For the complainant:                      Self

The Opposite Parties No.1  :-         Self

For the OP No.2:                              Sri S.K Agrawal,Advocate

 JUDGMENT

Shri A.K.Patra,President:

1. This consumer complaint is filed against the Ops inter-alia alleging deficiency in service for non delivery of “IRCTC UBI Prepaid card” though consideration price of Rs.500/-for the same is paid  to the Ops  through CITRUS Payment gateway service.
2. The complainant seeks for an order directing the O.Ps to refund of Rs.500//- with interest and Rs.20,000/-  as compensation for suffering caused due to negligence & deficient service of the O.Ps and further prayed for all other relief (s) which this Commission may deem fit and proper.
3. The facts stated in the complaint and emerged from the document filed therewith the complaint petition to consider for proper decision of the dispute are that:-  on 4^th April 2016 while the complainant logging in to his IRCTC account for booking of a railway ticket, he received a pop-up message to apply for a Card introduced in joint venture of IRCTC/OP 1 and Union Bank Ltd/OP 2 (here the O.Ps.). Thereafter, the complainant applied for one “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card”. The complainant has paid an amount of Rs.500/- through CITRUS Payment gateway service for issuance of said “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” (Rs.50 for physical card and rest will be remaining account as deposit for lateral use) , and upon  successful payment , he has been allotted card details & PIN Number, with a message that card will be deliver shortly through courier at his postal address but the complainant has not yet received the said card even after several communication made to the O.Ps. It is alleged that, due to negligence and deficiency in  service on the part of O.Ps the complainant has missed a lot of opportunity to get discount and other financial benefit as commit in the user guideline of said “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” hence, this complaint.
4. To substantiate his claim the complainant has filed the copy of e-mail for payment vide Annexure-I, copy of e-mail communicated to the Ops vide Annexure-I to IV , Copy of e-mail by chief grievance office , Union Bank of India ltd., copy of e-mail by Union Bank of India , Regional office, Sambalpur.
5. On being notice the O.Ps appeared and filed their respective written  version denying the complaint allegation of negligence & deficient service on the part of O.Ps. So also challenged the maintainability of this complaint.
6. The O.PNo.1/IRCTC appeared thorough its authorized representative and file their written version along with the copy of the agreement made between IRCTC & Union Bank of India with respect to said “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” .
7. The O.P No.1/IRCTC has denied any conversation with the complainant as alleged in the complaint petition. It is contended that, no correspondence was took place between complainant and IRCTC and that, the amount if any paid by the complainant is also not received by IRCTC rather, it is received at the Bank/O.P 2 end. It is further submitted that, there is no negligence or deficient in  service on the part of IRCTC/O.P 1 for which the Op 1may exonerated and  should be withdrawn from this case as a party. In their written version the IRCTC has quoted the point “E” of the aforesaid agreement as follows:-“The Bank shall provide end to end platform for issuance of co-branded prepaid cards with top-up facility whereas IRCTC shall provide a link in their official website for purchase of Co-branded prepaid card and also a links/banners at the payment option page of their official website for the various service offered by them”. The O.P 1 further quoted point 3.6 of the aforesaid agreement that:- “if any complaint is received from the customers regarding non receipt/damaged/delivery of prepaid card/virtual account which is the requisite product ordered, Bank shall be solely responsible for redressal of such complaints received either by the Bank or by IRCTC and if such complaint is not redressed within 60 days the clamed amount by the customer will be credited to the customer’s Prepaid card account /any associated account/by cash by bank with intimation to IRCTC”. It is further submitted that, payment option of “IRCTC UBI Prepaid card “ has been offline since April 2018 and as per the Union Bank of India’s letter dt.29.10.2019 the  IRCTC Rupay Prepaid Card is closed with this submission the O.P 1 urged to dismiss this complaint. To substantiate their pleading the O.P 1 has filed the copy of agreement made between O.P 1 & 2 and the copy of letter dt.29.10.2019 regarding closer of “IRCTC Prepaid UBI Prepaid Card”.
8. The O.P 2/Union Bank of India in their written version admitted the facts that, the complainant has applied for “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” through IRCTC portal online. It is further submitted that, Union Bank of India has issued the card to the complainant through its vender on dt.13.04.2016 and the same was also dispatch in the address provided by the complainant at the time of making the application through Blue Dart Courier Service vide Blue Dart Vide Courier Id No.33433031870 but as Bhawanipatna is not within the service area of Blue Dart so, he return the same on the same date to Darukhana Branch of Union Bank of India/O.P 2 and the branch on the same day dispatch the same through speed post vide consignment No.EM881299522IN dt.13.04.2016 in the address submitted by the petitioner i.e. A-1, Kumar House, Kalimandirpada ,Bhawanipatna,Kalahandi,Odisha,766001  and as such there is no latches  or negligence from the side of the Bank/OP 2.It is further submitted that, the Bank has taken up the matter with Indian Post for providing the delivery details of the consignment and on receipt of the same the O.P 2/Bank  will file the same in the Forum for necessary perusal and that, there is no negligence & deficiency in providing  service on the part of O.P 2/Bank. It is further submitted that, it is only the department of Post can say as to whom the card was deliver on the fact of the consignment as the same was not return to the Branch un-delivered and that, the O.P 2 is not liable to pay any compensation as claimed by the complainant rather, there is no cause of action for filling of   this complaint against the O.ps as such this complaint is liable to dismissed with cost. To substantiate there pleading the O.P 2 has filed the photo copy of the conversation of Chief Manager Susanta Kumar Nayak with the Union Bank help desk IRCTC Prepaid dt.01.04.2019.
9. Heard .Perused the material available on the record .We have our thoughtful consideration on the submission of both the  parties.
10.  Here in this case, the facts that:- the complainant has applied for   “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” through IRCTC portal online and received of  consideration for the same by the ops is not disputed.
11. The O.P 2/Union Bank of India has  submitted that, it has  issued the card to the complainant through its vender on dt.13.04.2016 and the same was also dispatch in the address provided by the complainant at the time of making the application through Blue Dart Courier Service vide Blue Dart Vide Courier Id No.33433031870 but as Bhawanipatna is not within the service area of Blue Dart so, he return the same on the same date to Darukhana Branch of Union Bank of India/O.P 2 and the branch on the same day dispatch the same through speed post vide consignment No.EM881299522IN dt.13.04.2016 in the address submitted by the petitioner i.e.               A-1, Kumar House,Kalimandirpada ,Bhawanipatna,Kalahandi,Odisha,766001 and further submitted that,  there is no latches  or negligence from the side of the bank it is further submitted that, the Bank has taken up the matter with Indian Post for providing the delivery details of the consignment and on receipt of the same the O.P 2 will file the same in the Forum for necessary perusal but no cogent evidence is produced by the OP 2/ Union Bank of India to substantiate their pleading . Law is well settled that mere pleading shall not construe evidence for consideration.
12. Sec.38(6) of C.P.Act,2019 casts an obligation on the District Commission to decide a complaint on the basis of the evidence brought to its notice by the complainant and the service provider irrespective of whether  the service provider adduced evidence or not, the decision of the District Commission has to be based on evidence relied upon by the complainant.

13. The complainant in this case has proved his pleading by placing his evidence on affidavit as prescribed U/S 38 (6) of C.P.Act  2019,  the facts stated there in the affidavit evidence are corroborating with the averment of the complainant petition. The  Opposite parties  have not turn up to file any evidence on affidavit as prescribed under C.P Act as such the evidence adduced by the complainant remain un- rebutted. By way of affidavit, the complaint has proved all his contentions.
14. Service of transport as contemplated under Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. 1986 as well as u/s 2(42) of new C.P Act 2019 has to be performed in perfect manner. As per Section 2(1)(g) of C.P Act. 1986 and u/s 2(11) new C.P Act 2019 “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be  performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
15. Here in this case the OP2/ Union Bank of India has failed to prove that, the alleged “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” purchased through IRCTC portal online has properly delivered to the complainant.
16. The representative of the  of the Op No 1/ IRCTC,  draw  our attention over  point “E” of the said agreement made between OP  1 & 2 placed on the record  that :-“ The Bank shall provide end to end platform for issuance  of co-branded prepaid cards with top-up facility whereas IRCTC shall provide a link in their official website for purchase of Co-branded prepaid card and also a links/banners at the payment option page of their official website for the various service offered by them” and further he draw our attention over  point 3.6 of the aforesaid agreement that ;- “if any complaint is received from the customers regarding non receipt/damaged/delivery of prepaid card/virtual account which is the requisite product ordered, Bank shall be solely responsible for redressal of such complaints received either by the Bank or by IRCTC and if such complaint is not redressed within 60 days the clamed amount by the customer will be credited to the customer’s Prepaid card account /any associated account/by cash by bank with intimation to IRCTC”. Such a provision is there in the agreement which cast a duty on the Op 2 /Bank remain un- challenged and the Op 2/Bank has failed to proved the delivery of the alleged “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” to the complainant as on date as such there is sufficient cause of action continue to present this complainant and it is found well in time within the jurisdiction of this Commission as such complainant is maintainable under C. P. Act .
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, we  found no  negligence or  deficiency in service on their part of IRCTC /Op 1 rather we  are of the opinion that, there is negligence & deficiency in service on the part of OP 2/ Union Bank of India for  non - delivery of the  alleged “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” to the complainant as such liable to refund the cost of the said card with interest .We  found no cogent evidence as to any loss caused to the complainant as claimed in the complainant petition .However, such negligence & deficiency in service on the part of OP 2/ Union Bank of India  caused mental agony to the complainant may not be discarded .The claim of compensation is in higher side hence, this consumer Complain is partly allowed against the Op 2/Bank with the following directions and dismissed against the Op 1 / IRCTC.

                                                                   ORDER

In view of the aforesaid facts & circumstances ,the OP 2/ Union Bank of India is here by  directed to refund the  cost of the “IRCTC UBI Prepaid Card” i.e. Rs. 500/ with interest @ 9% p.a from the date of filling of this case i.e. 31.07.2018 with monetary compensation of Rs.5,000/- which include the litigation cost  to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order falling which the Op 2/ Bank will be liable to pay compensation of Rs.100/- per day to the complainant  till the compliance of this order .

Dictated and corrected by me.

President

I agree               

                       Member                                                                      

Pronounced in open forum today on this 21^st June 2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

    Copy of this judgment be provided to the parties free of cost .The judgment be uploaded forth with on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. They may download the  same form the website of the Commission/Confonet be treated as supply of copy to the parties. This complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period sue to Covid-19 situation and in want of quorum in the Commission.