DATE OF FILING :23/06/2017
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, IDUKKI
Dated this the 27th day of April 2018
Present :
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR PRESIDENT
SRI. BENNY. K. MEMBER
CC NO. 132/2017
Between
Complainant : Jyothis C.,
Inchakkattu House,
Thodupuzha East P.O.,
Muthaliyarmadam, Thodupuzha.
(By Adv: K.M.Sanu)
And
Opposite Party : 1 . The Manager,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
Thodupuzha Branch,
Thodupuzha P.O.
2 . The Manager,
Credit Card Division,
HDFC Bank Ltd.,
PO Box No.8654,
Thiruvanmiyoor P.O., Chennai
(Both by Adv: Shiji Joseph)
3 . The Manager,
GETMYTRIP TPSL MUMBA IND,
Mumbai 13.
O R D E R
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant is that,
Complainant is the credit card holder of the opposite parties. Through this credit card complainant booked a 3 bed in a hotel named Sree Ram Residency in Uduppi, through the tour Agency Merchent Establishment on line site www getmytrip.com, on 26/09/16. He made transaction by availing the credit card facility of the opposite parties for Rs.8948/-. At the time of booking he got an alert message that “Transaction Decline Alert”. But even though the transaction was not in success, an amount of Rs.8948/- was transferred from
(Cont....2)
-2-
his account to someone's account. The complainant further contented that it is happened due to the faulty system maintained by the opposite party bank. Immediately the complainant intimated the matter to the opposite parties, and as per the direction of the first opposite party the complainant submitted Card Holder Disputed Form before the second opposite party. Thereafter so many times, the complainant contacted the first opposite party and send message through their E- Mail ID. But the opposite parties not cared to redress his grievance. Complainant further stated that the act of the opposite parties in this matter is gross deficiency in their service. Against this the complainant approached this Forum and filed the complaint for directing the opposite parties to refund the above said amount with interest and direct them to pay cost and compensation.
Upon notice opposite parties entered appearance and filed detailed version. In their versions opposite parties contented that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is that if a debtor and creditor based on a contract, accepting the terms and conditions governing the same. This is only a question of clearance of arrears and there is no consumer dispute to be adjudicated as the settlement of account has nothing to do with services.
The opposite parties further contented that the acquiring bank is not a party to this complaint and is liable to be dismissed as non- jointer of necessary party. More over the opposite party bank has rendered only a service free of charge and in fact there is no deficiency in service or negligence on the part of the opposite party bank. There is no genuine grievance and the attempt is only to harass the bank officials. All the averments in the complaint are false and frivolous and hence denied, and the documents relied upon by the complainant are self explanatory and the same would disprove the case of the complainant.
Even though the opposite parties filed detailed reply version, no supporting evidence is produced. From the complainant's side Ext.P1 to Ext.P4 were marked. Ext.P1 is the copy of cardholder dispute form, Ext.P2 is the 'Gmail' print out of transaction decline alert dated 26/09/16, Ext.P3 is the Gmail reply print out relating to credit card disputes dated 03/10/16,
(Cont....3)
-3-
10/10/16, 24/11/16 and 08/12/16 and Ext.P4 is the Gmail remainder dated 25/11/16, 06/12/16. No oral evidence is produced by the complainant.
Heard both sides,
The point that arose for consideration is whether there is any deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties, and if so, for what relief the complainant is entitled to ?
The Point:- We have perused the documents and gone through the complaint and reply version. In their reply version opposite parties 1 and 2 categorically stated that, there is no consumer relationship with the complainant and the relation is only as debtor and as creditor basis. More over the opposite parties further averred that the complainant is bad for non-jointer of necessary party. Even though the opposite parties raised some note worthy points through their reply version, no supporting evidence is produced to substantiate their version. In their version they specifically admitted that, the service availed by the complainant namely credit card, is purely a commercial transaction and as such this complaint is not maintainable.
On going through the averments in the complaint, it is seen that the complainant availed the credit card facility of the opposite parties bank and through this credit card he tried to reserve a hotel room through online service agent. Unfortunately he lost Rs.8948/- from his account, at the same time he got a message that 'Transaction Declined'. It is obvious that, even though his attempt was failed, the amount was transfer from his account to someone's account. The allegation of the complainant is that it is only due to the faulty system of the opposite parties, which they are using for on line transaction. For substantiating his plea, the complainant produced print out of Gmail correspondance with the opposite party and with their grievance cell. After a lapse of nearly one year the complainant approached this Forum against the act of opposite parties. At this juncture it is very pertinent to note that the opposite parties not took any effort to counter the allegation of the complainant against them. Opposite parties failed to adduce any evidence to rebut the averments in the complaint either orally of documentary. It is the burden of the opposite party to convince the Forum that the allegation are false and frivolous. It is surprising that the opposite party had not took any
(Cont....4)
-4-
steps at least to cross examine the complainant.
On the basis of above discussion, the Forum is of a considered view that the act of the opposite parties narrated by the complainant in this matter is gross deficiency in their service and they are liable to compensate the complainant to some extent. Hence the complaint allowed, opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.8948/- along with 12% interest from 26/09/16 and also directed to pay Rs.5000/- as litigation cost within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which the amount discussed above shall carry 12% interest from the date of default till the realisation.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 27th day of April, 2018.
Sd/-
SRI. S. GOPAKUMAR (PRESIDENT)
Sd/-
SRI. BENNY. K. (MEMBER)
APPENDIX
Depositions :
On the side of the Complainant :
Nil
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil
Exhibits :
On the side of the Complainant :
Ext.P1 - The copy of cardholder dispute form
Ext.P2 - The 'Gmail' print out of transaction decline alert dated 26/09/16
Ext.P3 - The Gmail reply print out relating to credit card disputes
dated 03/10/16, 10/10/16, 24/11/16 and 08/12/16
Ext.P4 - The Gmail remainder dated 25/11/16, 06/12/16.
On the side of the Opposite Party :
Nil.
Forwarded by Order,
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
