DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

THIRUVALLUR

 

 BEFORE  TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law)                   .…. PRESIDENT

                  THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L.,                                                             .....MEMBER-I

                 THIRU.P.MURUGAN, B.Com., ICWA (Inter), B.L.,                                   ....MEMBER-II

 

CC. No.45/2022

THIS TUESDAY, THE 02nd DAY OF AUGUST 2022

 

Dr.A.Arunagiri, M.S.M.Ch.,

P.R.G.Hospital,

No.85, Sakkarapuram,

Tiruvannamalai High Road,

Gingee, Villupuram District – 604 202.                                            ……Complainant.     

                                                                          //Vs//

Hemant Surgical Company,

Rep. by its Partner,

No.62(Old No.33), Nyniappa Naicken Street,

1st Floor, Chennai -600 003.                                                    ..........Opposite party. 

 

Counsel for the complainant                                                  :   M/s.K.Ganesan, Advocate.

Counsel for the opposite party                                              :   Mr.Antony Jesurajan, Advocate. 

                         

This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 21.07.2022 in the presence of M/s.K.Ganesan Advocate counsel for the complainant and Mr.Antony Jesurajan counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both parties, this Commission delivered the following: 

ORDER

PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.MURUGAN, MEMBER.

 

This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging unfair trade practice against the opposite party along with a prayer to refund a sum of Rs.4300/- excess amount collected illegally from him with 24% interest and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards negligence and deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.25,000/-to the complainant. 

Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-

 

The complainant who is a surgeon has purchased two stethoscopes from the outlet setup by the opposite party in a medical expo organized in Chennai trade centre on 28.07.2018. The total price of both units is Rs.4300/-.  For the payment of the said purchase he preferred payment through Rupay Debit card No.6069 8600 0518 5642 linked to his Saving Bank Account No.00000011191447640 of State Bank of India.  The opposite party swiped the card using his point of sale machine but the transaction was declined.  Therefore, the opposite party tried for second time on the same point of sale machine but as such no response and no slip was generated, the opposite party intimated that transactions failed and asked for alternate card for making the payment with complainant.  It is stated by the complainant, that he is left with no other alternative but to give another card i.e., Rupay Debit card bearing No.6071 3100 0844 909 linked to the SB Account No.235024093 of the TNSC Bank held in the name of the complainant’s wife.  The transaction towards the payment was successful and the opposite party provided the cash bill No.39803 dated 28.07.2018 for the purchase made.  After this when the complainant checked his Bank Account he found that there are two debit entries of Rs.4300/- on 28.07.2018 and one debit entry has been revered on that day itself.  So there is a payment of Rs.4300/- from his account for the purchase also, apart from his wife account.  When the complainant took up the matter with the opposite party on the double payment for a single purchase, the opposite party never took action to repay the excess amount received by them.  A letter dated 05.09.2018 with Bank Statement in this regard to opposite party did not yield any result.  Therefore the complainant has approached this commission praying that orders for;

To refund the excess amount of Rs.4300/- collected twice for a single transaction with 24% interest per annum;

 To pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the mental agony, pain and suffering undergone by the complainant;

To pay a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards negligence and deficiency of service with cost of Rs.25,000/- or any other order this commission think fit.

Defence statement by the opposite party:

M/s. Hemant Surgical Company, Chennai are dealers of a surgical equipment manufacturing company namely M/s.Industrial Electronic & Allied Products of Pune and they are the manufacturer of medical equipments who put up a stall in medical expo held at Chennai Trade Centre on 28.07.2018 to sell their products.  The opposite party namely M/s. Hemant Surgical Company Chennai was selling the products on behalf of the manufacturer and issue invoices to customers after supply of product.  It is stated by the opposite party that the point of sale machine were brought by the manufacturer of the goods manufactured and they in turn pay the proceeds to dealers.  Therefore it is stated by the opposite party that they received only one payment of Rs.4300/- from the manufacturer and supplier of the said goods.  The bank statement submitted as Ex.B1 also proves that there is only one credit of Rs.4300/- and no two credit for the said amount available.  The Bank Statement given only by M/s. Industrial Electronic & Allied Products of Pune 411009.  The transaction of amount Rs.4300/- has occurred on the terminal TTD No.27056996 which is marked as Ex.B3.  The confirmation letter sent by M/s. Industrial Electronic & Allied Products marked as Ex.B4.  In conclusion the opposite party denies the change of excess payment for the transaction.

On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 were marked on their side.  On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.B4 were marked.

Point for consideration:-

Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in receiving twice the amount from the complainant for a single invoice by way of swiping and if so to what relief he is entitled to?

 Point:

On the side of complainant the following documents were filed in proof of complaint allegations;

Cash bill issued by the opposite party dated 28.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A1;

Letter written by the complainant to the opposite party dated 05.09.2018  was marked as Ex.A2;

Bank Statement of the Claimant dated 04.09.2019  was marked as Ex.A3;

Bank Statement of the claimant dated 24.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A4;

Bank Statement of the Claimant’s wife dated 20.03.2019 was marked as Ex.A5;

 On the side of opposite party the following documents were filed in proof of their contentions;

 HDFC Bank Statement from 01.07.2018 to 31.07.2018 given by  M/s. Industrial Electronic and Allied Products was marked as Ex.B1;

Transaction invoices was marked as Ex.B2;

Email reply given by HDFC Bank was marked as Ex.A3;

Confirmation letter from M/s. Industrial Electronic and Allied Products dated 27.02.2019 was marked as Ex.B4;

  The complainant has purchased two stethoscopes from the outlet setup by the opposite party in medical expo held in Chennai trade centre on 28.07.2018.  The complainant has made payment of Rs.4300/- through his debit card. There are two attempts on his card which did not succeed and therefore he swiped the other card pertaining to his wife which cleared the transaction.  But to his disappointment and dismay, later he found that on the two transactions on his card there is a debit of Rs.4300/-in his account means, the transaction is cleared.  The second attempt was not cleared in his account and it is reversed without payment.  So the complainant has paid two payments for a single transaction namely one from his debit card and the other one from his wife’s debit card.  It is proved from his submission of statement of account of self and his wife.  On the other hand the opposite party denies receiving two payments for a single transaction.  The opposite party though submits the statement, the point of sale machine was not operated by him but by the supplier of the product i.e., Industrial Electronic & Allied Products from Pune and denies the charge therefore this case coming before this commission for remedy and relief as filed by complainant.

The transaction of sale, delivery and payment in this case is clear.  It is evident that the sale took in a place where the manufacturer has set up a stall and the dealer has raised the invoice and delivered the product.  For the payment of the transactions the complainant has preferred through debit card and there are two attempts on the POS machine pertaining to the manufacturer which turned futile and therefore the third attempt was made through the complainant’s wife card.  This attempt was successful and receipt produced.  But the crux of the case is that on the two attempts made in the complainant’s card there is a debit and there is only one reverse entry for the said amount of Rs.4300/- which is evident in the bank statement produced by the complainant.  The evidence produced by the complainant was verified and found in order.  There are two payments for a single transaction and hence the claim of the complainant is maintainable.  The opposite party who raised one invoice has the liability to receive only one payment to one transaction.  The opposite party has not produced the bank statement of their bank account to prove that they have not received the additional payment of Rs.4300/- which goes in favour of the complainant. Therefore, this commission holds that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not returning the excess payment of Rs.4300/- debited from the complainant’s account.  This point is answered accordingly.

With regard to the relief to be granted, we direct the opposite party to refund the sum of Rs.4300/- with 6% interest from the date of debit (i.e.) 28.07.2018.  We also award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for the mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant. Also Rs.5000/- awarded as cost. 

In the result, the complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite Party 

a) to refund Rs.4,300/- (Rupees four thousand three hundred only) to the complainant with 6% interest from 28.07.2018 to till the date of realization;

b) to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony caused to the complainant;

c) to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards cost of this proceedings to the complainant. 

Dictated by the Member-II to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-II and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 02nd day of August 2022.

Sd/-                                                             Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                              MEMBER I                                    PRESIDENT

 

List of document filed by the complainant:-

 

Ex.A1 28.07.2018 Cash Bill No.39803. Xerox

Ex.A2 05.09.2018 Letter written by the complainant to the opposite party. Xerox

Ex.A3 04.09.2019 Bank Statement of the Claimant. Xerox

Ex.A4 24.03.2019 Bank Statement of the Claimant. Xerox

Ex.A5 20.03.2019 Bank Statement of the Claimant’s wife. Xerox

 

List of documents filed by the opposite party:-

 

Ex.B1 01.07.2018

        to 31.07.2018 HDFC Bank Statement. Xerox

Ex.B2 28.07.2018 Transaction invoices. Xerox

Ex.B3 15.02.2019 Email reply given by HDFC Bank. Xerox

Ex.B4 27.02.2019 Confirmation letter from M/s.Industrial Electronic and Allied Products. Xerox

 

 

   Sd/-                                                        Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

MEMBER-II                                         MEMBER I                                        PRESIDENT