BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

C.C. No. 259/2021 Filed on 15/09/2021

ORDER DATED:  27/02/2023

ORDER

SRI. VIJU V.R : MEMBER

The complainant has presented this complaint before this Commission under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.  The brief facts of the case is that the complainant made a credit card purchase form the Reliance Fresh for Rs.381.66/- using Dhanalekshmy Bank’s Credit Card on 07/10/2013.  Even though the amount was debited from the complainant’s account it was not transferred to Reliance Fresh.  Since the amount was no transferred to Reliance Fresh the complainant contacted the Dhanalekshmy Bank.  But they turned a deaf ear at the complainant.  There were no responses from the Dhanalekshmy Bank.  But to the total dismay of the complainant Dhanalekshmi Bank has transferred the disputed amount to the complainant’s SB account without any intimation or information on 07/10/2019.  The amount was transferred to the complainant after a gap of six years.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties entered appearance and filed version.  The 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties averred that the case is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  The complaint is barred by Res Judicata.  It was admitted that the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties are not aware as to what purpose the debit card was used on 07/10/2013.  The opposite parties were never informed about the alleged failed transaction on 2013 or thereafter.  The complainant has filed this complaint after more than four years of the order being passed in CC.11/2014.  The complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party for the first time was only on 02/09/2019.  The request was regarding a matter relating to 2013.  Since more than six years had passed the staff of the 2^nd opposite party has requested some time for finding out what was happened.  It was found that the matter was relating to failed debit card transaction.  The complainant was requested to give a complaint in proper format.   The complaint was received in CCMS and it was given ID No.872040 on 04/10/2019.  Based on the said complaint it was found that there was a failed transaction and the said amount was credited on 07/10/2019, reversal of failed transaction can be done only when the Bank receives a disputes from the customer.  The opposite party was not a party in CC.11/2014 the complainant remained silent over the adverse order in CC.11/2014.  There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, hence the complaint may be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties 1 & 2.

Issues to be ascertained:

(i). Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from

     the side of opposite parties 1 & 2?

(ii). Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs?

The opposite parties 1&2 has contended that the complaint is barred by limitation & Res judicata. The question of limitation was already decided by this Commission in IA 313(A)/21, as the complaint was filed within in time. The opposite parties 1&2 in this complaint were not a parties in CC 11/14.  So this complaint is not barred by Res judicata, hence this complaint is maintainable.

Both these issues are considered together for the sake of convenience. The complainant has filed Proof affidavit in-lieu of chief examination and was examined as PW1.  He has produced 11 documents which were marked as Exts.P1 to P11series. The 2^nd opposite party has filed proof affidavit in-lieu of chief examination for & behalf of 1^st opposite party also & was examined as DW1. The opposite parties 1&2 produced one document which was marked as Ext.D1.  Both the parties has filed Argument Notes. It is admitted by opposite parties 1 & 2 that they credited Rs 381.66 to the account on 7/10/2019. It can be seen from Ext. P1 to P4 that the said amount was debited from the account of the complainant on 17/10/2013.  It was contended by opposite parties 1&2 that the complainant has not informed the opposite parties 1 &2 regarding the debit of Rs 381.66/- from his account.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he has informed the bank in year 2013 itself.  However it can be seen from Ext.D1 that the complainant has informed the bank through a letter dated 2/9/2019, which was also admitted by opposite parties 1&2.  But the opposite parties 1&2 have only credited the amount only on 7/10/2019 and that too after a remainder from the complainant on 2/10/2019, which amounts to deficiency in service from the part of opposite parties 1&2.

 In the result, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 &2 are jointly & severally directed to pay interest @ 12% for Rs 381.66 from 2/9/2019 to 7/10/2019 & pay Rs. 1500/- (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred Only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony suffered by the complainant and pay Rs.1000/- (Rupees Thousand Only) towards the cost of the proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the amount except cost will carries interest @ 9% per annum from the date of default till realization.

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission, this the 27^th  day of February,  2023.

            Sd/-

P.V.JAYARAJAN                 : PRESIDENT 

          Sd/-

PREETHA G. NAIR              : MEMBER    

         Sd/-

                                                                 VIJU V.R                          : MEMBER

R                                                                                            

 C.C. No. 259/2021

APPENDIX

  I         COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

II          COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

III         OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

IV        OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

        Sd/-

PRESIDENT

R