Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/595

Gurjit Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indusind Bank - Opp.Party(s)

compl.in person

04 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No. 595 of 08.08.2017

Date of Decision            :   04.02.2021

 

Gurjit Kaur aged 31 years w/o Sh.Pankaj Parashar r/o H.No.46, Staff Colony No.1, G.N.E.College, Ludhiana.

 

….. Complainant

                                                         Versus

                              

1.IndusInd Bank Limited (Credit Cards Division), P.O.Box 9421, Chakala, MIDC, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400093.

2.IndusInd Bank Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

3.IndusInd Bank Limited, Gill Road, Ludhiana through its Branch Manager.

 

Opposite parties

 

             (Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

QUORUM:

SH.K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

MS.JYOTSNA THATAI, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OPs                          :         Ex-parte.

 

PER K.K.KAREER, PRESIDENT

 

1.           This complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986(hereinafter in referred to as ‘Act’) has been filed by the above named complainants on the allegations that she placed an order to purchase the watch through Flipkart on 25.10.2016 for a sum of Rs.11,295/-. The complainant made the payment through credit card. Two days after placing the order, the complainant cancelled the same. After cancellation of the order, Flipkart returned the amount of Rs.11,295/- to the IndusInd Bank on 28.10.2016. After adjusting the amount of Rs.11,295/-, an amount of Rs.4691.11P was due against the complainant. However, thereafter the OPs issued the bill for a sum of Rs.16,313/- on 14.12.2016 whereas the complainant was liable to pay only a sum of Rs.11,295/-. In fact the Ops have been charging the interest on interest every month and they have now claimed a sum of Rs.52,243/- as on 5.8.2017. The complainant visited the OP2 to resolve the matter and the matter was referred to customer care, but the OPs are still demanding a sum of Rs.52,243/- illegally from the complainant. In this manner, the OPs are guilty of providing the deficient services which have resulted in harassment and mental agony to the complainant. In the end, it has been requested that the OPs be directed to resolve the matter and the complainant be got compensated to the tune of Rs.1 lac from the OPs.

2.                Upon notice, the OP2 and OP3 did not appear despite service and they were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 09.10.2017. On behalf of OP1, Sh.Alok Mohindra, Advocate appeared and filed written statement stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It has further been pleaded that the complainant has been using the credit card for making the transactions. According to the OP1, the amount refunded by the Flipkart was duly credited in the account of the complainant. Thereafter, all the credit and debit entries are correctly made in the account of the complainant and there is no anomaly in the same. However, it is denied that the amount of Rs.52,243/- is being wrongly demanded by the OPs. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and in the end, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                It is pertinent to mention here that after filing the written statement, the OP1 absented itself from the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 22.08.2019.

4.                It is further pertinent to mention here that none has been appearing on behalf of the parties in this case since 22.10.2020, therefore, this Commission is proceeding to decide this complaint in accordance with the provisions of Section 38(3)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

5.                It has been claimed in the complaint that the complainant spent an amount of Rs.11,295/- on 25.10.2016 for purchase of a watch through Flipkart and the said amount was refunded to the account of complainant maintained with the OPs as the order of the watch was cancelled by the complainant and the refund was received by the OP bank on 28.10.2016. The complainant has further claimed that after adjusting the refunded amount of Rs.11,925/- from her account, only a sum of Rs.4691.11P was outstanding, but the OPs issued a bill of Rs.16,313/- on 14.12.2016 and they have been charging the interest on interest and outstanding amount swelled to Rs.52,243/- as on 5.8.2017. To prove her allegations, no doubt, the complainant has submitted her affidavit Ex.CA wherein, the allegations made in the complaint have been reiterated. The complainant has further placed on record account summary Ex.C1 for the period from 01.10.2016 to 05.10.2016. However, this statement pertains to the period prior to the period of transaction made on 28.10.2016. The complainant has further placed on record account summary Ex.C3 for the period from 4.10.2016 to 25.10.2016 and in this statement, there is an entry dated 25.10.2016 of Rs.16,313/-. As per credit card statement Ex.C4 placed on record by the complainant, the total outstanding as on 28.10.2016 was Rs.13,406.94P. In the statement Ex.C3, there are several other transactions made by the complainant regarding which payments have been made as reflected in the account summary between 4.10.2016 to 26.10.2016. The complainant has herself placed on record the account summary Ex.C5 for the period from 16.11.2016 to 28.11.2016 which also reflects the money spent by the complainant through credit card for different purposes and payments are shown to have made to Kwality Store, Book My Show, Dominos Pizza, Swani Motors Service, Baba Veg and Non Veg etc. As against this the complainant has claimed in the complaint that only a sum of Rs.4691.11P were outstanding on 28.10.2016, whereas the Ops have wrongly claimed a sum of Rs.52,243/-. Since the complainant has herself has not placed on record the complete statement of account and withheld the material evidence, in the considered opinion of this Commission, it has to be held that the complainant has failed to substantiate the allegations made in the complaint.

6.             As a result of the above observation, the complaint fails and the same is hereby dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Keeping in view, the peculiar circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

7.                File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                     (Jyotsna Thatai)                                     (K.K.Kareer)

              Member                                        President

Announced in Open Commission

Dated:04.02.2021

Gurpreet Sharma.