Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

83/2014

Mrs.R.Jamuna - Complainant(s)

Versus

manager reliance, - Opp.Party(s)

k.Sudhakar

21 Dec 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  17.04.2014

                                                                Order pronounced on:  21.12.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

        PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

              THIRU. M.UYIRROLI KANNAN B.B.A., B.L.,      MEMBER - I

 

THURSDAY  THE 21^st  DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

C.C.NO.83/2014

 

 

Mrs.R.Jamuna,

#:152 & 153 Kuberan Street,

Kamatchi Nagar Valasaravakkam,

Chennai – 87.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

Manager Reliance,

RK Complex #:127 Arcot Road,

Valasaravakkam,

Chennai -87.

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 23.04.2014

Counsel for Complainant                      : Mr.G.Sudhakar

Counsel for Opposite Party                      : Mr.K.Ravikumar

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as damages for using defective machine to swipe the Debit Card and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is a holder of Debit Card issued by Canara Bank Valasaravakkam branch, Chennai 87. On 28.06.2012 the complainant and her husband purchased of groceries and vegetables at the opposite party’s shop and gave her Debit Card at the billing counter for payment of Rs.226.24/-. The opposite party’s personnel at the billing counter swiped the Debit Card and informed nothing was forthcoming. In fact the opposite party’s personnel at the billing counter informed the complainant that the machine was not working, only after swiping the Debit Card. The complainant showed the (SMS) message in her mobile debit given for purchase made, the opposite party adamantly refused to accept the same.

          2. The complainant’s fervent pleas fell on deaf ears and the opposite party went on to insult and humiliate the complainant before the shoppers present, unmindful of her agony. The complainant who went to the nearest ATM collected 2 mini statements which showed credit given for purchase made at Reliance. It is pertinent that the opposite party’s personnel were not convinced about the SMS shown, but were bent on humiliating the complainant in public. The complainant narrating her order and agony sent a legal notice dt: 12.08.12 to the opposite party who replied back on 18.08.12 enclosing the amount of Rs.227/-. However, the complainant sent back the refunded amount on 24.08.2012. The opposite party, who failed to realize that it was their fault operating a defective machine to swipe Debit Cards, remained blissfully unaware of the agony faced by customers. Hence the complainant filed this complaint to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as damages for using defective machine to swipe the Debit Card and also a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony with cost of the complaint.

3. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The complainant gave her Canara Bank Debit Card bearing No.4214 5825 0402 5421 for the purchase made by her on 28.06.2012 in the opposite party shop for the total purchase value of Rs.226.24/-. Since the charge slip could not be generated immediately on swiping the card, the bill could not be processed and thereby the transaction shows failed.

          4. As per the opposite party’s policy, transactions relating to Debit/Credit cards, unless charge slip is generated by default, system could not accept such transactions continue to do so, this might be of technical defect of the machine on a rare occasion. Unfortunately the similar technical defect happened on 28.06.2012 at the time of billing when the complainant did shopping at the opposite party’s shop. The defect was noted by the staff that was in-charge of billing explained to the complainant. Subsequently the complainant shows the SMS communication received by her in her mobile phone at the Billing Counter, but the staff at the billing counter had informed the complainant that the SMS communication can be verified only in the evening at the time of closing the counter and will be returned if the payment was already made. Therefore the opposite party requested the complainant to make the payment, but the complainant left the goods purchased and left the shop saying that she did not carry cash with her and collect the money next day when she comes for shopping.

          5. On 28.06.2012 itself  during verification of the total transactions in the evening after the sales was over, it was appeared that an amount of Rs.226.21ps credited to the opposite party’s account since the money belongs to the customer and in the meantime the complainant issued a legal notice dated 12.08.2012 which was delivered to the opposite party on 14.08.2012. Immediately the opposite party refunded the amount of Rs.227/- by Demand Draft dated 18.08.2012, bearing No.579336 drawn in favour of the complainant, payable at Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank Ltd., Chennai towards the refund of swiped debit card amount along with a letter dated 18.08.2012.  Tendering apology for the inconvenience caused by reiterating the facts once again. However the complainant returned the Demand Draft vide letter dated 24.08.2012 for the reason best known to her. The opposite party never insulted and humiliates the complainant at any point of time. The opposite party’s business is wholly depends on its customers and they are  treating all the customers equally and they are in the goods books of the customers from the day one of the said shop in the said area, they never  come across such an incident earlier. Therefore this opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service to dismiss the complaint with costs.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

 

 

7. POINT NO :1 

          It is an admitted fact that the complainant went to the opposite party shop and purchased vegetables for an amount of Rs.226.21 as per Ex.A2 bill on 28.06.2012 and the complainant handed over Canara Bank Debit Card for making payments  and the opposite party personnel at the billing counter after swiping card informed the complainant that the machine was not working and bill was not generated and thereafter the complainant went to the ATM and took Ex.A1 mini statement and also shown to the opposite party that the amount was paid from her account while swiping the card and however the opposite party informed that since the bill not generated in the machine, that the amount   paid or not in the account of the opposite party could be known only at the end of the day while calculating from the statement.

          8. The complainant alleged deficiency against the opposite party is that he had used the defective machine to swipe the debit card of the complainant and even after showing Ex.A1, ATM slip as prove the payment of the purchase money to the opposite party, he had not parted purchased goods to the complainant and also insulted her proves that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service.

          9. The opposite party would contend that he never insulted the complainant, since the bill was not generated that they could not decide the payment made to their account or not and further they informed the complainant that the SMS communication and account can be verified  only in the  evening at the time of the closing the counter and at the time if it was found that the payment was already made the same will be returned to the complainant and however the complainant  left the goods purchased by her and further she filed this complaint after 18 months of the last correspondence and the claim made by her is exorbitant proves that to enrich herself  the complaint has been filed and hence the opposite party had not committed any deficiency in service.

          10. It is not in dispute that after swiping the complainant debit card the opposite party person in the counter informed that the bill was not generated in the machine. Further, the complainant also had shown SMS communication for payment. Normally when the bill was not generated while swiping the debit card for payment, it leads to a conclusion that the payment was not made. However, the complainant went to ATM and took Ex.A1 Mini statement shown to the opposite party counter that the payment was made from her card. The opposite parties personnel replied that only at the end of the day evening only the SMS communication can be verified and if found payment was already generated it will be refunded to the complainant. Therefore while swiping the debit card the bill was not generated is not a defect on the part of the opposite party.  

11.Further, it is not the case of the complaint that for other transactions also the bill was not generated. The opposite party specifically would contend that only in the complainant case alone the bill was not generated. Therefore, the contention of the complainant is that the complainant used the defective machine to swipe debit card and thereby committed deficiency in service is not accepted.

          12. The opposite party also informed the complainant that at the end of the transactions, if payment found excess, it will be refunded to her. Further it is not the case of the complainant that she went to the opposite party and demanded the amount on the next day.  The opposite party while verifying the SMS message and accounts the opposite party found that the payment was made by the complainant. However, the opposite party is unable to contact the complainant to make refund the amount to her, as her address is not with him. Further the complainant issued Ex.A3 legal notice dated 12.08.2012 to the opposite party and immediately on receipt of the same the opposite party under Ex.A4 reply dated 18.08.2012 sent demand draft for Rs.227/- and  apologized to the complainant and her counsel. However, the complainant returned the demand draft under Ex.A5 letter dated 24.08.2012 without prejudice and after returning the Demand Draft clearly after 19 months only the complainant had filed this complaint. The complainant claimed heavy damage and compensation for mental agony in the complaint. Such a claim only shows the complainant wanted to enrich herself after 19 months she had filed this complaint. On receipt of notice immediately the opposite party refunded the amount by way of Demand Draft and therefore considering the circumstances of the case, we hold that the opposite party has not committed deficiency in service.

13. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 21^st day of December 2017.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 28.06.2012                   Mini Statements

Ex.A2 dated NIL                     opposite party’s bill

Ex.A3 dated 12.08.2012                   Legal Notice

Ex.A4 dated 18.08.2012                   Reply

Ex.A5 dated 24.08.2012                   complainant’s letter      

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated 18.08.2012                   Letter sent by opposite party to complainant

                                                       tendering apology together with Demand Draft

                                                     dated 18.08.2012, bearing No.579336 for

                                                     Rs.227/- infavour  of complainant with postal

                                                     Receipt

 

Ex.B2 dated 18.08.2012                   Letter sent by opposite party to complainant’s

                                                     counsel tendering apology.

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT