Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

378/2010

Doshi & Doshi - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Limited & another - Opp.Party(s)

T.Sheela

06 Aug 2018

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing  : 13.09.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 06.08.2018

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A., L.L.B.                                : MEMBER-I

 

C.C. No.378 /2010

DATED THIS MONDAY THE 06^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018

                                 

Doshi & Doshi,

Rep. by its Partner

Mr. Mehul H. Doshi,

Doshi Gardens, Shop No.19 A,

No.174, Arcot Road,

Vadapalani,

Chennai – 600 026.                                             .. Complainant.                                                          

 

  ..Versus..

 

1. ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Manager, Service Quality,

5^th Floor, Mohammed Illyas Khan Estate,

Road No.1, Banjara Hills,

Hyderabad – 500 034.

 

2. ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Manager,

No.25, Gurukripa, First Avenue,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

          

Counsel for complainant           :  M/s. T. Sheela & others

Counsel for opposite parties    :  M/s. S. Namasivayam & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying to refund a sum of Rs.25,958/- with interest from 14.07.2008 to till the date of payment and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

The complainant submits that he is a reputed wholesaler and retailer of branded Watches and Clocks.   On 13.07.2008 and 14.07.2008, he sold watches worth Rs.7,264.75/- and Rs.18,693/- vide Bill Nos.1233  & 1247 respectively to one Mr. N. Srinivas.   Mr. N. Srinivas also paid the amount through his credit card belongs to the opposite party through card swipe machine and the 2^nd opposite party bank credited the said amount into the complainant’ s Current Account No.007705013056.  Further the complainant submtis that to his shock and surprise in the month of November 2008 after a lapse of 4 months, the 2^nd opposite party debited the said amount of Rs.25,958/- from the account of the complainant without any notice.   Immediately, the complainant contacted the opposite parties bank officials.   But the opposite parties has not responded properly and answered evasively.  On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to produce the charge slips, cash bill etc.   Even after submitting the same, the opposite parties turned deaf years.   Hence the complainant has preferred a complaint before the banking Ombudsman on 08.04.2009 for which, the opposite parties sent an evasive reply dated:01.06.2009.   Hence the complainant filed this complaint.

2.     The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The opposite parties specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and puts the complainant to strict proof of the same.  The opposite parties state that the complainant applied to avail the facility provided and EDC machine was installed at the complainant’s place of business and the complainant shall adhere the terms and conditions.   The EDC machine, duly authorized by the complainant is required to settle the same for receiving payment on presentation of charge slips within 2 business days.   As per the terms and conditions, the opposite parties could reject/ stop payment for any reason mentioned in the agreement.  The complainant is also under an obligation to refund or reimburse the amount.  Further the opposite parties state that as per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.  There is no deficiency on account of credit card swipe machine.  The alleged transaction in the complaint is purely commercial and does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.   Further the opposite parties state that the transaction dated:13.07.2008 and 14.07.2008 and on card No.5102078000054603 as customer disputed against the same and the opposite parties have intimated the complainant of the dispute.   Further the opposite parties state that the required documents were not provided by the complainant at the time retrieval request on 07.10.2008.  As per clause 5.1 of the agreement, “the merchant may also present the transaction information and all related documents as may be required by the Acquiring Bank, through such medium and, in such form, substance and manner as Acquiring Bank may specify”.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A9 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no documents filed and marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of a sum of Rs.25,958/- as prayed for?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled  to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

5.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party’s Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents etc.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a reputed wholesaler and retailer of branded Watches and Clocks.   On 13.07.2008 and 14.07.2008, he sold watches worth Rs.7,264.75/- and Rs.18,693/- vide Bill Nos.1233  & 1247 respectively to one Mr. N. Srinivas as per Ex.A1 & Ex.A2.   Mr. N. Srinivas also paid the amount through his credit card belongs to the opposite party through card swipe machine as per Ex.A3 and the 2^nd opposite party bank credited the said amount into the complainant’ s Current Account No.007705013056.  Further the complainant contended that to his shock and surprise in the month of November 2008 after a lapse of 4 months, the 2^nd opposite party debited the said amount of Rs.25,958/- from the account of the complainant  without any notice.   Ex.A4 is the statement of account by the opposite party bank.  Immediately, the complainant contacted the opposite parties bank officials.   But the opposite parties has not responded properly and answered evasively.   On the other hand, the 2^nd opposite party requested the complainant to produce the charge slips, cash bill etc.   Even after submitting the same, the opposite parties turned deaf years.   Hence the complainant was forced to prefer complaint before the banking Ombudsman on 08.04.2009 as per Ex.A8  for which, the opposite parties sent an evasive reply dated:01.06.2009 as per Ex.A9.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file this case claiming compensation for the unfair trade practice exercised by the opposite parties.

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant applied to avail the facility provided and EDC machine was installed at the complainant’s  place of business and the complainant shall adhere the terms and conditions.   The EDC machine, duly authorized by the complainant is required to settle the same for receiving payment on presentation of charge slips within 2 business days.   As per the terms and conditions, the opposite parties could reject/ stop payment for any reason mentioned in the agreement.  The complainant is also under an obligation to refund or reimburse the amount.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 this complaint is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed.  There is no deficiency on account of credit card swipe machine.  The alleged transaction in the complaint  is purely commercial and does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  But it is very clear that the deficiency is only with the swiping machine and its utilisation by the parties.   In this case, the complainant used the swipe machine belongs to the opposite parties thereby amount has been credited in the account of the complainant.  Thereafter, without any reason the opposite parties withdrawn the amount from the account of the complainant.   The commercial nature of transaction never arise.  

7.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the transaction dated:13.07.2008 and 14.07.2008 was disputed by the complainant was intimated to him by the opposite parties.  But there is no record.  On the other hand, after due payment through swipe machine by the complainant he has not raised any dispute regarding payment.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the required documents were not provided by the complainant at the time retrieval request on 07.10.2008.  As per clause 5.1 of the agreement, “the merchant may also present the transaction information and all related documents as may be required by the Acquiring Bank, through such medium and, in such form, substance and manner as Acquiring Bank may specify”.   In this case, the bill for the payment towards the cost of watches and swipe machine bill also produced as per Ex.A1 to Ex.A3.   Hence, the question of non production of such bills never arise in the absence of deducting the amount without notice proves the deficiency in service.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties shall  refund a sum of Rs. 25,958/- with a compensation of Rs.20,000/- with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to refund a sum of Rs.25,958/- (Rupees Twenty five thousand nine hundred and fifty eight only) and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 06^th  day of August 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1	13.07.2008	Copy of bill No.1233
Ex.A2	14.07.2008	Copy of bill No.1247
Ex.A3		Copy of receipt for the payment made through credit card
Ex.A4	09.11.2008	Copy of statement of accounts for payment dated:09.11.2008
Ex.A5	13.11.2008	Copy of statement of accounts for payment dated:13.11.2008
Ex.A6	16.11.2008	Copy of statement of accounts for payment dated:16.11.2008
Ex.A7	18.11.2008	Copy of statement of accounts for payment dated:18.11.2008
Ex.A8	08.04.2009	Copy of complaint to the Ombudsman
Ex.A9	01.06.2009	Copy of reply by the opposite party

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                      PRESIDENT