HSBC Bank V/S Rakesh S. Joshi - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2117

Rakesh S. Joshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In person

03 Dec 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2117

Rakesh S. Joshi						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
HSBC Bank						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 03rd DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2117/2008 COMPLAINANT Rakesh. S. Joshi, Freescale Semiconductor, Devaradisanahalli, Campus 1C, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore 560 036. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY HSBC Bank, No. 7, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K.R Ganesh) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reimburse Rs.32,282/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took two credit cards and one debit card from OP. On 28.01.2008 he lost HSBC credit card bearing No. 4384 5999 9265 5711. Immediately he contacted the OP and requested them to block the said credit card transactions. Then he lodged the complaint to the Police as per the guidelines of the OP. With all that in the meantime the said card has been used by some third party and transacted to the tune of Rs.32,282/-. Though complainant never utilized the said card, OP directed him to pay the said amount and deducted the said amount from his account which is illegal and arbitrary. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by addressing several letters to OP to rectify the said mistake and compensate him, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the credit card which complainant possessed had a limit of Rs.98,000/-. Complainant availed the credit card in the month of May 2007 and he is in continuous use of the same and on 28.01.2008 he used the said credit card and transacted to the tune of Rs.32,282/-. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant the card was blocked at 17.09 hours, but in the meantime the disputed transaction has taken place. Under such circumstances complainant is liable to pay the said charges. What had happened to the Police complaint is not known. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP is entitled to recover the said amount from the account of the complainant, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the credit card from the OP. According to the complainant he lost the said credit card along with other debit cards on 28.01.2008. Of course he has not mentioned the time when he lost the said card. It is further contended that as per the directions of the OP complainant lodged complaint to the Madiwala Police Station. At what time the said complaint is lodged is not known and what had happened to the said complaint is also not known. Further it is contended by the complainant that though he has not used the said credit card an amount of Rs.32,282/- is deducted from his account, which is illegal and arbitrary. The so called signature done on the transaction slip are not genuine, they are forged. If that is the fact complainant would have lodged another complaint of forgery before the concerned Police. But no such steps are taken. So the evidence of the complainant rather appears to be little halfhearted one. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that on the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they blocked the said credit card at 17.09 hours. But in the mean time the said card was properly utilized that too at 3.35 p.m. and 3.50 p.m. and then at 4.24 and 4.28. So all these transaction have taken place prior to the blocking of the said card. To substantiate the said defence OP has produced the transaction slips, which bears the signature of the complainant. Though complainant has disputed the said signature, still the burden lies on the complainant to substantiate his allegations. With a naked eye it can be seen and compared with the admitted signature they appears to be that of a complainant. Hence for this simple reason the defence of the OP appears to be rather acceptable and believable than that of the allegations made by the complainant. 8. OP has produced the statements as well as the terms and conditions of the use of the said credit card. The contents of the said documents are not disputed by the complainant. Under such circumstances when the said transaction has taken place as contemplated prior to the blocking of the said card, naturally complainant is liable to pay the said amount. If the OP has insisted for the payment of the said amount, in our considered view that act of the OP does not amounts to deficiency in service. It is also not known what had happened to the complaint given to the Police. Under such circumstances the whole of the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 03rd day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.09.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 03rd DECEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2117/2008 COMPLAINANT Rakesh. S. Joshi, Freescale Semiconductor, Devaradisanahalli, Campus 1C, Sarjapur Outer Ring Road, Varthur Hobli, Bangalore 560 036. V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY HSBC Bank, No. 7, M.G. Road, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K.R Ganesh) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to reimburse Rs.32,282/- with interest and pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took two credit cards and one debit card from OP. On 28.01.2008 he lost HSBC credit card bearing No. 4384 5999 9265 5711. Immediately he contacted the OP and requested them to block the said credit card transactions. Then he lodged the complaint to the Police as per the guidelines of the OP. With all that in the meantime the said card has been used by some third party and transacted to the tune of Rs.32,282/-. Though complainant never utilized the said card, OP directed him to pay the said amount and deducted the said amount from his account which is illegal and arbitrary. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by addressing several letters to OP to rectify the said mistake and compensate him, went in futile. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under such circumstances he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Hence he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the credit card which complainant possessed had a limit of Rs.98,000/-. Complainant availed the credit card in the month of May 2007 and he is in continuous use of the same and on 28.01.2008 he used the said credit card and transacted to the tune of Rs.32,282/-. On the receipt of the complaint from the complainant the card was blocked at 17.09 hours, but in the meantime the disputed transaction has taken place. Under such circumstances complainant is liable to pay the said charges. What had happened to the Police complaint is not known. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP is entitled to recover the said amount from the account of the complainant, that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the credit card from the OP. According to the complainant he lost the said credit card along with other debit cards on 28.01.2008. Of course he has not mentioned the time when he lost the said card. It is further contended that as per the directions of the OP complainant lodged complaint to the Madiwala Police Station. At what time the said complaint is lodged is not known and what had happened to the said complaint is also not known. Further it is contended by the complainant that though he has not used the said credit card an amount of Rs.32,282/- is deducted from his account, which is illegal and arbitrary. The so called signature done on the transaction slip are not genuine, they are forged. If that is the fact complainant would have lodged another complaint of forgery before the concerned Police. But no such steps are taken. So the evidence of the complainant rather appears to be little halfhearted one. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that on the receipt of the complaint from the complainant they blocked the said credit card at 17.09 hours. But in the mean time the said card was properly utilized that too at 3.35 p.m. and 3.50 p.m. and then at 4.24 and 4.28. So all these transaction have taken place prior to the blocking of the said card. To substantiate the said defence OP has produced the transaction slips, which bears the signature of the complainant. Though complainant has disputed the said signature, still the burden lies on the complainant to substantiate his allegations. With a naked eye it can be seen and compared with the admitted signature they appears to be that of a complainant. Hence for this simple reason the defence of the OP appears to be rather acceptable and believable than that of the allegations made by the complainant. 8. OP has produced the statements as well as the terms and conditions of the use of the said credit card. The contents of the said documents are not disputed by the complainant. Under such circumstances when the said transaction has taken place as contemplated prior to the blocking of the said card, naturally complainant is liable to pay the said amount. If the OP has insisted for the payment of the said amount, in our considered view that act of the OP does not amounts to deficiency in service. It is also not known what had happened to the complaint given to the Police. Under such circumstances the whole of the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 03rd day of December 2008.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.