<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 25th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.274/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M/s.JAIN JEWELLERS,No.15, R.T Nagar Main Road,Bangalore – 560032.Represented herein by Proprietrix:-Smt.Kanchan Bai,W/o Uttamchand Bhora,47 years.Advocate – Sri.N.SridharV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY 1. M/s.ICICI Bank,R.T Nagar,Bangalore – 560032.Represented by its Branch Manager.2. M/s. ICICI Bank,ICICI Bank Towers,No.1, Comissariat Road,Bangalore – 560025.Advocate – Sri.Jai Patil<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> 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 pay a sum of Rs.12,100/- and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant doing business with Gold Jewellaries and silver articles, one Mr.Babu purchased the articles from complainant shop on 02.11.2008 of worth Rs.12,100/- and made payment of the same by way of credit card. OP collected the commission charges but when complainant got checked her bank statement that amount was not debited to her account. On enquiry OP asked her to produce the enlarged copy of the charge slip etc. Complainant complied the same. Though OP initially credited the said amount of Rs.12,100/- then without the notice and consent of the complainant arbitrarily debited the said amount subsequently. This highhanded act of the OP caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant that too for no fault of her. When her repeated requests and demands went in futile she got issued the legal notice on 26.12.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have already credited the said sum of Rs.12,100/- to the account of the complainant on 18.02.2009. Hence the present complaint becomes in-fructuous. According to OP, complainant and OP entered into merchant establish agreement and thereafter EDC machine was given to the complainant. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said agreement. OP felt doubt about the transactions alleged to have been made by one Mr.Babu. That is why they sought for the better particulars, that act of the OP does not amounts to deficiency in service. The defect if any is due to the unclear documents received at the time of charge back hence OP blocked the said amount. After thorough investigation and verification it has re-credited the said amount to the complainant account. The other allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 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. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 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:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that one Mr.Babu has purchased certain articles from complainants shop on 2nd November 2008 worth Rs.12,100/- and made payment of the same by way of credit card issued by the OP. OP has collected the necessary commission in a sum of Rs.305-90 with respect to the said transactions. Complainant thought that the said amount will be added to her account immediately. Though OP credited the said amount to the account of the complainant thereafter without her consent debited the same on 16.12.2008. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to rectify the said mistake it went in futile. She even got issued the legal notice. Copy of the same is produced. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that they have already credited the said amount to the account of the complainant on 18.02.2009 after detailed verification that is after filing of this complaint. Complaint is filed on 30.01.2009. So this act of the OP on the face of it amounts to an admission of their mistake. It is much contended by the OP that complainant has violated certain terms and conditions of the merchant establish agreement. We don’t find force in the said contention.<br /> <br /> 8. OP further states that all this confusion happened just because of the unclear documents received at the time of Charge back hence the said amount was blocked. So this defence of the OP also amounts to an admission of commission of fault on their part. Admitted fact need not be proved. Both instances referred to above clearly establishes the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Merely because OP has already credited the said amount to the account of the complainant on 18.02.2009 that is after filing of this complaint will not absolve its liability.<br /> <br /> 9. We are satisfied that complainant is able to prove the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. It is all because of carelessness and negligence on the part of the OP. Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as the amount due to the complainant Rs.12,100/- is already credited to account after filing of this complaint justice will be met by directing the OP to pay some nominal compensation with regard to the mental agony suffered by the complainant along with litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,000/- along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (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 25th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />