PER S.K. NAIK (ORAL) 1. There is no appearance on behalf of Respondents No. 3 and 5 despite due service of notice. They are, therefore, being proceeded ex-parte. 2. Shri Nikhil Jain, Proxy Counsel has appeared on behalf of Shri Shobhit Jain, learned counsel representing Respondents No. 1 and 2, while Shri Himanshu Bagdwal, learned counsel has appeared for Respondent No.4. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. 4. The petitioner was the complainant before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, Hyderbad (District Forum for short). He had alleged deficiency in service on part of respondents no. 1 and 2/opposite parties, contending that despite a credit limit upto Rs.50,000/-, out of which he had already availed/spent Rs.17,281.52 ps. and the balance remaining was only Rs.32,718.48 ps, respondents no. 1 and 2 had accepted the charge slips in excess thereof from the shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5. The complaint was resisted by the respondents no. 1 and 2/opposite parties. 5. The District Forum on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties and after hearing their counsel held that the petitioner/complainant, having lost the credit card and having failed to notify the loss promptly, cannot pass on the blame for the transactions made by some miscreants to respondents no. 1 and 2/opposite parties on the plea of exceeding the credit limit. Though the petitioner/complainant had alleged that the shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5 did not verify the signatures on the charge slips, the District Forum ignored the same as the shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5 were not impleaded as parties in the complaint. The District Forum held that the petitioner/complainant had failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the respondents no.1 and 2/opposite parties and, therefore, dismissed the complaint. 6. Aggrieved thereupon, an appeal was filed before the A.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad by the petitioner/complainant. On his application, the State Commission permitted the impleadment of the shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5 as parties to the appeal. The State Commission, taking note of the fact that the disputed transactions had taken place between 7th of February, 2003 till 10th of February, 2003 and that the petitioner/complainant had reported the loss of the credit card only on 18th of February, 2003, absolved the respondents no. 1 and 2 of any liability. With regard to the shopkeepers swiping the credit card without verification of the signatures, however, the State Commission held them deficient in rendering service and directed each one of them to pay Rs.2500/- to the petitioner/complainant. 7. Not satisfied with the award of the State Commission, the petitioner/complainant has filed this revision petition to invoke our supervisory jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 8. Mrs. K. Radha Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant, has contended that respondents no. 1 and 2/opposite parties ought to have been held equally liable by the State Commission for having honoured the transactions in excess of the credit limit and the State Commission should have also permitted the full reimbursement of the transactions made with shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5 as they have failed to verify the signatures before swiping the credit cards. We, however, note her argument only to be rejected for the simple reason that it was the petitioner/complainant who should have been vigilant with the safe keeping and proper use of the credit card and should have immediately reported the loss to respondents no. 1 and 2. The blame for any transaction made through the credit card between the period of theft/loss and report to the authority concerned will squarely lie on the card holder, the petitioner/complainant in this case. The allegations of exceeding the credit limit etc. have no force. Insofar as the shopkeepers/respondents no. 3 to 5 not tallying the signatures prior to swiping of the credit card is concerned, the State Commission, in our view, has rightly held them deficient to that extent and the compensation awarded is just and proper. 9. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the revision petition, which is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. |
