Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

181/2013

H.A.Eshwara - Complainant(s)

Versus

Represented by Head - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.Karthik,Mukundan&Neelakandan

22 Mar 2017

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  23.09.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  22.03.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY  THE 22^nd  DAY OF MARCH 2017

 

C.C.NO.181/2013

 

 

H.A.Eswara,

MMPDA Towers, 1^st Floor,

New No.184, Old No.214,

Royapettah High Road, Royapettah,

Chennai – 600 014.

                                                                                    ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

1.Standard Chartered Bank,

Represented by Madhura Das Gupta Sinha,

Head, Service Quality India and South Asis,

19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.Standard  Chartered Bank,

Represented by Mr.C.Amuthavel,

Principal Nodal Officer, Customer Care Unit,

19, Rajaji Salali, Chennai – 600 001.

 

3. Standard Chartered Bank,

Represented by the Manager,

Raja Rajeswari Towers,

No.29/30, Dr.Radhakrishnan Salai,

Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.

.....Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                 : 30.09.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s. Karthik, Mukundan &                      

                                                                    Neelakantan  Advocates

 

Counsel for Opposite Parties                   : R & P Partners

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards reimbursement of the expenses incurred by him due to the deactivation of the credit cards and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards negligent service of the Opposite Parties with cost of the Complaint  u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is an Architect and he is a customer of the 3^rd Opposite Party bank and he is having bank account and transactions with him. The 3^rd Opposite Party issued two International Credit Cards i) Manhattan Platinum Visa Card and ii) Visa Gold Card . The Complainant visited United States of America on 21.04.2013 on a holiday trip. The Gold Card was accepted only for few days and on 04.05.2013 when the Complainant used the said card same was rejected without any reason. The credit card help line of the Opposite Parties informed him that the problem has been set right and he could use the credit card from next day onwards. The Gold Card was accepted  at certain places below 100 dollars and more than 100 dollars the card was rejected. The help line staff informed that the rejection of the credit card due to that the concerned sales desk clerk would have closed for evening and the payment would have been stopped at night as security measure for the card holder, which was unbelievable. Then the Complainant used his another Platinum Card at Macy’s Departmental Store, New york that was also rejected.  The Complainant panicked and put embarrassment and inconvenience due to rejection of the card.  On 06.05.2013 early morning 1.30 a.m the Complainant contacted a lady at the help desk and she told that she would set right the problem and however there was no call from the help desk. Even thereafter his credit card not accepted and suffered with humiliation and embarrassment.

          2. On 10.05.2013 the Complainant was at Dubai, his Gold Card was accepted for a transaction of 810 Dirhams and the same card was rejected for a transaction of 1745 dirhams at another point of sale.

          3. Even after the Complainant returned to India, on 16.05.2013 the Visa Gold Card was rejected at Bangalore for a transaction of Rs.80,000/-, but came to be accepted when it was swiped about 4 times at the point of sale. The Complainant was called up from the 3^rd Opposite Party bank to authenticate transaction and his identity after the transaction. However the Opposite Party never took any steps to redress grievances of the Complainant, who was on a foreign trip with his family, totally dependent on the credit cards issued to the Complainant.

4. The Complainant was an architect of high repute in Chennai who was put up in Hilton Hotel in Times Square, New York and Loews Madison Hotel in Washington and to his embarrassment he had to make alternate arrangements to clear bills by cash at the hotels. The Complainant sent detailed letter on 21.05.2014 to the Opposite Parties seeking their explanation. The Opposite Parties did not even bother to contact the Complainant after receipt of the above said letter and several e-mails sent by the Complainant. Thereafter the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 17.06.2013 to the Opposite Parties did not reply for the same. However, the Opposite Parties sent an e-mail dated 20.06.2013 stating that due to security concerned in high risk countries the transactions of card holder would be permitted after the bank had positively validated the identity of the card  holder and hence the transaction was rejected. Thereafter the Complainant filed this Complaint for re-imbursement of the expenses incurred by the Complainant due to deactivation of the credit cards and compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- towards negligence service and with cost of the Complaint.

5. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Credit Card bearing No.41960749475240 had been issued to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties on May 19, 1997, under the category “Gold Reward – Primary” with expiry date  as September 2018. The Complainant is holding another Credit Card bearing No.4541982338863449 under the category “Manhattan Platinum Primary” with expiry date as June 2017. The Opposite Parties states that due to misuse of Credit Cards abroad, certain security measures are undertaken by way of velocity parameters by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties states that Velocity parameters are certain essential parameters that are built into Credit Cards in order to reduce misuse of the Credit Cards. This will serve as a protection not only for the customers but also for the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties states that based on the above said Velocity parameters on a Credit Card, a transaction may be  referred to the issuer for certain types of transactions.  This could lead to some amount of customer dissatisfaction, especially for transactions in abroad in high value, since most merchants would not be willing to call the issuer and take an approval. So a parameter override is given to certain customers by the Opposite Parties under special request from the customer and  on the basis  controls therein.  The Opposite Parties further states that they are also abiding to all the guidelines, directives instructions or advices of RBI as may be in force from time to time.           The credit card holders are bound by the credit cards number rules and regulations.  As per the statements for 4^th, 5^th and 6^th May, 2013 that the Complainant had utilized the Credit Card for transactions.  As per the statement dated 26^th May 2013, the Complainant had utilized the Credit Card transactions for about Rs.1,08,332.12/- in Dubai. In relation to the transaction dated May 16, 2013, it can be clarified as per the statement dated 26^th May 2013, that the transaction had been processed for Rs.80,000/-. It is submitted here that electronic verification systems allow merchants to verify in a few seconds that the Credit Card is valid and the Credit Card customer has sufficient credit to cover the purchase, allowing the verification is performed using a Credit Card payment Terminal or point-of-sale (POS) system  with a communications link to the merchant’s acquiring Bank. Further, data from the Credit Card is obtained from a magnetic stripe or chip on the Credit Card. As the system is fully automated  the failure might have occurred due to a rare technical failure, wherein the request from the Merchant did not get connected to the Visa/MasterCard Network.  It is wrong and false to state that the Credit Card facility was deactivated on 04.05.2013. It is evident from the statement of account that the Complainant had extensively utilized the Credit Card facility during his abroad trip and had utilized the platinum Credit Card on 5^th and 6^th May 2013 respectively. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied and the Opposite Parties prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

6. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

7. POINT NO :1 

          The admitted facts are that the Complainant is a bank account holder of the 3^rd Opposite Party and the bank had issued him two International  credit cards i) Manhattan Platinum Visa Card and ii) Visa Gold Card and the Complainant left for United States of America on 21.04.2013 on a holiday trip and he was using the above said credit card at USA and till 03.05.2013 without any problems and on 04.05.2013 when he used the visa gold card the same was rejected for more than 100 dollars and in Dubai also on 08.05.2013  the credits cards  were rejected and even in India  at Bangalore for sum of Rs.80,000/- was rejected and however for below 100 dollars the transaction was successful in USA.  

          8. According to the Complainant the following are the deficiencies committed by the Opposite Parties in respect of the credit cards issued by them.

1. on 04.05.2013 the Complainant used Visa  Gold Card  at USA for more than 100 dollars was rejected and further on the same day he used platinum Visa Card at Macy’s Departmental Store, New York and that was also rejected and the Complainant contacted the help line of the Opposite Parties and they informed that they have would set right the problem and card will work  from next day.

 

2. On 10.05.2013 the Complainant was at Dubai his visa Gold Card was accepted for a transaction of 810 dirhams  and while the same card was rejected for a transaction of 1745 dirhams at another point of sale and

 

3. After return to India on 16.05.2013 the Visa Gold Card was rejected at Bangalore for a transaction of Rs.80,000/-  but came to be accepted when it was swiped for about four times at the point of sale

and therefore the above Opposite Parties  have committed deficiency in service as stated above.

          9. The Opposite Parties contended that in USA only above 100 dollars was rejected and however lesser in value of 100 dollars was honoured  and further due to misuse of credit cards at abroad certain security measures are undertaken by way of velocity parameters are certain essential parameters that are bill to credit cards in order to protect the interest of the customers and also for the Opposite Parties  and this could lead to some amount of customers dissatisfaction, especially for  high value transaction in abroad  and the credit holders are also bound by the credit card numbers rules and regulations and  therefore due to the above security reasons the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service.

          10. On 04.05.2013 when the Complainant swiped visa Gold Card at USA at the point of sale the same was rejected and also on the same day the platinum visa card was rejected at Macy’s Departmental Store, New York. This fact was not denied by the Opposite Parties. However, above 100 dollars only rejected and less than 100 dollars the card was accepted. The contention of the Opposite Parties that since less than 100 dollars was accepted while swiping the card at USA and the Opposite Parties has not committed any deficiency in service is not accepted.

          11. Ex.A2, Ex.A3 & Ex.A4 are the transaction purchase slip issued at Dubai Merchants Establishments. In Ex.A2 & Ex.A4 the transaction for purchase     was not honoured and in the transaction Ex.A3 for purchase was declined. The Opposite Parties would contend that for higher value amount was declined at abroad due to security reasons which was in built in the card itself and that is why more than 100 dollars at USA and higher amount at Dubai was rejected.  Both the cards issued are International Credit Cards. The said credit cards have to be used while travelling in the International countries. When the international credit cards was not accepted and rejected in the abroad, the very purpose of issuing International credit cards at abroad was defeated.

12.  The Complainant specifically contended that the security measures pleaded by the Opposite Parties in the written version have not been informed to him. Both in USA on 01.05.2013 at Macy’s East New York USD 256.03 was accepted and likewise on 28.04.2013 at Loew’s Madison Hotel Washington USD 105.07 was accepted and also on 03.05.2013 Bloomingdale’s New York USD 812.14 & 1818.65 was accepted for huge amount of exceeding 100 dollars while swiping the credit card of the Complainant.  When the Complainant card was accepted for more than 100 dollars as stated above in Ex.A8 & Ex.A9 on 04.05.2013 also should have accepted the Complainant cards. The reason given by the Opposite Parties for the rejection of the cards more than 100 dollars cannot be accepted. In Ex.A9 at page 53 of the Complainant typed set on 08.05.2013 the Complainant purchased for an amount AED 3,060.00/- at Giovanni Star Tradindubari for higher amount. However in Ex.A2 to Ex.A4 lesser than the amount spent at Giovanni Star Tradindubari was rejected and such rejection cannot be taken as for security measures. Therefore as discussed above in some point of sale at USA and Dubai the International Credit Card issued to the Complainant was accepted and rejected on 04.05.2013 and 08.05.2013 & 10.05.2013 respectively is a clear case of deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.  

13. Even after return to India on 16.05.2013 when the Complainant swiped the credit card for Rs.80,000/- at Bangalore  and the transactions  was unsuccessful as per Ex.A5. However the same to be accepted when it was swiped for about 4 times at point of sale.  Any how the Complainant has paid the amount of Rs.80,000/-  successfully   after swiping four times and therefore we hold that the transactions at Bangalore cannot be termed as deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties.

14. The credit card issued by the 3^rd Opposite Party has not been worked. The 1^st Opposite Party Head in Chennai and the 2^nd Opposite Party is the Customer Care Unit and therefore the 1^st & 2^nd  also liable along with the 3^rd Opposite Party when the credit card failed to work. As discussed above the transactions was not successful at USA on 04.05.2013 and in Dubai on 08.05.2013 & 10.05.2013, the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service in respect of the International Credit Cards issued to the Complainant and hence we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 have committed deficiency in service.      

15. POINT NO:2

          The Complainant is the charted accountant by profession. As the credit cards were rejected transaction at USA & Dubai at point of sale, the Complainant suffered with mental agony due to the negligent service of the Opposite Parties is accepted. Further the very purpose of issuing credit cards for cashless transactions. The Complainant made several transactions at USA and Dubai as per the accounts statement filed by him, establishes that believing the credit cards also and for easy transactions he arranged his holiday trip. Therefore in such circumstances the agony caused to the Complainant is more severe and therefore considering the circumstances it would be appropriate to direct the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to meet the ends of justice.

          16. The Complainant also claimed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards reimbursement of expenses incurred by him due to deactivation of the credit cards. After the credit cards were rejected on 04.05.2013 at USA, subsequently when he made visit to Dubai from 08.05.2013 onwards in Dubai, he used the credit cards in several point of sale and the transaction was not successful. Further what are the expenses incurred by him which could be reimbursed has not been stated clearly in the Complaint. Therefore as discussed above the Complainant is not entitled for the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- and same is liable to be rejected. However the Complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

          In the result the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly or severally are ordered to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) towards compensation for mental agony besides a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards litigation expenses. The Complaint in respect of the other relief is dismissed.

The above amount shall be paid to the complainant within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which the above said amount shall carry 9% interest till the date of payment. 

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 22^nd   day of March 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL           Telephone records of calls made by the Complainant to

                                       the Opposite Party

 

Ex.A2 dated 08.05.2013         Transactions Declined – Gold Card – Glrovanni Star

                                      Tradin, Mall of Emirates, Dubai Mall, Dubai

 

 

Ex.A3 dated 10.05.2013         Transactions Declined – Gold Card – Galleries 

                                          Lafeyette - 2, Dubai Mall, Dubai

 

Ex.A4 dated 10.05.2013         Transactions Declined – Gold Card – Mikura Branch of

                                          Pearl Enterprises

 

Ex.A5 dated 16.05.2013         Unsuccessful Transaction slip for Rs.80,000/- at

                                          Bangalore

 

Ex.A6 dated 21.05.2013         E-mail from the Complainant addressed to the

                                          Respondent – 1

 

Ex.A7 dated 21.05.2013         Representation from the Complainant addressed to the

                                         Respondent-1

 

Ex.A8 dated 26.05.2013         Statement for Visa Gold Card issued by the Respondent

                                          for the month of May 2013

 

Ex.A9 dated 29.05.2013         Credit Card Statement for Platinum Card issued by the

                                          Respondent for the month of May 2013

 

Ex.A10 dated 06.06.2013         Reminder to representation dated 21.05.2013

 

Ex.A11 dated 10.06.2013 Reminder to representation dated 21.05.2013 and

                                           06.06.2013

 

Ex.A12 dated 17.06.2013       Legal Notice issued by the Complainant to the

                                          Respondents

 

Ex.A13 dated 20.06.2013 E-mail sent by the 2^nd Respondent to the Complainant

 

Ex.A14 dated 29.06.2013  Acknowledgement cards received from the Respondents

                                           for having received the legal notice       

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex.B1 dated NIL              Card Member Rules and Regulations

Ex.B2 dated 29.04.2013    Credit Card statements sent by the Opposite Parties to 

                                        &29.05.2013 & 26.05.2013 the Complainant

 

Ex.B3 dated 20.06.2013           E-mails sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant

               & 08.05.2013

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT