DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No: 530 of 2011] Date of Institution : 18.11.2011 Date of Decision : 09.04.2012 -------------------------------------- Amar Nath Walia s/o Late Sh. Mohan Lal Ahluwalia, R/o H.No. 1679, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh – 160022, aged 81 years, (Senior Citizen). ….Complainant. (VERSUS) [1] Syndicate Bank through its Manager, G.M. Main Branch, Sector 17-B, Bank Square, Chandigarh. [2] Syndicate Bank through its MD/CMD, Head Office Manipal – 576104. [3] Syndicate Bank, through its Chief MGR/ AGM, Card Center, Corporate Office No. 69, 1st Floor, 9th Main Road Jaya Nagar, 3rd Block Bangalore, 560011 (India). ---Opposite Parties. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Sh. R.M. Dutta, Advocate for the Complainant. Sh. I.P. Singh, Advocate for the OPs No.1, 2 & 3. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER [1] Complainant has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that the Complainant is a subscriber of Syndicate Bank Global Credit Card bearing No. 4090 3000 0046 5010 belonging to the opposite parties. The Complainant claims that the OP-Bank wrongly charged a sum of Rs.6617/- which is reflected in his credit card statement dated 20th July, 2011, against the payment made to Make My Trip Travel Pac dated 11.07.2011 at Delhi. Complainant further claims that he had neither availed the services of any such company and nor has visited Delhi. Annexure C-1 and C-1A are Global Credit Card Statements of the OP-Bank. [2] The Complainant vide his letter dated 31 July, 2011, requested the Bank asking them to reverse the payment, wrongly charged (Annexure C-2). Complainant claims that he made a number of visits to Opposite Party No.1 without any positive result. Thereafter, Complainant served a legal notice dated 20.09.2011 (Annexure C-3), which was replied by the Opposite Party through their reply dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure C-5). Meanwhile, the Complainant received a reminder from the Opposite Parties for the payment of the dues outstanding against him (Annexure C-7). The Opposite Parties also replied to the Complainant through their communication dated 8.10.2011 (Annexure C-6) which claims that a letter received from the credit card center is annexed herewith. However, no such letter is found annexed on the file. The Complainant claims that rather than looking into his request, the Opposite Parties reiterated their demand of money by writing a reminder on 20.10.2011 (Annexure C-7), thus, alleging the pressure tactics of the Opposite Parties in claiming the dues, which actually did not exist against him. [3] The Complainant thus aggrieved of the actions of the Opposite Parties has sought the relief of reversal of Rs.6617/- along with interest to be credited in his account and furthermore, has claimed a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/- on account of deficiency and negligent service, unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties, along with litigation expenses. The complaint of the Complainant is duly supported by his affidavit. [4] The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint has become infructuous since the grievance made by the Complainant has already be sorted out by the Opposite Parties and the Complainant has been duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 02.12.2011 and 09.12.2011. [5] The Opposite Parties though admitting to the debit entry of Rs.6617/- reflected in the Credit Card Statement dated 20.07.2011 claim no alleged deficiency in service on their part as the Complainant while submitting his claim through his letter dated 31.07.2011 (Annexure C-2) was required to be investigated and the Complainant was duly informed about the procedure regarding the solution of the disputed entry and the OP-Bank lodged a retrieval request with the acquiring Bank as per VISA Dispute Resolutions for providing the charge slip for the disputed transaction. The Complainant was also informed that the acquiring Bank has a thirty days time to provide the charge slip, after which they will be raising a charge back on the acquiring bank. In case of the acceptance of the charge back, the acquiring Bank has 45 days time to accept or reject his claim. If the claim is rejected, the acquiring Bank was to provide proof of the transaction which finally could be provided to the card holder. It is claimed that the Complainant was duly informed in this regard vide letter dated 28.09.2011 (Annexure C-5). [6] The Opposite Parties in Para 3 of their preliminary objections have claimed that an amount of Rs.6617/- was reversed along with the charges of Rs.1110/- and the Complainant was duly informed vide letter dated 02.12.2011 (Annexure R-1). Copy of this letter was also forward to Mr. R.M. Dutta, Advocate for the Complainant with reference to his legal notice dated 20.09.2011, copy of which is annexed as Annexure R-2. Opposite Parties claim that letters were sent to the Card Center of the Corporate Office Bangalore of the OPs apart from Local Branch i.e. Opposite Party No.1 vide letter dated 09.12.2011 which is annexed as Annexure R-3. The Opposite Parties claim that there was no deficiency in service on their part as the transaction which was depicted in the statement of the Complainant was made at Delhi which pertained to some different Bank regarding which the information was to be collected through VISA. The issue of mistaken entry was sorted out after taking up the matter with the VISA as per VISA Dispute Resolution for which the Opposite Parties cannot be held responsible. Apart from this, the VISA has not been impleaded as a party by the Complainant who could explain as to how this entry was reflected pertaining to the Credit Card of the Complainant. Thus, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party and liable to be dismissed. [7] On merits, the Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the Complainant by giving a para-wise reply to all the averments of the present complaint. In reply to Para 1 to 3, the same are mentioned as matter of record and the submissions made in the preliminary objections are claimed to be read as part of the reply to these paras. In reply to para 4 it is stated that on receipt of complaint of the Complainant the Opposite Parties took the matter with the concerned authorities i.e. VISA who was responsible for the said entry and the same was later on sorted out and it was duly intimated to the Complainant. The contents of para 5 are claimed to be wrong and denied; whereas in reply to paras 6 to 9 the same are cited to be the matter of record and deserve no reply. In response to other paras, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and the allegations of the Complainant that the Opposite Parties are hand-in-glove with each other are vehemently denied. In response to para 12 Opposite Parties claim that the debit entry of Rs.6617/- along with charges of Rs.1119/- have been duly reversed and the Complainant has been duly informed in this regard. As it was a time bound process mechanism, the Complainant should have waited for the outcome of the investigation in this regard; hence the Complainant without waiting for the final outcome of the investigation has filed the present complaint, which was pre-mature. The grievance of the Complainant is claimed to have been redressed and there is neither any deficiency in service nor an unfair illegal trade practice as alleged by the Complainant. Hence, present complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score. The contents of the remaining paras 13 to 15 too are denied for want of knowledge or being formal. Finally submitting that the present complaint be dismissed with costs, as at the time of appearance on 26.12.2011, the Opposite Parties informed this Forum about the complaint of the Complainant having been redressed. [8] Parties led their respective evidences. [9] Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the ld. Counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions. [10] The fact that a debit entry of Rs.6617/- in the account of the Complainant mentioned against Make My Trip Travel Pac dated 11.7.2011 is admitted; whereas, the Opposite Parties while contesting the claim of the Complainant has specifically stated in its reply that as the grievance made by the Complainant has been sorted out, the present complaint has become infructuous on this score alone. Whereas in para 2 of their preliminary objections, the Opposite Parties claim that the entire procedure of Dispute Resolution as mandatory would have taken a minimum 30-45 days and this aspect was made known to the Complainant. Hence, the Complainant did not wait for a sufficient time before filing this Complaint. While citing this aspect, the Opposite Parties has quoted the letter dated 28 September, 2011, which was sent to the Complainant in reply to his notice dated 20 September, 2011. As this letter was handed over to the Complainant after the passage of 02 months of the lodging of his Complaint, and the present Complaint was admitted on 28.11.2011, hence we feel that the Complainant has waited for complete 05 months and on not hearing anything from the side of the Opposite Parties, had sought the protection of this Forum to redress his grievances. It is also noticed that the letter dated 9.12.2011 through which the Opposite Parties claimed to have settled the issue of wrong debit entry, was sent to the Complainant after a notice was served upon them. Whereas the letter dated 2.12.2011 mentioned to fortify their claim is not found on record. The aspect that the opposite parties state on oath and there after fail to establish its veracity is to be construed against. [11] The excuse forwarded by the Opposite Parties that the matter of resolution of the grievance of the Complainant required some time and the Complainant was too quick to file the present Complaint, does not hold ground as there is no other communication on record to prove this aspect that immediately at the time of receiving the complaint dated 31 July, 2011, the Complainant was made aware about, the time, this issue may take to resolve. It is also noticed that while filing the present reply the Opposite Parties have filed only one Annexure R-3 which is letter dated 09.12.2011; whereas, the Annexure R-1 & R-2, which have been referred to in para 3 of their preliminary objections, are not submitted with the reply, even though a note is found appended on the 1st page of the reply, wherein it is claimed “Note: Annexure R-1 and R-2 will be placed later on”. This aspect too finds reflected in the Zimni Order dated 02 February, 2012. In the absence of these documents the submissions as made under Para 3 of the preliminary objections are found to be weak and carry no substance. [12] We feel that though the Opposite Parties did require some time to confirm about the authenticity of the debit entry as it pertains to some other office, but while dispensing with their responsibility, in this regard, it was incumbent upon them to genuinely advise their customer which they failed to do in the present case and the Complainant waited for nearly 05 months for any response from the side of the Opposite Parties, before filing the present Complaint. Hence, the complaint of the Complainant is genuine as no person would wait indefinitely when the matter involves his hard earned money. The aspect with regard to the reversal of Rs.1110/- along with Rs.6617/- as mentioned in para 4 of their reply, has not been established by the Opposite Parties by bringing any cogent, reliable and trust worthy evidence from their own records. Hence, we feel that the mention of Rs.1110/- in excess to Rs. 6617/- demanded by the complainant is only made to earn the sympathy of this Forum. [13] Hence, in the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Parties, jointly & severally, and the same is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3,000/- for mental harassment and agony to the Complainant; [14] The above said order shall be complied within 30 days of its receipt by Opposite Parties; thereafter, Opposite Parties shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount, till it is paid. [15] Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 09th April, 2012. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | |
