Punjab

Fatehgarh Sahib

CC/76/2017

Pavitar Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Narinder Enterprises - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Marwa

28 Jan 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FATEHGARH SAHIB.

                            Consumer Complaint No.76 of 2017

                                                        Date of institution:  07.11.2017                                        

                                                        Date of decision   :  28.01.2019

Pavitar Singh aged about 35 years son of Nirmal Singh, resident of VPO Goh, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana.

……..Complainant

Versus

Narinder Enterprises, near Fountain Chowk, Sirhind Mandi, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh Sahib through its authorized signatory.

 

…..Opposite party

Complaint under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act

Quorum

Sh. Kuljit Singh, President

Sh. Inder Jit, Member   

                            

Present :   Sh. N.S.Toor, Adv.Cl. for complainant.

                  Sh. B.S.Sodhi, Adv.Cl. for the opposite party.

 

ORDER

Kuljit Singh, President

                  Complainant Pavitar Singh aged about 35 years son of Nirmal Singh, resident of VPO Goh, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, has filed this complaint against the Opposite party (hereinafter referred to as “OP”) under Section 12 to 14 the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:

2.               The complainant purchased two mobiles hand sets i.e. Redmi 4 and Redmi 4A from the shop of OP for Rs.7490/- and Rs.6400/- respectively totaling Rs.13,890/-. The OP issued invoice No.788 dated 15.09.2017 for Redmi 4 but did not issue bill for Redmi 4A and assured the complainant that he will issue the same after some time as there is technical snag in the printer. The complainant made the payment through Axis Bank Credit Card. At that time, the complainant did not see the slip/receipt of payment, which was given by the OP. When the complainant reached at his office, then he got a message on his mobile in respect of the payment of said hand sets and he noticed that OP has debited Rs.14,200/- instead of Rs.13,890/-.  The complainant inquired from the OP regarding deduction of extra amount. The OP replied that extra amount was charged by the bank as bank charges for such type of online transactions.  The OP did not disclose the fact about bank charges at the time of sale of the mobile hand sets to the complainant. The OP misled the complainant and encroached and grabbed his money illegally. The OP also refused to issue invoice for second mobile hand set. The complainant served a legal notice upon the OP to refund the extra amount and to issue the bill for the second mobile but OP did not make any payment and nor issued the bill.  The act and conduct of the OP amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on its part.  Hence, this complaint for giving directions to the OP to refund the extra amount along with interest and further to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation  and to issue the bill for the second mobile hand set.

3.               The complaint is contested by the OP, who filed the written version. In the written version OP stated that the OP sold the first handset for Rs.7,490/- and issued a bill in this regard to the complainant, whereas in respect of second hand set, the same was ordered online by the OP at the instance of the complainant and all its charges were to be borne by the complainant from his own pocket.  But later on, the OP charged only an amount of Rs.6,490/- from the complainant and handed over the online bill of the mobile hand set to the complainant. The OP has no right or authority at all to issue any bill in respect of purchase of online handsets as the bills to that effect are being received with the handset.  It is further stated by the OP that the complainant was informed that if he will make payment of the same through his debit/credit card, then he will have to pay extra charges of the bank etc. After swapping the card of the complainant and after filling the amount of handsets, it was told to the complainant that he will have to pay an amount of Rs.14,200/- instead of Rs.13,980/-, which the complainant himself agreed to pay. Accordingly, the payment of said amount of Rs.14,200/- was made by the complainant through his credit card.  The extra amount was in respect of charges of bank for the use of credit card etc. It is further stated that the complainant caused loss worth Rs.56.47/- to the OP as on account of said payment through credit card, only an amount of Rs.13,923.53/- was transferred to the account of the OP instead of Rs.13,980/-. Hence, there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. After denying the other averments made in the complaint, the OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.               In order to prove his case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW1/A along with copy of documents Ex. C-1 to C-10 and closed the evidence.  In rebuttal the OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Ex. OP-1, statement of account Ex. OP-2, copy of HDFC Merchant Commissioner Report Ex. OP-3(8 pages), copy of bank statement Ex. OP-4( 9 pages), copy of charges statement of Pinlabs Ex. OP-5( 10 pages) and closed the evidence.

5.               The Ld. counsel for the complainant argued that an amount of Rs.14,200/- was got swapped through the debit card of the complainant by the OP instead of Rs.13,980/-, which is contrary to the law of the land. He argued that bank charges can only be deducted by the bank and not by any business outlet. He further argued that bank charges, if any, are deducted by the bank only at the end of the month. The Ld. counsel stated that the complainant does not have any grievance against the bank. The Ld. counsel in support of his claim relied upon Rationalisation of Merchant Discount Rate(MDR) for Debit Card Transactions issued by Reserve Bank of India vide No. RBI/2017-18/105 and DPSS.CO.PD No.1633/02.14.003/2017-18 dated 06.12.2017, vide which it is specifically mentioned in para No.6, " Banks are also advised to ensure that merchants on boarded by them do not pass on MDR charges to customers while accepting payments through debit cards". The Ld. counsel also cited a judgment of Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, South Goa at Margao passed in Consumer complaint No.79 of 2016 titled as Mr. Chanakya Sharma Vs. 49ER'S(Multi Cuisine Restaurant Bar) & others.

6.               On the other hand Ld. counsel for the OP argued that the OP sold two handsets for Rs.13,980/- and the extra amount of Rs.220/- debited by him through debit card of the complainant pertained to Bank Charges. He further pleaded that an amount of Rs.13,923/- only had been transferred to the account of the OP. In this way, the OP received Rs.13,923/- against the sale  proceeds of Rs.13,980/-. He pleaded for dismissal of the complaint.

7.               We have gone through the documents placed on record by the Ld. counsel for the parties and also heard their oral submissions. The only issue involved in this case is whether OP is entitled to deduction of bank charges or not. In view of the facts stated by the Ld. counsel for the complainant and the citation/judgment relied upon by him, we are of the opinion that the OP cannot deduct/charge the bank charges from the complainant.  Accordingly, we accept this complaint and direct the OP to refund the extra amount i.e. Rs.220/- debited by it on account of bank charges to the complainant alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of deduction till its realization alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- on account of mental tension/harassment together with litigation charges within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

8.               The arguments on the complaint were heard on 14.01.2019 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.      

Pronounced                                                                                                    Dated: 28.01.2019

(Kuljit Singh)         

 President

 

                                                                               (Inder Jit)                

                                                                                Member