Delhi

New Delhi

CC/109/2015

Manmohan Sarin - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Ansh International Pvt.Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

30 Nov 2015

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR,

VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC/109/15                                      Dated:

In the matter of:

Manmohan Sarin,

D-127, Panchsheel Enclave,

New Delhi-110017

……..COMPLAINANT

      

VERSUS

1. M/s. Ansh International Private Ltd.,

D-29, Connaught Place,

Delhi-01

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Office of the Area Manager,

Card Sales (Delhi and NCR),

N-47, Pratap Building, Connaught Place,

New Delhi

And having its registered office at:

 

2. HDFC Bank House,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel (West), Mumbai-400013

                                         ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

ORDER

President: C.K Chaturvedi

              

Equipped with assurance of certainty of prepaid Forex cards, as a safe and secure mode of meeting foreign currency requires, while abroad on travel and freedom from worries of safeguarding cash or dealing with money change, complainant Sh. Man Mohan Sarin, former Chief Justice of J&K High Court and former Lokayukt of Delhi with his wife decided to purchase prepaid forex cards of OP2, through the aid and advice of its agent representative for travel to Europe from Spain to Italy, through Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. wef 09.05.14.

The OP2, provided prepaid “Forex Plus Chip Card’, loaded with 2000 Euros on a consideration of Rs.1,67,809/-. Complainant was given one envelope carrying the notation “Manmohan Sarin J”. Euro 2000, which contained card bearing no.5116650300102508, along with its PIN/ATM PIN slip. Second envelope given had a card no.5116650300102490, with its PIN/ATM PIN slip, carrying notation ‘Blank card’. The OP1 informed, while delivering cards that ‘blank card’ was ‘backup card’ to be used in case of loss of ‘primary card’ loaded with 2000 Euros. It was also informed that in case of loss of primary card the backup card could be activated and all the funds from primary card would be automatically transferred to backup card.

It is alleged that complainant, while in Rome, Italy used primary card no. ending with 2508 on 12.05.14 for making payment at a Sports Shop. The merchant put the card through terminal twice but transaction failed, and a slip were delivered by machine showing in Italian language that transaction was unsuccessful or refused. Faced with this situation, complainant was forced to use his credit card, complainant used ATM to withdraw cash, at two banks in Venice, but here also the transaction failed.

Complainant made enquiries in India, from Mr. Sumit Bansal, of OP1 about non-functioning of card. He allegedly informed that due to some confusion, 2000 Euros were loaded in the blank prepaid card no. ending with 2490. He advised use of blank card. Following this instruction the backup card was used on 19.05.14, but transaction again failed. The card also failed to get cash from ATM. Another attempt was made to use both the cards on 21.05.14; both the cards did not work.

This all caused utter anxiety to complainant and left then worried, as they had no foreign currency cash available despite two prepaid card & ATM cards. It also defeated the assured care and purpose of purchasing these cards, as advertised; and made it miserable for the wife, due to non-availability of 2000 Euros for purchase etc.

This was brought to notice of OP1 and OP2 through a notice dated 10.06.14, and demanded refund of Rs.1,67,809/- paid to this for cards, with interest and demanded compensation for embarrassment, harassment, mental agony etc. On this notice, OP1 refunded the amount paid. However, the communication sent to OP2, returned repeatedly with the report of refusal, despite several attempts. After lot of writing and attempt to get in touch, on 22.07.14 Area Head came to meet and extended apologies on behalf of bank for inconvenience, and left with assurance of resolving the deficiency on OP2’s part in not loading Euro 2000, leading to problem in use of card, and meeting liability of compensation as desired in notice of OP2. Later on OP started blaming complainant, for using back up card in place of primary card. It was all false, as complainant had used both the card, as directed at the time of giving cards in envelope, and rather suggested him to approach banking Ombudsman. Therefore this complaint.

The OP2, was asked to amicably settle the matter, at the time of their appearance as it was a text book case of res-ipsa-loquitur, and facts were self speaking. The OP2 on 29.05.15, during Cort hearing came up with a offer of a gift coupon of Rs.50,000/- and a premium credit card, which was not accepted by complainant as even to us, it was not a recompense nor adequate  for the deficiency, embarrassment, harassment & mental agony suffered by a sensitive person, who relied on the website and brochure of OP, to secure comfort during journey with availability of money. The offer of a gift card to complainant on the ordeal faced by family abroad on tour appeared to us like a gift on sad event.

The Forum pointed out inadequacy of this kind of settlement and gave an opportunity to OP to come with a dignified offer. It was demurred and instead of reply, evidence is filed which blames the complainant for and took technical pleas of territorial jurisdiction etc. There is no defense except a simple blame, rather than showing a dignified conduct in such a matter, when its representative had already offered apologies for inconvenience faced abroad.

We have considered the entire material on record, evidence and oral submission made. We find that it is a straight case of negligence, and imperfect in services on part of OP2, in not ensuring that Euro 2000 were actually loaded, as complainant was going to alien land, on OPs assurance of secure availability of money there. This is a case of gross negligence and speaks of callous attitude to consumers needs & sensitivities.

We deplore such an approach and conduct on the part of OP2, which is nothing but unfair trade practice. In the light of above discussion, we award a punitive compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant for the mental agony, harassment and embarrassment caused to Justice Sarin & his wife. We award Rs.20,000/- for forced litigation expenses.

The order shall be complied with within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order; otherwise action can be taken against OP under Section 25 / 27 of the Consumer Protection Act.

File be consigned to record room.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 

        Pronounced in open Court on 30.11.2015.

 

 

 

(C.K.CHATURVEDI)

PRESIDENT

 

 

 (Ritu Garodia)

MEMBER