O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the Ops in brief is, that he is one of the customer of the Ops bank transacting his business. That on 13/11/2008 one T. Srinivas had swiped his credit card twice for individual purchases amounting to Rs.75,000/- each vide invoice No.2945 and 2946 by purchasing gold ornaments from them. That the said card holder signed on the merchants copy on the same day after getting detailed report and settlement report with approval code numbers from instrument issued by the Ops. On these 2 transactions, Ops have credited Rs.1,50,000/- to their account deducting commission amount. As per the merchant payment advice dated 27/02/2009 issued by the Ops a sum of Rs.75,000/- was debited from his account on 24/02/2009 without any reason and intimation to him. That merchant support service has issued a letter dated 24/02/2009 to the complainant to submit documents as mentioned in that letter. That he had submitted documents asked by in that letter to one Balaji a representative of Ops on 27/02/2009. That he also informed the Ops about the said debiting to his account, but the Ops have not cared for it. Then he also lodged a complaint through telephone on 12/03/2009 which was registered on 18/03/2009. On 20/08/2009 Ops representative one Balaji went and collected copies of entire documents relating to the transactions. Ops have failed and neglected to credit Rs.75,000/- to his account. Ops therefore have breached the contract for debiting Rs.75,000/- to his account and that act of Ops has resulted in harassing him. Issue of legal notice on 20/04/2009 also has not resulted in any relief and therefore, has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.75,000/- towards debiting that amount to his account with interest @ 18% p.a from 24/02/2009 and to pay Rs.1.00 lakh towards financial loss and mental agony and also to award cost of Rs.5,000/-.<br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate and have filed common version contending that the complaint is not maintainable in law and is liable to be dismissed. The Ops without disputing that the complainant is a merchant and he having an account with them, admitted to had accepted credit of card one T.Srinivas who had purchased certain items from the complainant’s and tendered credit card for payment. The complainant’s contention that the customer had swiped his credit card twice for having purchased amounting to Rs.75,000/- in respect of two transactions is disputed and contrary to it have stated that the merchant who swipes the card after acceptance and charge slips are given to the customer as a token of acceptance. Admittedly, the customer has made individual purchase for Rs.75,000/- where as the card is swiped twice for Rs.75,000/- each. The credit card issuing bank on the basis of invoice submitted by the complainant had given credit of Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of the complainant but when that T.Srinivas raised dispute and submitted documents about the individual purchase, the credit card issuing bank of the customer had debited the said amount from the Op. Hence, the said debit was passed on to the complainant intimating him to furnish sufficient documents with respect to the transaction No. ECB 4513 but despite request the complainant has not produced relevant documents justifying his claim. As the complainant failed to establish the purchases to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- on that date under the credit card, the complainant cannot claim that amount. That as per the terms and conditions agreed upon by the complainant he is required to furnish all the information and related documents as required by acquiring bank. Acquiring Bank reserves its right to refuse total or partial amount to the merchant and debit the merchant in case of any un justifying claim. With this Ops denying receipt of documents called for through one Balaji have called upon the complainant to put to strict proof of the same. It is further stated that the complainant has only furnished one authorized slip but not all the documents. Thus denying other allegations of the complainant has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complainant, the complainant and one Harsha Srivatsa L. for Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their complaint and version. The complainant along with complaint has produced Xerox copies of tax invoice, merchant copies of the Ops, letter of the Ops addressed to him with a copy of legal notice he got issued to the Ops. Ops have produced a copy of terms and conditions of merchant establishments, copy of the letter addressed to the complainant and one merchant copy of that branch. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the record.<br /> <br /> On consideration of the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in debiting a sum of Rs.75,000/- in connection with a transaction one T. Srinivas had with the complainant.<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> Answer on point No.1: The fact that the complainant is a dealer in jewels maintained an account with Op and one T.Srinivas had transacted with the complainant on 13/11/2008 are not in controversy. But the claim of the complainant that on 13/11/2008 that T.Srinivas made two transactions by purchasing two jewels through his credit card each for Rs.75,000/- and swiped his credit card twice and thereby he became entitle for Rs.1,50,000/- towards those two transactions and accordingly the Ops had credited a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to his account but later on as per the merchant payment advise letter dated 27/02/2009 Ops have debited a sum of Rs.75,000/- to his account on 24/02/2009 and that debit of Rs.75,000/- by the Ops from his account is wrong is contested by the Ops.<br /> <br /> Ops admitted to had credited Rs.1,50,000/- to the account of the complainant, as the initial stage, on the complainant producing tax invoice, but have contended that when T. Srinivas raised dispute and submitted documents evidencing single purchase from the complainant, the bank which had issued credit card to that Srinivas debited Rs.75,000/- to their account and they in turn debited that amount to the account of the complainant and informed the complainant to furnish sufficient documents in respect of second transaction and stated that when the complainant failed to produce document in proof of purchase made to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/- that amount Rs.75,000/- was debited to his account. The complainant in support of his contention that T.Srinivas had made two purchases on 13/11/2008 has produced Xerox copies of tax invoice, produced two Xerox copy of merchant copies which are not clear and details of transactions cannot be gathered from this merchant vouchers. The complainant has also not produced the original invoice book for perusal of the forum. The complainant further has not controverted the statement of Ops made in the version and also in the affidavit evidence regarding issuing of intimation to the complainant to produce sufficient documents in respect of transaction made VCB 4513. The Ops have produced copy of letter they sent to the complainant on 24/04/2009 in which Ops have specifically requested the complainant to forward charge slip copy of bill/invoice, copy of both transactions by 7 days to enable them to present the complainant’s case to the card holders bank and to arrange for refund of money back and the Ops have contended that the complainant did not send documents as requested and had only forwarded one copy of merchant slip. This evidence of the Ops has not been contracted by the complainant. The complainant as against this specific submission of the Ops has stated, as if he had handed over all the documents to one Balaji a representative of the Ops. But the Ops again not only in their version but also in the affidavit evidence filed by them have denied that complainant had handed over the documents to their representative Balaji and called upon the complainant to put to strict proof of the same. Therefore, when the Ops have denied the complainant handing over the relevant documents to that Balaji burden is on the complainant to prove such handing over the relevant documents to that Balaji. The complainants were to be sure of handing over the documents he could have summoned that Balaji and prove the fact of handing over those documents but he has not chosen to do so. Therefore the claim of the complainant that he had handed over the documents to one Balaji the representative of Ops can not be believed.<br /> <br /> Further it can be seen that it is not the Ops who have directly debited amount to the account of the complainant. The purchaser Srinivas admittedly when represented to his bank of his single transaction and raised dispute regarding debiting of Rs.1,50,000/- to his account that credit card issuing bank in turn debited Rs.75,000/- to the account of the Ops who in turn debited that amount to the account of complainant. Therefore, the complainant should have made the card issuer bank as a party but he has not made. The Ops have produced terms and conditions of merchant establishment, under the head of application of the merchant at item No.III it provides that merchant like the complainant are required to furnish the charge slip or such other documents as required by ICICI bank respective charge slip or such other documents within the stipulated time from the date of transaction for obtaining prior authorization and they also under obligation to produce all those documents like charge slip, invoices etc., to the Op bank to enable them to make payment. Under those conditions, the complainant is bound to furnish all the necessary documents pertaining to the transactions in order to arrange for making payments. But the complainant as evident who claimed to had handed over the documents to one Balaji has not proved it and therefore, the contention of the Ops that the complainant did not produce documents evidencing two transactions as such after finding a single transaction of Rs.75,000/- that sum of Rs.75,000/- was credited to the account of the complainant and excess crediting of Rs.75,000/- was reversed and therefore, we find no deficiency in the service of the Ops and therefore, the complaint is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed with costs. As the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed with cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 28th May 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />