<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th APRIL 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.270/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Sri.R.Mussaver Pasha,Aged about 40 years,No.4089, II Cross, II Stage, Kumaraswamy Layout,Bangalore – 560 095Advocate – Smt.Uma K.MV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank,No.1, 2nd Floor,ICICI Bank Towers, Shobha Pearl,Opposite to Mayo Hall,Commissariat Road,Bangalore – 560025.Represented by its Manager.2. ICICI Bank Ltd.,Charge Back Department,Empire Complex,2nd Floor 414,Senapati Bapat Marg.Lower Parel,Mumbai – 400013.Represented by its Manager.Advocate – Sri.Jai M.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 compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- and for such other relief’s 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 availed the credit card facility from OP in the month of April 2005. He was prompt in repayment of the dues in time. With all that OP for no fault of the complainant used to charge delayed payment charges and other miscellaneous expenses which are out of the purview of the terms and conditions. They also imposed the taxes. On the representation made by the complainant some times they reversed the same. The maintenance of the accounts, sending of the monthly statements and bills by the OP are arbitrary. On 05.01.2008 complainant was at Mangalore at that time he received an SMS with regard to use of said credit card at Ryman, London and transacted to the tune of Rs.6,499-66. At no point of time on that day complainant was in London immediately he requested the OP to block his card. OP expressed its inability to do the same and sought for 48 hours time. Again the said card was used at 8.30 PM and the transaction took place for Rs.46,047-12 and third transaction was for Rs.46,344-02. It is all done by unknown party. Though complainant made several requests and demands to OP to rectify the said mistake and counter check the transaction it went in vain. He was made to move from pillar to post. For no fault of his the said transactions exceeded his card limit. OP imposed the late fee charges and taxes in thousands and made a demand of Rs.51,271-95 and for a total sum of Rs.97,730-61 which is unjust and improper. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He even issued the legal notice. There was no response. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On admission and registration of the complaint, notices were sent to the OP. OP is represented through his Advocate. Though sufficient and reasonable time is given to OP to file version even by imposing the cost. It went in vain. Neither the cost is paid nor the version is filed. Then the complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP didn’t participate in the proceedings. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 3. It is the case of the complainant that he availed the credit card facility from OP in the month of April 2005 and he was doing transaction and prompt in payment of the bill raised by the OP. With all that OP at its own whim, fancy and convenience used to impose the tax and other hidden charges without there being any agreement and contract and that too without the knowledge of the complainant. Complainant never consented for the said charges. Hence complainant felt the maintenance of the accounts, issuance of the statement of accounts by OP is unjust and arbitrary.<br /> <br /> 4. It is further contended by the complainant that on 05.01.2008 he stayed at hotel Srinivas, C.H.S Road, Mangalore. At about 7.30 PM he received an SMS from the OP that by using his credit card a transaction is taken place for Rs.6,499-66 that too at Ryman, London. Complainant never went to London on that day. Immediately he requested the OP to block his card. OP sought for 48 hours time. Again at 8.30 PM another SMS is received wherein it is reported a transaction for Rs.46,047-12 is taken place by using the said credit card at Argos, London and he received the third SMS wherein a transaction for Rs.46,344-02 has taken place. Complainant was shocked to know the same. Documents to that effect are produced.<br /> <br /> 5. Complainant immediately contacted the OP to rectify the said mistakes but all his efforts went in vain. He was made to move from pillar to post. For no fault of the complainant, OP imposed late fee charges, tax and other hidden charges. OP raised the bill for Rs.97,730-61. Complainant is not obliged to pay the same because he never transacted through his credit card at London on that particular day.<br /> <br /> 6. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. What is the basis for the OP to raise the said bills for the month of May, June, July and make such a claim without ascertaining the actual use and genuineness of the said transaction is not known. Though complainant issued the legal notice. There was no response from the OP. So the hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss. The non participation of the OP in the proceedings though it had knowledge of filing of the complaint with certain allegations by producing the supporting documents leads us to draw an inference that OP admits all the allegations.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant remained unchallenged. Under such circumstances we have no other go but to believe the say of the complainant. If at all complainant is doing transaction as contended by the OP in their statement, OP would have supported their defence but they have not done the same. Under the circumstances it can only be said that the act of the OP is arbitrary. <br /> <br /> 8. Of course complainant claimed a compensation of Rs.1,65,000/-, we don’t find basis for the said claim. If OP establishes its legal right to recover the amount in due in pursuance of the genuine transaction if done by the complainant they have got the ways and means to redress their grievance but they can’t keep mum without disclosing the defence if any. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the mental agony along with litigation cost of Rs.500/-. With these reasons we 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.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 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 18th day of April 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />