DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.1063 of 2018
Date of institution: 11.10.2018 Date of decision : 21.06.2021
Vivek Darvekar s/o Shri Waman Darvekar, r/o A 303, Maya Garden Phase-III, VIP Road, Zirakpur 140603, Zirakpur, District SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.
…….Complainant
Versus
1. ICICI Bank through its Managing Director/ Chairman, ICICI Bank Tower, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400051.
2. Shiva HP Centre through its Partner Shri Puneet Bhardwaj, Village Nabha, Zirakpur/Patiala Road, Zirakpur, District Mohali (Punjab) 140603.
3. HDFC Bank through its Managing Director/ Chairman, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013.
……..Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.
Shri Inderjit, Member
Present: Shri Jagvir Sharma, counsel for the complainant.
Shri Nirmaljit Singh Sandhu proxy counsel for
Shri Puneet Tuli, counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 ex-parte.
Shri H.S. Kathal, counsel for OP No.3
Order dictated by :- Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short) on the ground that the CC being employee of M/s. JCB India Ltd. had a car bearing No.CH-01-AP-8709. It is alleged that on 01.09.2017 the CC went to fill up diesel in his car from the filling station of OP No.2 and got filled 28.83 litres diesel @ Rs.57.59 per litre and the CC was supposed to pay Rs.1660.31 to OP No.2. It is averred that the CC made payment of this amount through his credit card No.4854980601596911 issued by OP No.3. It is specifically averred, that while swiping the card in the swipe machine, which is provided by OP No.1 to OP No.2, OP No.2 wrongly got realized an amount of Rs.1,66,031/- inadvertently. The CC took up the matter with OP No.2 for the huge excess payment received by it immediately, but the employee of OP No.2 who had filled up the amount in the swipe machine was unable to refund the same to the CC. It is averred that OP No.2 was using the swipe machine through Ist Data Service that is OP No.1 and it assured the CC to pay back the extra charged payment as and when received from the OP No.1 in a short time. It is further alleged that the CC took up the matter with OP No.3 on 03.09.2017 for the first time and registered his complaint vide complaint No.5944922. It is further averred that OP No.2 took up the dispute with OP No.1 but nothing happened from the side of OP No.1 except that the blame game started between the OPs. The OPs blamed each other instead of refunding the amount of the CC back to his account. The CC has further submitted a long details of emails sent to the OPs on various dates from 21.09.2017 to 25.06.2018. It is in the complaint that payment of Rs.1,66,031/- was wrongly received by OP No.1 from OP No.2 instead of receiving an amount of Rs.1660.31. OP No.2 also issued a certificate dated 05.10.2017 showing receipt of Rs.1,66,031/- on 01.09.2017 from the CC inadvertantly. It is also in the complaint that OP No.2 had sent about 5 emails and made a number of phone calls to OP No.1, Credit Card Division Chandigarh to confirm whether OP No.2 has received the payment in its account or not. It is further averred that OP No.1 had not sent any statement nor released the batch payment. On the other hand OP No.1 informed the OP No.2 that money of the CC is lying in “fraud help desk”. Rather it asked the CC to ask his bank i.e. OP No.3 for the status of payment. Photocopy of the certificate dated 05.10.2017 is also attached with the complaint. OP No.2 had further issued another letter containing statement of accounts dated 01.06.2018, wherein payment of batch No. 1958 and 1959 have been shown to be nil on 01.09.2017. Statement of account dated 16.03.2018 showing payment of Rs.1,67,990.17 on 18.09.2017 in favour of OP No.2 issued by OP No.3 has also been attached with the complaint. It is further averred that the OPs have taken enough time whereas they have mentioned that in such like disputes the redressal time is about 50 days but in the present case even after 330 days, OP No.1 has not been able to refund the amount received illegally as OP No.2 has not received the amount paid to OP No.1, and OP No.3 has also deducted the amount from the account of CC maintained by the CC with it.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of all the OPs, the CC has sought directions to the OPs to refund back the amount of Rs.1,64,370.69 received in excess by OP No.1 due to mistake of employee of OP No.2 and Rs.1959.17 charged by OP No.3 as service charges alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. The CC has also sought Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.30,000/- as litigation cost. The complaint of the CC is duly signed and verified. Further the same is also supported by an affidavit of the CC.
2. OP No.1 was given sufficient opportunities to file reply but the same was never filed by OP No.1 and as such opportunity to file reply by OP No.1 was closed by this Commission vide order dated 10.06.2019.
3. OP No.2 has chosen to remain ex-parte. It is important to mention here that OP No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 10.06.2019 of this Commission.
4. OP No.3 has filed reply wherein the contents of the complaint of the CC are denied. It is averred that the CC was himself negligent as he did not take proper precaution. Further it is in the reply that the dispute of the CC is mainly with OP No.2 and OP No.3 has got nothing to do with it. Thus, terming the complaint as wrong etc., OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the same.
5. The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit and documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 and thereafter closed his evidence. On the other hand OP No.3 submitted affidavit of Shri Yatin Khanduja, Legal Manager.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of this case.
7. This is such a consumer dispute which clearly shows that how the normal consumer can be tortured mentally and physically by the banks as well as businessmen. It is proved on the file and admitted that on 01.09.2017 the CC in order to fill diesel in his car went to OP No.2, whose employee filled up the diesel in the car to the tune of 28.83 litres @ Rs.57.59 per litre. It is also proved on the file that the CC was supposed to pay only Rs.1660.31. It is also proved on the file that the CC took out his credit card and while swiping the card instead of filling up the amount of Rs.1660.31, an amount of Rs.1,66,031/- was filled up wrongly by the employee of OP No.2. It is also not denied by any of the parties that the CC had not taken up the matter with OP No.2 there and then and asked for refund of the remaining amount since inadvertently such a huge amount had gone to OP No.1 whose services, OP No.2 had taken as banker and OP No.1 had also issued a swipe machine to OP No.2. It is also proved on the file that the CC also immediately approached OP No.3 on 03.09.2017 and registered a proper complaint bearing No.5944922. Surprisingly Ld. Advocate for OP No.3 has not uttered a single word that what happened to the complaint No.5944922 of the CC which was lodged with OP No.3 who was banker of the CC. Rather, we have noticed that in the entire reply of OP No.3, instead of helping this poor CC, the OP No.3 had been blaming other OPs and are still keeping the hard earned money of this poor complainant with them. It is also proved on the file that excess amount to the tune of Rs.1,64,370.69 which is lying with OP No.1 and instead of refunding the same to the CC immediately, the OPs have been leveling charges on each other. We, also feel that even OP No.2 was duty bound to refund this amount to the CC immediately from his own pocket. Behaviour and attitude of employees of OP No.1 and 3 is also highly shameful and regrettable. It is really surprising that why OP No.1 is still keeping this money of the CC with it and why the same was not sent in the account of OP No.2 immediately within few days so that it could be refunded back to the CC.
8. It is writ large on the file that the CC had been running from pillar to post and even was forced to file a complaint before this Commission in the year 2018 but till date all the OPs have failed to redress the grievance of the CC by not refunding his amount till date. Worst behaviour of OP No.3 was seen when it charged Rs.1,959.17 as charges for the transaction without verifying the same from OP No.2 and without knowing the status of receipt of payment from OP No.1. There is nothing on the record from the side of OP No.3, that in what manner the complaint of the CC was entertained or whether any inquiry was conducted by OP No.3 and what help was provided by OP No.3 to the CC. Rather OP No.3 has chosen to file an evasive reply to the complaint of the CC and has also tried to play blame game. The affidavit of Shri Yatin Khanduja, its Legal Manager is nothing but repetition of absurd reply filed by OP No.3. Accordingly, we feel that deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OPs is proved on the file.
8. In view of our above discussion, the present complaint is allowed. Accordingly, we order OP No.1 to 3 jointly and severally to refund the amount of Rs.1,64,370.69 (Rs. One Lakh Sixty Four Thousand Three Hundred Seventy and paise sixty nine only) with interest @ 18% per annum w.e.f. 01.09.2017 till payment. OP No.1 to 3 are jointly and severally burdened to pay consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.60,000/- to the CC. It is ordered that the Chairman of OP No.1 and OP No.3 will pay the compensation amount to the CC from their own salary. Compliance of the aforesaid order be made by the OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of order. Free certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
June 21, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Inderjit)
Member
