COMPLAINT FILED: 25.07.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 04th DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1636/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Mr. Major Vasudevan Ravindran (Retd),<br /> S/o. Sri. Vasudevan,<br /> Aged about 48 years,<br /> Proprietor, The Cavalier,<br /> Above TVS Show Showroom,<br /> 80 Feet Road, Subbana Palya,<br /> Banasawadi,<br /> Bangalore – 560 043.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Madhusudhanan)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. M/s. HDFC Bank Limited,<br /> Credit Card Services Division,<br /> CEEBROS, No. 110, <br /> Nelson Manickam Road,<br /> Aminjikarai,<br /> Chennai – 600 029.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Authorised Signatory Officer<br /> Veenadevi.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.,<br /> Cards Division, 3rd Floor,<br /> Golden Tower,<br /> Kodihalli, Airport Road,<br /> Bangalore – 17.<br /> Represented by its <br /> Deputy Manager <br /> Sri. S. Thilak Kumar.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Suraj R. Manjeshwar)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.61,971.57 along with interest and pay some compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the credit card facility from OP since the year 2003. At the time of extending the said service OP promised the complainant that they will not impose the service charges, interest, etc. Believing the words of the OP complainant ventured to subscribe for the credit card. He was regular in making payment as per the demand made by the OP. With all that as per the bill received dated 07.09.2004 an amount of Rs.12,713/- is deducted contending that amount was paid to M/s. Asis Housing. Actually complainant has no dealing with M/s. Asis Housing at all. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant to OP to rectify the said mistake and credit the so called amount, went in futile. OP instead of rectifying their mistake went to the extent of exercising bankers lien and right of set off with regard to the some transactions and made illegal claim of Rs.1,29,573.89. OP deducted in all Rs.61,971/- through his credit card. Then complainant lodged the complaint to the Police alleging offences punishable under sec. 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C, but still OP did not correct themselves. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, went in futile. Hence he felt the deficiency in service. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant did had a transaction with M/s. Asis Housing, that is why an amount of Rs.12,713/- was paid on 01.09.2004 and Rs.33,136/- was also paid on 17.08.2004. Under such circumstances the contention of the complainant that he has no contact or business with the M/s. Asis Housing is false. When complainant became in due of certain amount OP as per the terms and conditions entered into have deducted a sum of Rs.61,971.57 that too towards the outstanding due of Rs.1,29,573/-. They have also exercised their right with respect to the banker’s lien as per the Customers Card Membership Agreement. Under such circumstances the allegations of the complainant that there is a deficiency in service has no basis. OP is not aware of the private criminal complaint filed against them and they do not know the out come of the said complaint. The other allegations made by the complainant are all false and frivolous. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of the OP. According to the complainant as per the bill issued by the OP dated 07.09.2004 OP claimed an amount of Rs.12,713/- and it has deducted from his account on the contention that the said amount is paid to M/s. Asis Housing. According to the complainant he has no dealing with M/s. Asis Housing, that is why he asked the OP to rectify the said mistake, but all his efforts went in futile. Instead of correcting their own mistake OP went to the extent of invoking bankers lien and right of set off and made an illegal claim of Rs.1,29,573/-. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service. Without his consent and knowledge and without there being any transaction made by him with M/s. Asis Housing OP deducted Rs.61,971/- which is illegal. Under such circumstances he is entitled for the refund of the same. <br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant has suppressed certain material facts which are well within his knowledge. Complainant wants to challenge the transaction dated 07.09.2004 that too after lapse of nearly 4 years because this complaint is filed in the month of July 2008. There is no explanation with regard to the said delay. We find there is a substance in the contention of the OP with regard to the non-explanation of delay in approaching the competent Court and Forum. It is contended by the OP that complainant did had a transaction with M/s. Asis Housing, that is why they paid Rs.12,713/- on 01.09.2004 and on 17.08.2004 Rs.33,136/-. Surprisingly complainant has not raised any objection with regard to the transaction dated 17.08.2004 wherein more than Rs.33,000/- is paid. The documents produced by the OP supports the said defence. Under such circumstances the approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be as very much fair and honest.<br /> <br /> 8. Complainant is bound by the Customers Card Membership Agreement terms and conditions. When complainant became defaulter in making payment of the amount paid by OP to M/s. Asis Housing they were forced to deduct a sum of Rs.61,971/-. Complainant has enjoyed the benefit of the said card and transacted to the tune of Rs.1,29,573/-, he is in due of the same. Out of the said outstanding due OP deducted certain amount referred to above by invoking their right of bankers lien and right to set off well within the purview of the Card Membership Agreement conditions. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. It is much contended by the complainant that he lodged private complaint against the OP. On the perusal of the copy of the complaint an offences punishable under sec 406, 409 and 420 of I.P.C are alleged. What had happened to the said complaint, whether a case is registered, whether the summons have been issued to the so called accused is not known. In addition to that OP has specifically contended that they are not aware of the said private complaint. It is not known whether the cognizance is taken or not. Under such circumstances no such importance can be given to the said averment.<br /> <br /> 9. If the complainant is very much sure that he did not have any transaction with M/s. Asis Housing and he is not liable to pay any amount that is paid by the OP to the said housing, he would have got filed the affidavit of M/s. Asis Housing Company. But no such steps are taken. Viewed from any angle, the approach of the complainant does not appears to be fair. As already discussed by us in detail with reference to the contents of the undisputed documents, correspondence that is made, we are of the opinion that the complainant has utterly failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. When that is so, he is not entitled for the relief claimed. <br /> <br /> 10. On the plain reading of the allegations made in the complaint, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance in due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances we find the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is aggrieved by the so called claim of the OP, the best remedy available to him is to redress his grievance by filing a comprehensive Civil Suit. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />