Haryana

Panchkula

CC/88/2018

MANOJ SINGLA - Complainant(s)

Versus

INDUSLAND BANK - Opp.Party(s)

KRISHAN M.VOHRA & SATYAJEET SINGH

20 Mar 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	88 of 2018
Date of Institution	:	16.05.2018
Date of Decision	:	20.03.2023

 

 

Manoj Singla son of Late Sh. R.L.Singla resident of House No.1039, Sector-15, Panchkula.  

 

                                                                          ….Complainant. 

 

Versus

1.     IndusInd Bank, SCO-28, Sector-11, Panchkula through its manager/authorized person.

2.     Jet Airways India Limited, Civil Airport, Civil Air Terminal, Zirakpur Road, Jhurheri, Sahibzada Ajit Singh Nagar, Mohali, Punjab-140306, through its Manager/authorized person.

….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Complainant in person alongwith Sh.Krishan M.Vohra, Advocate.

                        Sh.Arun Dogra, Advocate, counsel for OP No.1.

                        OP No.2 already given up vide order dated 09.01.2020.   

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.             Briefly stated, the facts as alleged in the complaint, are that the OP No.1 (hereinafter referred to as OP No.1) i.e. bank, contacted the complainant through its agent, namely, Shri Vinay Singla having mobile No.9878822159, about providing a pinnacle credit card to complainant; the said card was portrayed by the said agent very beneficial having very good features, and accordingly, the complainant was allured to purchase the said pinnacle card in March, 2017 (wrongly mentioned as April,2017) by paying a sum of Rs.55,203.75/- to OP No.1. It is stated that a facility of credit limit upto Rs.11,70,000/- was provided on the said credit card and further eight Jet Airway of promo codes worth Rs.60,000/-, valid for 6 months, on the booking of air tickets of Jet Airways, were provided, wherein discount facility was admissible. It is stated that the complainant was asked to deposit a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- in the shape of fixed deposit with the OP No.1 for one year in order to avail the credit facility vide Pinnacle Credit Card. It is stated that the assurance was given to the complainant that he could withdraw the FD amount of Rs.13,00,000/- after one year and the credit facility would not be discontinued. It is stated that complainant tried to use the Jet Promo Codes for booking of air ticket of Jet Airways, but the air ticket could never be booked and every time, the Jet Airways failed to provide discount on air ticket booking. The complainant feeling aggrieved with the attitude of Jet Airways OPNo.2 contacted the OP No.1, who informed the complainant that the other customers were also facing similar issue with the scheme of providing discount on booking of air tickets through Jet Airways. It is stated that the complainant was assured by OP No.1 that he(complainant) would be provided fresh Jet Airways promo codes or any other offer having the same worth. It is stated that the complainant could never utilize the Jet Airways promo codes issued by OP No.1. After the expiry of one year, the complainant contacted the OP No.1 in order to withdraw the FD amount Rs.13,00,000/-, but he was informed that, in case, FD amount was withdrawn, the facility admissible on credit card would be discounted. Due to the act and conduct of OP No.1, the complainant had a word with the agent, Sh.Vinay Singla, on phone, who stated that whatever was promised to him at the time of issuance of pinnacle card, was true and correct and he would arrange a meeting of complainant with Sh.Anuj Jain, Branch Manager. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP No.1 and made a request to it return a sum of Rs.55,203.75/-, which was paid by him at the time of issuance of credit card. The prayer for withdrawal of sum of Rs.13,00,000/- of the FD amount was also made. It is stated that OP had failed to consider to the genuine demand of the complainant and thus, due to the act and conduct of Ops, the complainant has suffered a great deal of financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence the present complaint.  

2.             Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written statement taking several preliminary objections, such as the complainant has not approached with clean hands; that the Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint; that the complicated question of facts are involved, which required detail evidence; that complainant does not fall under the category of Consumer.

                It is submitted that the complainant was never assured that the facility under the credit card would remain continued even after the withdrawal of fixed deposit amount of Rs.13,00,000/-, after one year, which was kept as security. On merits it is stated that the complainant, within a span of 14 months, had utilized the pinnacle credit card for a sum of Rs.1.28 crores, which is possible only when the card was used for commercial purposes. It is denied that any official of the OP No.1 approached the complainant for issuance of pinnacle credit card. It is submitted that the complainant himself approached the OP for issuance of said card on 14.03.2017 and accordingly, an application form and KYC documents were submitted by him so as to issue the Pinnacle Credit Card to him. It is submitted that the features of the card were explained to the complainant and he, after going through the terms and conditions, had signed the application form. It is submitted that Pinnacle Credit Card is one of the best and Elite credit card of the bank. The sum of Rs.50,000/- was charged from the complainant as joining fees plus taxes. It is admitted that 8 Jet Airways codes worth Rs.60,000/- were issued to the complainant. The detailed terms and conditions regarding use of the said 8 Jet Airways code were duly incorporated in acknowledgement form, duly signed by the complainant as well as the OP No.1 on 14.03.2017. It is submitted that the OP No.1 had sanctioned the credit limit of Rs.11,70,000/- and cash limit of Rs.20,000/- in lieu of deposit of Rs.13,00,000/- in the shape of F.D.by the complainant. It is stated that the complainant was never assured that the credit limit under the credit card would remain continued even after the withdrawal of F.D. amount of Rs.13,00,000/- after one year.

                It is submitted that the promotion codes were provided by OP No.2 and the same were to be redeemed by OP No.2 only. The responsibility of the OP No.1 in the present offer was limited to communicate the code to the eligible card holders on their listed mobile numbers and E-mail address. The card holders had agreed that Jet Airways was solely responsible for the acts and omission relating to the tickets etc. It is stated that if there was any problem qua the use of the Jet Airways promo codes, the same was to be rectified by OP No.2 only. Each code was valid for booking and travel for 6 months only on a domestic sector. It is submitted that the complainant was assisted by providing the information qua non-utilization of promo code vide E-mail dated 09.10.2017, 14.10.2017, 17.10.2017, and 28.10.2017 and thus it is alleged that there was no lapse and deficiency in service. It is submitted that the complainant got the lien marked FD deposit of Rs.13,00,000/- and accordingly, he was sanctioned credit limit of Rs.11,70,000/- and cash limit of Rs.20,000/-. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied being false, baseless and meritless.

                Upon notice OP No. 2, appeared through counsel and filed written statement stating therein that the complainant has not paid any consideration to OP No.2 i.e. M/s Jet Airways and as such, there was no previty of contract between him and OP No.2. It is submitted that the relationship between OP No.1 i.e. Bank and the OP No.2(Jet Airways) are not based on Principle to Agent basis. The complainant is not a consumer of OPNo.2. It is submitted that the promo codes of OP No.2 were given to the complainant by OP No.1 as a gift for business promotion of OPNo.1 and thus, no consideration was taken to OP No.2. It is submitted that the promo codes were live and working on 31.12.2017. It is submitted that the complainant never approached OP No.2 seeking redressal of his grievances. The complainant has not placed, on record, any material document to show that he ever approached OP No.2 regarding non redemption of promo codes. The OP No.2 had given the promo codes to OP No.1 and not to the complainant and thus, there was no transaction or previty of contract between the complainant and the OP No.2. Rest of the averments made in the complaint were denied being false and baseless.  

3.             To prove his case, complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit Annexure R-1/A along with documents Annexure R1/1 to R1/4 and closed the evidence. The learned counsel for OP No.2 tendered affidavit Annexure R-2/A and closed the evidence.

4.             Complainant vide his separate statement dated 09.01.2020 has given up OP No.2 and accordingly, it was ordered to be given up vide order dated 09.01.2020.  

                During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant has prayed for assigning the mark to the application dated 05.05.2017, 15.04.2017 & another application submitted by his wife, namely, Preeti Singla to the Manager, Induslnd Bank  i.e. OP No.1. The learned counsel has stated that the said applications were placed on record on 20.02.2023 along with a separate application. Keeping in view the contents of said application dated 20.02.2023, the aforementioned applications dated 05.05.2017, 15.04.2017 & another application submitted by his wife, namely, Preeti Singla to the Manager, Induslnd Bank  i.e. OP No.1 are taken on record as Mark ‘A’, ‘B’  & ‘C’ for the adjudication of the controversy between the parties in a proper and fair manner. 

5.             We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on file including written submissions filed on behalf of the complainant, OP No.1, minutely and  carefully.

6.             During course of arguments, the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant, reiterating the averments made in the complaint as well as affidavit Annexure CA of the complainant, contended that the complainant was assured by Sh.Vinay Singla, Agent of OP No.1, at the time of issuance of Pinnacle Credit Card No.5376521031798002 Annexure C-1 to him(the complainant) in March, 2017 that the credit facility under the card would remain continued even after the withdrawal of FD amount of Rs.13,00,000/-  after one year. The learned Counsel contended that the 8 Jet Promo Codes issued to the complainant at the time of issuance of Pinnacle Card could never be utilized due to the non acceptance of the same by OP No.2.

                In support of his contention, the learned counsel has invited our attention towards the conversation as contained in CD(Annexure C-7)/  transcription of the same(Annexure C-6) between the complainant and said Sh.Vinay Singla Agent of OPNo.1. Concluding the arguments, the learned counsel has prayed for acceptance of the complaint by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

7.             On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of the OP No.1 has contested the complaint, apart from merits, by raising several preliminary objections.

                Vide preliminary objections, the learned counsel has disputed the status of the complainant as a consumer.

                This objection is rejected as complainant has availed its service by paying consideration of Rs.55,203.75/- and deposited a sum of Rs.13,00,000/- in the shape of FD and thus, there is no merit in this objection.

                The next objection, taken by the learned counsel is that complicated question of facts are involved, which requires detailed evidence, which is not permissible under the summary procedure being adopted by the District Consumer Commission under the Consumer Protection Act.

                This objection is also liable to be dismissed as the controversy can be adjudicated upon the basis of documents and evidence available on record.

                The learned counsel has taken the further taken the plea this Consumer Commission lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint.

                This objection also carries no merit in it in view of the fact that the services were provided by OP No.1 i.e. Bank, which is situated within the jurisdiction of this Commission.

8.             On merits, the learned counsel on behalf of OPNo.1 vehemently contended that the terms and conditions of the arrangement which was between the complainant and OP No.1, at the time of the issuance of Pinnacle Credit card to him by acknowledgement form Annexure R1/1 (colly), cannot be altered or changed as per Section 91 read with Section 92 of the Evidence Act. It is contended that the contents of Whtsapp conversation between complainant and the alleged Vinay Singla, is of no consequence as the written terms and conditions as contained in said acknowledgement Form Annexure R1/1 (colly) carry the over-riding  effect upon, if any,  over the oral version.

9.             The learned counsel contended that the amount of Rs.55,203.75/- as claimed by the complainant, cannot be refunded to him, because the same was paid by him as one time joining fees, which was not liable to be refunded.

10.            With regard to the grievances of the complainant qua the non utilization of 8(eight) Jet Airways promo codes, the learned counsel contended that the bookings of Air tickets were to be made by OP No.2 and that OP No.1 is not responsible for any act or omission, if any, on the part of OP No.2 and thus prayer for dismissal of the complaint being baseless and meritless has been made.

11.            Now, we take up the first grievance of the complainant, which is that he was assured by Agent, Sh.Vinay Singla of OP No.1 that he(the complainant) would be entitled to use the Pinnacle Card even after the withdrawal of FD amount of Rs.13,00,000/- after one year. In this regard we have perused the application submitted by complainant vide Mark ‘A’ & ‘B’ and find that the FD amount was deposited by the complainant as security. As per Mark ‘A’ ‘B’ & ‘C’ the OP No.1 was entitled to hold the FD's amount as security for repayment of the amount due on the part of the consumer/complainant. Therefore, as per well settled legal preposition, the terms and conditions as reduced into writing are bound to prevail over any oral version and thus the contention of the complainant qua the continuance of credit facility vide Pinnacle Credit Card even after the withdrawal of FD amount is not tenable. Moreover, the prayer of the complainant seeking the refund of Rs.55,203.75/- is not tenable as the said amount was charged from him as one time joining fees vide acknowledgement form Annexure R1/1(colly)

12.            Now, we advert to the second grievance of the complainant qua the non booking of air Ticket by OP No.2 i.e. Jet Airways on the basis of 8 Jet Airways promo codes, issued to him at the time of issuance of Pinnacle Credit card in March, 2017 and find that the complainant had tried to book the air ticket on the basis of promo code on 08.10.2017 for the flight date i.e. 20.11.2017(Annexure C-4) but air tickets were not booked on the basis of promo codes by OP No.2. In this regard, the contention of the OP No.1 that it is not responsible for the lapse or deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 is not tenable. Admittedly, 8 Jet Airways promo codes were issued by OP No.1 to the complainant at the time of issuance of Pinnacle Credit Card Annexure C-1,which are as follows:-

        1.     LPF43D3G

        2.     LPF3M3MG

        3.     LPP4IE7G

        4.     LPLPFYUG

        5.     LPOTKXCG

        6.     LPI7BH5G

        7.     LPBF3CPG

        8.     LP0KQRVG

13.            As per acknowledgement form Annexure R1/1, which was duly signed by the complainant as well as Bank Officer of OP No.1, on 14.03.2017, 8 Jet Airways promo codes were issued to the complainant mentioning the same as welcome gift with several terms and conditions, which were valid for 6 months only. As per terms and conditions, the basic fare and air line fuel charged of the ticket was to be paid by the IndusInd Bank i.e. OP No.1. As per averments made by OP No.2 in para No.5 of its written statement, the promo codes were valid upto 31.12.2017, whereas the complainant had attempted to book the air tickets by utilizing the promo codes on 08.10.2017 and thus, he was prevented from availing the facility of the discount as assured vide terms and conditions contained in Annexure R1/1(colly). No reason or justification, much less adequate or plausible, has been provided either by OP No.1 or OP No.2 to the complainant while not booking the air tickets on the basis of promo codes.

14.            Therefore, in view of the above mentioned facts we have reached at the irresistible conclusion that OP No.1 has been found deficient in providing services to the complainant. Hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

15.            Coming to the relief it is found that the complainant has claimed the following reliefs in the present complaint:- 

        (i)     To refund of Rs.55,203.75/- (Rupees fifty five thousand two               hundred three and seventy five paise only) along with                   interest @12% p.a.

        (ii)    To refund Rs.13,00,000/- (Rupees thirteen lakhs only) along              with interest @12% p.a.

        (iii)    To pay Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) on account of             deficiency in services, unfair trade practice, causing mental               agony, torture and harassment to the complainant.

        (iv)   To pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) as cost of                        litigation.

        (v)    Any other relief which the Hon'ble Forum deems fit in the                  facts         and circumstances of the present case.

16.            As discussed above the prayer of the complainant qua refund of sum of Rs.55,203.75/- is not tenable and the same is hereby declined.  Regarding the withdrawal of FD amount of Rs.13,00,000/-, the complainant is entitled to withdraw the same at any time, he likes. The OP No.1 i.e. the bank is not liable to provide its services on said Pinnacle credit card qua credit limit of Rs.11,70,000/- and of Rs.20,000/- in cash, after the withdrawal of FD amount of Rs.13,00,000/- by the complainant. However, the complainant is entitled to be compensated on account of non usage of 8 Jet Airways promo codes worth Rs.60,000/- and accordingly, the OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the complainant alongwith interest @9%P.A.(simple interest) w.e.f. filing of the present complaint till its actual realization. In addition, the OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony and harassment  and a sum of Rs.5500/- on account of litigation charges.

17.            The OP No.1 shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.1. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 20.03.2023

 

        Dr.Sushma Garg                             Satpal               

                     Member                                        President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                Satpal                                         

       President