Date of Filing: 29/10/2011

        Date of Order:23/11/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  23^rd DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO.1980 OF 2011

Smt. Asha Balachander,

W/o. Sri. Balachander M.G.,

Aged About 52 years,

R/at: No.1005, “Paayal”,

Banashankari III Stage, 7^th Block,

Hosakerehalli 3^rd Main, Bangalore-85.

(Rep. by Sri.C.Anantha Kumar, Advocate)                          ….  Complainant.

V/s

Jois Enterprises,

No.27, Ground Floor,

Bull Temple Road, Basavanagudi,

Bangalore-560 004,

Rep. by its Proprietor.                                                             …. Opposite Party.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Party to pay Rs.16,050/-, are necessary:-

The complainant is having a credit card of the HSBC Bank bearing No.4684 5913 936 77725 and is using the credit card as per rules.  On 19.03.2011 when the complainant was travelling in the BMTC bus at 3.30 PM some miscreants stool the credit card.  At 7.00 PM on that day he received the message from the Bank to confirm the transactions then he realized of the theft of the card.  On the following day a complaint is lodged with the jurisdictional police.  Meanwhile the miscreants hs used the credit card purchased materials from the opposite party using the credit card to an extent of Rs.11,050/-.   The opposite party without verifying the signature of the complainant in the credit card has allowed the miscreants to use it.  This is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complaint.

2.       Heard.

3.       The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is prima facie case of consumer dispute/deficiency in service to issue process?
2. What Order?

4.       Our findings are:-

Point (A) & (B):        As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

5.       Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act reads thus:-

“Consumer” means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or

(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payments, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first-mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.”

That is to say if any person buys any goods or service for consideration then he is a consumer.

Section 2(q) of the Consumer Protection Act defines thus:-

(q) “trader” in relation to any goods means a person who sells or distributes any goods for sale and includes the manufacturer thereof, and where such goods are sold or distributed in package form, includes the packer thereof.”

A trader is a person who sales any goods for consideration.  Here the complainant has not purchased any goods for consideration from the opposite party nor opposite party has sold any goods to the complainant for consideration as per the statements of the complainant.  According to the complainant some miscreants had used the credit card of the complainant and purchased the materials from the opposite party that means the money of the complainant has gone to the opposite party that’s all.  That means the complainant has nothing to do with the opposite party according to the complainant.  That means there is no jural relationship of consumer and service provider between the parties according to the complainant.  Opposite party has not issued the credit card to the complainant so he is not expected to verify the signature of the complainant.  If the credit card has been lost by the complainant at 3.00 PM why he has not lodged the complaint on the very day? Why he has not blocked the credit card at 3.00 PM?  There is no answer. If any frostier has committed any misuse of the credit card he could approach against the miscreants and not against the opposite party thus there is no prima facie case exists in this regard.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Dismissed.  No order as to costs.

2.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

3.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 23^rd Day of November 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT