DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.273/2009

Sh. Gunjan Soni S/o Sh. P.N. Soni

Sh. Mayank Soni S/o Sh. K.C. Soni

Both R/o C- 2, Greater Kailash

Part- I, New Delhi- 110048

….Complainant

Versus

M/s Matrix Cellular (International)

Services Pvt. Ltd.

7, Khullar Farm, Mandi Road,

Mehrauli, New Delhi- 110030

The Head Customer Care

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd,

Unit No. 19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai- 600001

M/s American Express Banking Corp.

Post Box No. 346, Cannaught Place,

New Delhi- 110001

….Opposite Party

            Date of Institution    :    26.03.2009    

            Date of Order            :    04.04.2022  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member:  U.K. Tyagi

Brief facts of the case are that the Complainants are cousin brothers and one of the complainant, Sh. Mayank Soni had to travel to USA & other countries. As such, he wanted to  have an international mobile Sim Card. M/s Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Limited (hereinafter referred to as OP-1) gave value pack to the complainants whereby the details of calls as per Annexure C-1 was  given. The OP-1 asked the Complainant to sign a Customer Agreement Form which was signed by Complainant. The same is exhibited as Annexure C-2.  On return from USA, he received a bill No. ATTG1792135 dated 26.08.2008 from OP-1 for the sum of Rs.2,74,442/-. It was averred by the complainant that a sum of Rs.2,28,783/81 had been charged on  account of usage of GPRS, activated through DATA Sothers- DATA. The Complainant had never used or asked for DATA Service. The same is enclosed as Annexure C-3. The Complainant also came to know after sometime that the OP has charged malafidely, mischievously from his Credit Card. As a matter of fact, Complainant had authorised OP-1 only for a sum of Rs.10,000/-. As such, the Complainant is not liable to make payment for the sum of Rs.2,28,783/81 for which no service  were availed. OP-2 & OP-3 have no right to make the alleged payment to OP-1. To this effect, a legal notice dated 04.10.2008 was got served upon all the OPs. It was made clear that if any payment is made by OP-2 & OP-3 to OP-1, that shall be on their cost and risk. OP-3 after examining the claim of the OP-1 was satisfied that the Complainant is not liable to make this payment. Copy of letter written by OP-3 is annexed as Annexure C-5. OP-2 did not seem agreeable to the averment of Complainant & sent reply as per Annexure C-6. The OP-1 & OP-2 have failed to comply the instructions contained in the Notice. The Complainant on the basis of letter of OP-3 has not sought any relief against OP-3.

            In view of above, the Complainant has sought relief for quashing the said alleged bill, OP-2 may also be restrained to make payment to OP-1 with respect to said bill; further on account of acts of OP-1 & OP-2, then he suffered mental torture & agony for which a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- may be given compensation.

            On the other hand, OP-1 stated that after receiving the genuine bills on his actual usage and taking into account the  objections raised by the Complainant, it  has  already waived off an amount of Rs.2,06,876/- and accordingly, the same amount was charged back on the complainant Credit Card. This information has been concealed by the Complainant for seeking illegal benefits by misleading this Hon’ble Commission. OP-1 also denied that the authorization was restricted to Rs.10,000/-.The Complainant infact, used GPRS Services for his benefit and enjoyment. The waiver of this service was given in January, 2009, the Complainant with malafide intention for wrongful gains, went ahead with his complaint in the month of March, 2009. The OP-1 further emphasized that there is deficiency in service as the relief so sought, had already been allowed by the OP-1. The OP-1 has also contended that the Customer Agreement Form was signed by Complainant No.1 whereas, without permission of OP-1, the Sim Card was handed over to complainant No.2

 Hence, the Complainant No.2 is not consumer under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. He further stated that no cause of action ever arose in favour of OP-1.

            At the same time, the OP-2 (i.e. Standard Charted Bank) has raised the doubts on the denial of authorization to debit the credit card of Complainant with regard to expenses incurred by OP-1 towards his telephone bills. OP-2 mentioned that based on this authorization & request, the OP-2 bank had debited Rs.25,000/- & Rs.50,000/- towards the due from this credit card. The said debit was based on the contract between Complainant and answering opposite. It is also stated that as per general banking practice and norms, the transaction of a consumer is allowed as long as the limit is available in his account unless instructions contrary to the above is given. Since the Complainant has given authorization to the OP-1 to recover the billed amount from his credit card account. The same is evident from the agreement between Complainant & OP-1 even otherwise also; the Complainant had not given any instruction to OP-Bank to restrict the payment for a particular sum. OP-3 is an American Express Banking Corp. The OP-3 intimated the Complainant about the reversal of the disputed amount. As such, no relief against the OP-3 was sought by Complainant. Hence, the OP-3 is discharged from the liability towards Complainant.

            All the parties have filed evidence by way affidavit & written submission. Rejoinder is on record so is written statement. Arguments were heard and concluded.

            This Commission has gone into the material on record & submissions. Since the OP-1 has waived the amount of Rs.2,06,876/- in January, 2009 and  same amount was charged back in the Complainant’s credit card. Which is evident from the letter dated 09.01.2009 written by OP-3 to the Complainant about reversal of entry. As stated above OP-2 has also categorically maintained that there was agreement between OP-1 and Complainant and authorization for debit of the expenses, incurred by OP-1 for telephonal bills, was to be allowed unless the enquiry so instituted in the above matter is held contrary by its merchant establishment.

            After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this commission is of the view that the grievances of the Complainant does not  survive once the  waiver  to the extent of Rs.2,06,876/- was done by the OP-1. The Complainant has mentioned in its arguments that the bill after waiver of said amount was not supplied. This commission feels that OP-1 should supply the copy of rectified bill within 15 days from the date of this order and other claims of the Complainant are also rejected.  The liability of the OP-2 for its fair stand as maintained vide its letter 24.10.2008, is also discharged. 

No orders as to cost to either of parties.

File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties.