Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that complainant purchased a dress materials from M/s. Pupsha Enterprise (Raymond Shop) on 20.11.2008 for a sum of Rs. 7,499/- and complainant offered to pay the price through his ATM cum Debit Card was swiped for Rs. 14,998/- just the double of the purchase of the bills. But at that time complainant did not notice the error right point but afterwards when it came to the notice of the complainant which was reported to the op and op claimed for refund of Rs. 7,499/-. But op agreed to refund but on flimsy ground delayed and complainant many times communicated at the door of the op along with original documents but op did not take any step. Accordingly on 19.12.2012 complainant wrote a letter to the op. But op did not pay any heed. Complainant sent so many emails and subsequently getting no result, complainant ultimately filed this complaint for unfair trade practice and for harassing the complainant.
On the other op no.2 HDFC Bank submitted that no doubt op no.1 having merchant Code No. T04404 and the merchant terminal No. 49006146 and against op card ssipe transaction was made on 20.11.2008 and said merchant terminal No. 49006146 is linked with A/c No. 01742020000175 (Customer Id No. 20517259) of M/s. Puspha Enterprise/op no.1 and truth is that on 21.11.2008 Rs. 14,998/- was encashed by swiping transaction card by the op and practically this complaint is not maintainable against the op no.2 because op no.2 did not sell anything or encashing anything. So, there is not deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of op no.2 for which the complainant should be dismissed against the op no.2.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that the entire allegation is false, present transaction was made in between the op no.1 and complainant in November,2008. But complainant filed this complaint on June, 2014 for which the present complaint is barred by limitation and it is submitted by the op that complainant actually purchased three suits of Rs. 22,497/- which shall be reflected from the sales tax return and VAT filed by the op and payment of Rs. 14,998/- was noted on two item against CMB-8165 of Rs. 14,998/- and for another one Invoice CMB-8166 of Rs. 7,499/- was issued. So, the present allegation is false and fabricated and practically complainant purchased three suits of Raymond worth of Rs. 22,497/-, 2 bills being Invoice No. CMB-8165 of Rs. 14,998/- and another one CMB-8166 of Rs. 7,499/- and against CMB-8165 complainant paid Rs. 14,998/- through Credit Card with APPRCode and against Invoice No. CMB-8166 complainant paid Rs. 7,499/- by cash. So the entire allegation is false and fabricated and moreover the complaint is barred by limitation and prayed for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
After hearing the argument of the Ld. Lawyers of both the parties and also considering the vital Invoice No. CMB-8165, it is found that practically Rs. 14,998/- was swiped through Credit Card and it was encashed by the op. But from the said receipt, it is clear the in respect of one slip number twice Rs. 7,499/- was deducted and that swipe was issued by the op no.1 from the said, it is clear that complainant purchased one Suit against slip No. 4418. If complainant would purchase two PA Suit in that case another step note would be there but that is not there, not only that DESE No. is still there i.e. B6 07/16108. So, the allegation of the op that the complainant purchased two pant suits against invoice No. CMB-8165 is completely false and fabricated and no doubt op no.1 adopted unfair trade practice and charged double price for one PA Suit and swiped of Rs. 14,998/.
Fact remains that complainant purchased another PA Suit by cash on 20.11.2008 and against that there is no complaint. But peculiar matter is that in respect of invoice No. CMB-1866 same slip No. is included. So, it is clear that the entire business had been run by the op in a deceitful manner. Truth is that op received excess amount of Rs. 7,499/- though actually complainant purchased two PA Suits and in this regard there is no doubt in our mind to say that complainant actually purchased two PA Suits. But op taking chance of the Debit Card twice swiped the same price in respect of one PA Suit vide Invoice No. CMB 8166. No doubt that was purchased on 20.11.2008. But complainant was outside India and he made several complaints letters, etc. but he did not get any benefit and practically all those anomalies were detected when complainant found his account from the bank after writing letter. Truth is that complainant has been harassed by the op and op managed to kill the time. Complainant is not aware with present Forum for refund and ultimately complainant filed this complaint.
Fact remains there is some delay because the complaint as filed initially on 18.06.2014 but before that he went to CA&FBP where it was pending for long years and thereafter when CA&FBP instructed to file this complaint and complainant filed it and for which we find that in fact that delay can be condoned in view of the fact apparent deceitful manner of business is proved beyond any manner of doubt. So, we are convinced that delay is not on the part of the complainant, as because the matter was pending before CA&FBP and complainant ultimately as per advice of CA&FBP filed this complaint. But anyhow CA&FBP Authority ought to have instructed the complainant to file the same without disposing of the matter at CA&FBP.
In the light of the above observation and findings we are convinced to hold that complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 7,499/- including compensation of Rs. 2,500/- and also litigation cost for harassing the complainant.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the op no.1 with cost of Rs. 2,000/- and same is dismissed against the op no,2 without any cost.
Op no.1 is hereby directed to refund Rs. 7,499/- the excess amount encashed by the op and also compensation of Rs. 2,500/- for causing harassment and for adopting deceitful manner of business by the op no.1 and accordingly total Rs. 11,999/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of this order in cash or to deposit the same to this Forum for disbursement to the complainant.
If op no.1 fails to comply that order in that case op no.1 shall have to pay penal interest at the rate Rs. 100/- per day till full satisfaction of this decree and even if it is found that op no.1 is reluctant to comply the Forum’s order in that case op no.1 shall have to be prosecuted u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which op no.1 shall be liable for that.
