Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/380

Ajmer Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Incharge Esy Day Shopping Mall - Opp.Party(s)

Kiranjit Singh

11 Mar 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

C.C. No. :                      380 of 2017

Date of Institution:           27.11.2017

Date of Decision :            11.03.2019

 

Ajmer Singh son of Gurdial Singh resident of Adarsh Nagar, Sikhanwala Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot.

...Complainant

Versus

1. Incharge Easy Day Shopping Mall, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura, District Faridkot through its authorized signatory.
2. H. D. F. C. Bank, Branch Kotkapura through its Manager.                                      

....Opposite Parties

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh. Ajit Aggarwal, President,

Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

 

Present:      Sh Kiranjieet Singh, Ld Counsel for complainant,    

                  Sh Ravinder Parkash Goyal, Ld Counsel for OP-2,

                  OP-1 Exparte.

* * * * * * * * * *

ORDER

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                           Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Ops seeking directions to them to

cc no.-380 of 2017

refund the amount of Rs.3,048/- and for further directing them to  pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides litigation expenses of Rs.5000/-.

2                                         Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that on 6.12.2016, during the period of notebandi, he purchased some items from the shopping mall of OP-1 for Rs.1,048/-and for Rs.2,000/- and handed over his A.T.M. Card issued by HDFC Bank for payment purpose, but due to notebandi, amount could not be withdrawn. As complainant did not have cash therefore, he returned the purchased articles to OP-1. But after some time, amount of Rs.3048/-was debited from his account which was later on credited in his account on his request to OP on 21.12.2016. It is submitted that it came to the notice of complainant that after some days, said amount was again deducted from the saving account of complainant, it was re-debited from the account of complainant and was re-credited in the account of OP-1. Complainant approached OPs and requested them to deposit his amount in to his account but all in vain. Despite repeated requests, Ops paid no heed to genuine requests of complainant. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice. Act of OPs in not refunding the amount of complainant has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides the main relief. Hence, the instant complaint.

3                                             The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 4.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

cc no.-380 of 2017

4                                          Notice containing copy of complaint and relevant documents was issued to OP-1, but same has not been received back undelivered. Acknowledgment might have been lost in transit. Case has been called out many times but despite repeated calls, nobody appeared in the Forum on behalf of OP-1 either in person or through counsel on the date fixed, therefore, OP-1 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dt 30.01.2018.   

 5                                                       On receipt of the notice, OP-2 filed reply through counsel wherein asserted that complaint filed by complainant is false and frivolous and is based on baseless allegations. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that on 6.12.2016 three debit entries from the account of complainant pertaining to transaction number 6869 for Rs.2000/-, transaction no.6868 for Rs.1048/- and transaction  no.6867 for Rs.1048/-as POS were used by Bharti Retial Ltd that runs the Easy Day. It is submitted that on asking of complainant due to non receipt of VISA TAT, all these debit entries were reversed to the account of complainant on 21.12.2016. It is brought to the notice of Forum that thereafter, upon receipt of claim  pertaining to transaction no.6869 for Rs.2000/-on 22.12.2016 and transaction no.6868 for Rs.1048/-on 2.01.2016 from OP-1, amount in dispute was again debited from the account of complainant and it was re-credited in the account of OP-1. It is further submitted that on receipt of notice from this Forum, this matter was discussed with Direct Bank Team, that advised that even if complainant raises any dispute regarding this amount, then in that case, he is to go to  OP-1 for receiving back his amount. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OP and matter in

cc no.-380 of 2017

dispute is between complainant and OP-1. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on their part. All the other allegations are denied being wrong and incorrect and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

6                                                Parties were given proper opportunities to produce evidence to prove their respective case. Ld counsel for complainant tendered in evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-5 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                         To controvert the allegations of complainant, ld counsel for OP-1 and 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Vikas Khungar Ex OP-2/1, affidavit of Yash Pal Branch Manager Ex OP-2/3 to Ex OP-2/5 and then closed the evidence on behalf of OP-2

8                                              Ld Counsel for complainant vehementally argued that during the demonetization period, complainant purchased some items from the shopping mall of OP-1 for Rs.1,048/-and for Rs.2,000/- on 6.12.2016 and gave his A.T.M. Card for payment purpose, but due to demonetization, amount could not be withdrawn. It is further argued that complainant did not have cash and therefore, he returned the purchased articles to OP-1. But after some time, amount of Rs.3048/-was debited from his account which was later on credited in his account on his request on 21.12.2016.  It is noticed that after some days, Rs.3048/- were again debited from his saving account. It was re-debited from the account of complainant and was re-credited in the account of OP-1. He requested OPs to refund his amount

 

cc no.-380 of 2017

but Ops paid no heed to his genuine requests that amounts to deficiency in service. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint.   

9                                            Ld counsel for OP-2 argued that there is no fault on their part. They have denied all the allegations being wrong and incorrect and asserted that on 6.12.2016 three debit entries from the account of complainant were made. Entry pertaining to transaction number 6869 for Rs.2000/-, transaction no.6868 for Rs.1048/- and transaction  no.6867 for Rs.1048/- were used by Bharti Retial Ltd that runs the Easy Day. Due to non receipt of VISA TAT, on asking of complainant, all these debit entries were reversed to the account of complainant on 21.12.2016. But thereafter, on receipt of claim  pertaining to transaction no.6869 for Rs.2000/-on 22.12.2016 and transaction no.6868 for Rs.1048/-on 2.01.2016 from OP-1, amount in dispute was again debited from the account of complainant and it was re-credited in the account of OP-1. Matter was also discussed with Direct Bank Team, that advised that if complainant raises any dispute regarding this amount, then, he is to go to OP-1 for receiving back his amount. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on their part and matter in dispute is between complainant and OP-1.

10                                        From the careful perusal of record and after going through evidence and documents produced on file by complainant as well as OPs, it is observed that case of complainant is that during the days of demonetization complainant purchased some articles from the shopping mall of OP-1 and used his debit card for payment purpose, but transactions could not be made and due to non availability of cash with him, he returned the purchased articles to OP-1. Amount

cc no.-380 of 2017

of Rs.3048/-was debited from the account of complainant but on request of complainant that no purchases were made, same was credited in his saving account. After some days, it is noticed that Op-2 again debited amount of Rs.3048/-from the account of complainant and transferred the debited amount to the  account of OP-1. Grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests OPs have not credited the amount illegally deducted from his account.

11                                            To prove his grievance, he has relied upon document Ex C-2 and Ex C-3 i.e copy of postal receipt and legal notice issued by him to OPs wherein he has made several requests to OPs to re-credit the amount wrongly debited by them for purchases which he never made. Ex C-4 is copy of bank account statement of complainant for the period from 1.04.2016 to 31.03.2017 that proves the pleadings made by him. It clearly shows that amount of Rs.3048/-debited by OP-2 from the account of complainant was transferred to the account of OP-1. Through his affidavit Ex C-1 complainant has reiterated his grievance. Complainant has produced sufficient and cogent evidence that proves the fact that there is trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 in getting transferred the amount of Rs.3048/-from the account of complainant to their own account for purchases which complainant never made as he immediately returned the articles purchased from OP-1 to them. All this amounts to deficiency in service and has caused harassment to him.

12                                                 From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence produced by parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 in asking OP-2 to debit Rs.3048/-from the

cc no.-380 of 2017

account of complainant pertaining to transaction no.6869 for Rs.2000/-on 22.12.2016 and in respect of transaction no.6868 for Rs.1048/- on 2.01.2017. It is  made out that when complainant returned the articles purchased from OP-1 to them due to non availability of cash with him, then no ground is made out for OP-1 for asking OP-2 to debit the amount of Rs.3048/-from the account of complainant. They received the amount for the articles which they never sold. This act of giving instruction to OP-2 to debit the amount of Rs.3048/-from the account of complainant and getting credited this amount in their own account, amounts to trade mal practice. There is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP-1 and it caused harassment to complainant. Therefore, present complaint is hereby allowed against OP-1 and OP-1 is directed to refund the amount of Rs.3048/-to complainant alongwith interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing the present complaint till final realization. OP-1 is further directed to pay Rs.3000/-as consolidated compensation to complainant for harassment and mental agony suffered by him including litigation expenses. Compliance of this order be made within one month of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which complainant shall be entitled to proceed under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. There seems to be no role of OP-2 in redressing grievance of complainant and therefore, complaint against OP-2 stands hereby dismissed. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room. 

Announced in Open Forum

Dated: 11.03.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)                  (Ajit Aggarwal)  

          Member                               President