 11-04-2009 for which the Op has replied that the complainant will produce the bill copy of that transaction, but later on the counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had sent the bill copy to the agent of the Op and he has collected. The counsel for the complainant argued that the Ops once paid the amount of the transaction dated 11-044-2009 after collecting the charge slip they cannot re-open it and contended to the contrary and submitted as if the Ops are estopped from asking for adjustment of that amount. The complainant in the compliant has no where stated that the Ops had paid Rs.22,000/- of the previous transaction after receipt of the charge slip or bill. What the complainant in the compliant stated is that the agent of the Ops has delivered them a demand draft for Rs.3408/47ps but has not at all referred to the transaction dated 11-04-2009 and handing over of charge slip to the Ops. The complainant it is found has suppressed this a material fact in the compliant. It could be seen that the Ops after paying Rs.22,000/- in connection with the transaction dated 11-04-2009 somewhere during April 2009 appeared to had realized that the institution or the bank which had issued a credit card to the customer who made purchase on 11-04-2009 for Rs.22,000/- from the complainant was a disputed one and sought particulars of the credit card holder from the Ops. Then the Ops on 11-05-2009 addressed a letter to the complainant bringing to his notice the transaction dated 11-04-2009 in respect of which they had paid Rs.22,000/- to him and sought certain particulars and documents of the credit card holder who did a transaction with the complainant on 11-04-2009. The complainant has not denied the receipt of this letter. But the complainant did not respond to give the necessary details of the credit card holder and the transaction of 11-04-2009. The complainant by the time of filing this compliant was aware off and smelt a dubious transaction entertained by him on 11-04-2009 and in respect of which the Ops asked him to give the details but the complainant has not at all traversed this objection of the Ops but has totally suppressed the transaction of 11-04-2009 and enquiry in that regard pending with the Ops and the card issuing institution. The complainant prior to filing of the complaint even got issued a legal notice on 10-06-2009 again in that notice he has suppressed the issue raised by the Ops and the documents they sought from him through their letter dated 11-05-2009. At the cost of repeatation we say that it is not the contention of the complainant that the Ops paid him Rs.22,000/- in respect of transaction dated 11-04-2009 after receipt of charge slip. Even assuming that the complainant had given charge slip of the transaction to the Ops, later on if the Ops have found that the complainant had not furnished them the further details of the card holder and the transaction and the payment made by them to the complainant was erroneous was done without proper verification that does not prevent the Ops to reconsider it and request the complainant to furnish better particulars. In the case on hand we should realize that the complainant sold the products and accept credit cards issued by different card issuing authorities. These Ops pay these amounts to the complainant of those transactions then take steps to recover those amounts from the credit card issuing institutions from out of the account of the card holder. This being the functioning of the Ops who after paying Rs.22,000/- on behalf of the credit card holder to the complainant when make a claim with the card issuing authority on whose alleged card the transaction dated 11-04-2009 was done and when that issuing authority raised objection and called for the particulars of the card holder the Ops were compelled to seek the documents and details of the card holders and the transaction from the complainant. But the complainant did not respond and never reacted. The contention of the counsel for the complainant that the Ops once having had paid money of a transaction to the complainant cannot go back and they are estopped cannot be accepted because the terms and conditions of the agreement entered into between the complainant and the Ops prove that the complainant a merchant shall produce necessary documents and furnish the needed details in respect of the transaction as provided under clause 8 (c ) of the conditions of their contract. Further condition NO:15.1 provide that the complainant a merchant shall maintain all the documents has provided under clause 8 ( c) of the agreement pertaining to the credit card transaction for a period not less than one year after the transaction and produce them to the Ops on request and even furnish the needed particulars. But the complainant has failed to follow up with this condition he had agreed under the agreement and thereby has failed to produce the relevant details and documents of the credit card holder who did transaction in the shop on 11-04-2009. Therefore when the complainant did not account for that transaction as agreed under the agreement the Ops who had paid Rs.22,000/- towards that transaction had no option but to recover that amount from the subsequent payment payable to the complainant. Accordingly the Ops after adjusting the amount from out of the purchase cost of dated 26-05-2009 paid the balance Rs.3408/47ps which is legal and not deficient. Hence we answer point NO:1 in the negative and pass the following order. O R D E R Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.