Haryana

Panchkula

CC/462/2019

RAJIV GOEL. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK. - Opp.Party(s)

COMPLAINANT IN PERSON.

18 Aug 2021

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

                                                                  

Consumer Complaint No	:	462 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	14.08.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.08.2021

 

Rajiv Goel s/o Sh. Dharam Pal Goel, resident of House No.326, Sector-6, Panchkula.

                                                                           ….Complainant

Versus

HDFC Bank, Credit Card Division, PN 28, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Chandigarh-160002, through its Authorized Representative.

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:             Sh. Satpal, President.

                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

                        Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

Present:    Shri Vineet Yadav, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.   

OP already ex parte vide order dated 04.10.2019.

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             The brief facts of the present complaint are that complainant is a HDFC Bank Credit Card Holder. On the basis of his relations and timely payments, the bank gifted him Card i..e Priority Pass. As per the said card he along with his family members is entitled for availing the free lounges facility at the airports which includes free meals and other services at the lounges. He along with his family members visited Goa from 18^th March, 2019 to 21^st March, 2019. In the month of July, 2019, he received the HDFC Bank Credit card statement, from where he came to know about the deduction of Rs.13,380/- from his account. When he called the customer care office of HDFC Credit Card and told them about his grievance, they replied him that the said amount pertains to the dining at the airport in the lounges. Complainant told them that he is member of the HDFC Bank Classic card holder and on the basis of his performance, the bank itself offered him the privileged priority pass card which entitles me free dine with his family at the airport lounges. No satisfactory reply was given to him by the concerned person at the customer care office. He again called on HDFC Bank Customer Care on 25^th July, 2019 around 10:58 A.M., where he talked with Ms. Karamvir, who also gave no satisfactory reply to his grievance. Due to the act and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered mental agony and harassment. Hence, the present complaint.    

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through registered post (vide registered post No.RH380457682IN) on 27.08.2019, which was received back with the report of ‘refusal’, which amounts to service of the notice upon the OP. Hence, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 04.10.2019.

3.             To prove the case of the complainant, Ld. counsel for the complainant, tendered affidavit of the complainant as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-3 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

                During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted a photocopy of terms and conditions of priority pass member which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’ for the proper adjudication of the case.

4.             We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the record available on file including written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the complainant, carefully and minutely.

5.             After hearing and going through the record, it transpires that the complainant has alleged deficiencies on the part of the opposite party on the ground that a sum of Rs.13,380/- had been deducted from his account by the OPs in lieu of dining charges whereas, the complainant being a priority pass holder vide Annexure C-1 was entitled for free dining facility at the lounge of airports. It is alleged that the OPs were not authorized/entitled to deduct a sum of Rs.13,380/- on account of the dining charges at Chandigarh, Mumbai and Bengaluru Airports as the privileged priority pass card holder were/are entitled for free dining facility at the lounge of airport.

6.             The OP did not appear to contest the claim of the complainant and preferred to be proceeded ex-parte, for which adverse inference is liable to be drawn against it. The non-appearance of the OP despite notice shows that they have nothing to say in its defence or against the allegations made by the complainant. Therefore, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is corroborated and substantiated by his affidavit Annexure C-A as well as certain documents in shape of Annexure C-1 to C-3.

8.             Evidently, the complainant was issued priority pass, photocopy of which is available on record as Annexure C/1. As per Mark ‘A’, priority pass members are entitled to enjoy complimentary food, drinks and Wi-fi inside the airport lounges; thus the charging of a sum Rs.13,380/- from  the complainant on account of enjoying the facility of lounge at air port by him with his family was wrong and not justified. Further, Guest Voucher copy (Annexure C-2), makes it evident that booking for air journey was from 18.03.2019 to 21.03.2019. Even the copy of bank statement Annexure C-3 shows that  a sum of Rs. 340.15, 1889.73, 680.30, 1020.45, 5669.19 and 3779.46 was deducted by the opposite party on 28.06.2019, on account of dining charges including IGST.

9.             In view of the fact that the OP neither responded to the notice nor has it opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that the OP is liable to compensate the complainant for the deficiencies on its part.  Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

10.            As a result of the above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint against OP with the following directions:-

(i)     The OP is directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,380/- to    the     complainant alongwith @9% per annum w.e.f. the   date of filing of the complaint till its    realization. 

        (ii)    The OP No.1 is directed to pay a lump sum     amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant on   account of mental agony, harassment and cost of  litigation.

11.            The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71 of CP Act, 2019 against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced:18.08.2021

 

 

Dr.Sushma Garg           Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini           Satpal

        Member                 Member                           President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

   Satpal                                                

 President