Order No.  10  dt. 29/08/2016

Fact of the case in brief is that the complainant was deputed at Indira Gandhu Stadium, New Delhi as Gymnastics Couch of Indian Team in the Indian Camp from 10/08/2014. During her stay at Indira Gandhi Stadium on 16/09/2014 the representative of Matrix Co. approached the complainant and offered two SIM cards of that company and one mobile phone of Nokia. The said representative took pictures of Passport and front portion of the Credit Card being no. 4373782011607003 of Andhra Bank. On the following day i.e. on 17/09/2014 two Matrix SIM cards being no.s 8613825179500 and 821025866895 for Korea and China respectively along with one Nokia Asha Phone were delivered to the complainant at Indira Gandhi International Airport, Terminal-III, Matrix Counter. The complainant availed of the service of the O.P.s. who promised a cost effective mobile telephone while travelling abroad and she was willing to pay the bills incurred.  Upon reaching Korea complainant came to know that Rs. 49,425.76 was withdrawn from her Bank Account from 19/09/2014 to 14/10/2010. The information were provided by O.P. no. 3 though the Credit card was secured with her and she never authorised anyone to use it. The withdrawals were made by O.p.2 without her consent. The complainant informed her bank and o.p. 3 immediately blocked access to her account. O.ps. have been trying to withdraw money in spite of notice sent on 16/10/2014 and 24/10/2014. Again O.P.s 1 and 2 sent a bill to tune of Rs. 17,081.40 through E-mail. Complainant has suffered a financial loss and has undergone immense mental agony and harassment owing to the fraudulent and illegal activities of o.p.s 1 and 2. Hence the application praying for refund of Rs. 49,425.76 along with compensation and cost.

O.p. 1 and 2 filed a petition challenging the maintainability of the case on 07/09/2015 thereafter o.p.s 1 and 2 did not turn up and petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 03/08/2016 vide order no. 9 dt. 03/08/2016.

O.p. no. 3 appeared before the Forum and filed their written version.

In their written version o.p. 3 denied all material allegations inter-alia stated that the Credit Card no. 4373782011607003 (4xxxx7003) was allotted to complainant. The O.P. no. 3 informed the complainant that the transaction of Rs. 49426.76 which were withdrawn from 19/09/2014 to 14/10/2014. O.P. no. 3 performed its duty properly by giving the information to the Credit Card holder. The O.p. no. 3 has no fault in respect of any deficiency in service to the complainant. O.P. no. 3 sent 34 automated e-mails related to decline transaction from 27/10/2014 to 03/02/2014 and after receipts of those e-mails complainant took no steps. O.p. no. 3 filed the written version with a cross claim of o.p. no. 3 for damage valued at Rs. 10 lacs. O.p. no. 3 also prayed for dismissal of the case against them.

Decision and reasons :

It is admitted fact that o.ps. no. 1 and 2 approached the complainant to take their two SIM Cards and one mobile phone for use in the China and Korea. On the basis of information and statement furnished by the complainant o.p. Co. had given two international mobile connections on a rental basis to her being mobile no.s 010225866895 for Korea and 13825179500 for China. The SIM Cards were handed over to her only after acceptance of terms and condition stated in the Customer Agreement Forms being no.s T1000845535 dt. 18/09/2014 for mobile no. 010225866895 and T1000845534 dt. 18/09/2014 for mobile no. 13825179500. Complainant had signed the said agreement gave the information of her passport as well as her credit card. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant agreed to the proposal of o.p.s 1 and 2 and thereafter accepted the SIM cards and mobile phone. O.ps. provided her two SIM cards and one Nokia mobile phone. So, it is evident from the materials on record that the complainant had gave the option to pay the bills which would be raised by o.p., through her credit card. From the documents it is clear that o.p.s had charged as per their tariff sheet. Complainant provided her credit card details. There is no evidence of any coercion, force or misuse by someone else. Complainant had not given any proof that she had not use the SIM Card in question and the Nokia Mobile Phone which were provided by o.p. 1 and 2. All the credit card details were given by the complainant to o.p.s 1 and 2. Therefore, we do not find any deficiency in service on their part.

No cause of action arose against o.p. no. 3 i.e. Andhra Bank, Salt Lake Branch, Kolkata-700098. No allegation has been made against them. When the complainant informed about the alleged transactions to o.p. – 3, the bank authority immediately blocked access to her account. Therefore, o.p. – 3 acted properly on their part.  So, there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no. 3.

Moreover, the cause of action arose in New Delhi. The communication was made to the Delhi office of Matrix Cellular (International) Services Pvt. Ltd. i.e. O.p. No. 2. No cause of action arose between the complainant and o.p.1. Complainant only sent a letter to O.p. no. 1 on 16/10/2014 only to create a territorial jurisdiction of this Forum. No part of cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and as such the case is not maintainable.

Hence, ordered

That the case is dismissed ex-parte against o.p.s no. 1 and 2 and dismissed against o.p. no. 3 on contest.

Certified copy be supplied to the parties, free of cost.