Complaint filed on 25.02.2009,<br /> Complaint Disposed on 10.06.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> Dated: 10th of JUNE 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT:-SRI. S.S.NAGARALE<br /> SMT. M.YASHODHAMMA<br /> SRI. A.MUN IYAPPA. <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 472/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT D.S.Gururaj,<br /> F/o Tushita,<br /> No.2915, 14th Main,<br /> R.P.C. Layout (Attiguppe),<br /> Vijayanagar 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560040.<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager, <br /> HDFC Bank,<br /> Kasturba Marg,<br /> Bangalore.<br /> <br /> 2. The Manager, <br /> HDFC Bank Cards Division,<br /> P.O. Box No.8654,<br /> Thiruvanmiyur P.O.,<br /> Chennai – 600041.<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s.12 of C.P.Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction against the OP to withdraw the demand notice & to pay compensation of Rs.5 Lakhs & costs. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -2-<br /> 1. The brief averments made in the complaint are as follows:<br /> <br /> The complainant who is a power of Attorney holder of his daughter Ms. Tushita who is a credit card holder of OP Bank bearing No.5176 0377 9973. Complainant’s daughter after marriage stayed in US. In November 2008 OP has issued a credit card statement which reflected a transaction purported to have been done by Bajaj Allianz for a sum of rs.5,986/- and the complainants daughter was asked to pay the processing fee for the said unauthorized transaction. Though complainant has braught the same to the notice of the Op Bank, no action was taken to cancel the processing fee reflected in the statement. OP has started sending the statements every month & started making phone calls to clear the amount. The correspondence made by the complainant & her daughter dated 24.11.2008 & 08.12.2008 are produced due to this hostile attitude of the OP complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint & saught for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance Op filed its version mainly contending that customer had requested the OP through on line to activate the facility to pay her Bajaj Allianz premium for a sum of Rs.5,986/- on 20.10.08. This defence cannot be accepted as OP has failed to produce any document to support its defence. Further OP contends that when statement was raised on 02.11.08 complainant disputed the said transaction. OP verified the said issue with the Bajaj Allianz & the policy was cancelled on 22.12.08. As per the process of Bajaj policy is cancelled after 45 days refund will be made on probate basis. Hence amount of Rs.5,185/- was credited to the customer A/c on 22.12.08. When customer was reluctant on full refund, on this the voice recording was verified by Bajaj audit team, as the recording was not OK, OP refunded <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -3-<br /> balance amount of Rs.801/- on 02.04.09 to the customer. So other charges of service, cess were charged. Customer is liable to pay Rs.2,062=91 as per statement dated 02.05.09. Correspondence made by OP dated 27.12.08 & 30.12.08 are produced. Among other grounds prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. At the outset it is not at dispute that complainant’s daughter M/s Tushita is a credit card holder of OP Bank bearing No.5176 5210 0337 9973. It is who not at dispute that in the statement issued by the OP for the month of November 2008 reflected a transaction purported to have been done by Bajaj Alianz on 22.10.08 for a sum of Rs.5,986/-. OP has admitted that on verification it has credited Rs.5,185/- on 22.12.08 & Rs.801/- on 02.04.09 to the complainant’s daughter’s account. No doubt there is a delay of around six months. The OP could have taken steps immediately & credited the amount to customer account. Further demand of the OP for Rs.2,062=91 has no basis. There is no obligation on the part of the complainant’s daughter to pay the bills raised by the OP from 02.11.08 to 02.05.09. Since the bills raised by the OP are illegal & not based on any actual facts. Complainant’s daughter need not pay any amount in respect of credit card No.5176 5210 0337 9973. Further OP is estopped from issuing such bills. OP being a financial institution & service provider should see that its customers are served in a better way without giving any scope for negligence or deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> 4. The Consumer Protection Act is enacted to protect & safe guard the better interest of the consumer. This is an age of computer. The delay in crediting the amount must have naturally caused mental agony & financial loss to the complainant’s daughter for no fault of her. Therefore complainant <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> -4-<br /> can be compensated by directing OP to pay Rs.1,000/- compensation & Rs.1,000/- towards litigation cost. In the result we proceed to pass the following:<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> The complaint is disposed of as settled since the OP has given corresponding credit to the account of the complainant. However OP is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- compensation & Rs.1,000/- litigation cost to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of communication of the order.<br /> <br /> Send the copy of this order to both the parties free of cost.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT.<br />