Kerala

Idukki

CC/155/2019

Highrange Home appliances - Complainant(s)

Versus

Icici Merchant service PVT Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

adv : joshy jose

29 Apr 2021

ORDER

DATE OF FILING : 22.8.2019

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION IDUKKI

Dated this the 29^th day of April, 2021

Present :

                   SMT. ASAMOL  P.                           PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

                   SRI. AMPADY K.S.                          MEMBER

CC NO.155/2019

Between

Complainant                             :         Highrange Home Appliances,

                                                          1/1253 -A, Kariyilakulam,

                                                          Gurumandiram Junction,

                                                          City Plaza Building, Kattappana P.O.,

                                                          Idukki – 685 508.

                                                          Represented by its Sole Proprietor

                                                          Roy Joseph,

                                                          Kariyilakulam House,

                                                          Balagram Road, Puliyanmala,

                                                          Idukki – 685 515.

                                                          (By Adv:  Joshy Jose)

And

Opposite Parties                       :         ICICI Merchant Services Pvt. Ltd.,

                                                          First Data Pvt. Ltd., G Corp Tech Park,

                                                          Unit 3 & 4, Level 1,

                                                          Kasarvadavali Village,

                                                          Next to Hypercity, Ghodbunder Road,

                                                          Thane (West) 400 607.

                                                          Represented by its Business Head.

O R D E R

SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE

 

Case of the complainant is that, the complainant is a household appliances stores with head office at Kattappana and have branches all over Idukki district.  Opposite party is a financial company which provides M.pos machines to retail shop for electronic payment transaction.  The complainant was approached by the representative of the opposite party by name Mr.K. Maneeshkumar who was stated to be the Regional Manager of the opposite party, for the purpose of providing M.pos services to the retail outlet at Idukki district.  The opposite party demanded Rs.150/- per outlet as POGO set up feefor installation of M.pos machine.  The complainant paid Rs.1650/-                                                                                                     (cont….2)

-  2 -

(i.e., Rs.150 x 11 outlet) as POGO set          up fee for installing M.pos machines in 11 outlets.  On 31.8.2017, a Merchant Processing Application Form has been signed by both parties.  For the purpose of agreed payments, complainant had given opposite party signed Debit Mandate Form to opposite party.  Opposite party installed M.pos machines in all 11 outlets and started operating it from 4.10.2017.  All this M.posmachines were linked with a mobile phone.  While customer swipes at M.pos for payment, same time if any calls came to linked mobile phone, the transaction will show successful, but the amount will not be credited to complainant’s account.   This caused heavy loss to complainant.  As of this, on 23.2.2018, complainant requested opposite party for de activation of M.pos machines.  After repeated requests, opposite party deactivated the M.pos machines on 7.3.2018.  After deactivation, while doing final settlement, the opposite party misused the Debit Mandate Form and withdrawn Rs.32,555.02/- from complainant’s account.  When the complainant contacted opposite party, opposite party replied that it is minimum set up fee QR code set up fee and ACHDR.  Said charges are unauthorised and unlawful charges and not included in Merchant processing application form.  The opposite party had no reason to deduct unauthorised charges.  There is gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party.  This cause for heavy loss and mental hardships for the complainant.  From the conduct of the opposite party, it is clear that the opposite party has the intention to extract money and cheat the complainant.  The opposite party is liable to pay back the extracted amount and to compensate the complainant for such loss suffered by the complainant.

 

          The Commission has served notice to opposite party.  But opposite party not appeared before the Commission.  Hence opposite party called absent and set exparte.  The complainant also continuously absent and he has not adduced any evidence. 

 

          The points for consideration is (1) Whether the complainant is a consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act,  (2) Whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite party and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?

 

          The POINT :-  The Commission considered the first point that whether the complainant is a Consumer as per the Consumer Protection Act.  Here, the complainant is an institution which is for commercial purpose and it is having

 

                                                                                                (cont….3)

• 3  -

 

branches all over Idukki district.  As per the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the Consumer is a person who -

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment    and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
2.  hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause,— (a) the expression "commercial purpose" does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood, by means of self-employment; (b) the expressions "buys any goods" and "hires or avails any services" includes offline or online transactions through electronic means or by teleshopping or direct selling or multi-level marketing.

 

In this case, the complainant is not a mere self-employment institution for the purpose of earning livelihood.  Here the complainant is household appliances stores with head office and have many branches all over the district.  Hence, the complainant is not a consumer comes under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  Therefore, the complaint is dismissed. 

 

                     Pronounced by this Commission on this the 29^th day of April, 2021

                                                                          Sd/-

    SMT. ASAMOL P., PRESIDENT-IN-CHARGE        

   Forwarded by Order,                                        Sd/-

                                                         SRI. AMPADY K.S., MEMBER

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT