The case of the complainant in short is that the complainant was having personal need for himself and his family members decided to perchance pre used car from o.p. no.5 for a total consideration amount of Rs.2,52,000/- and to that effect complainant paid the amount to o.p. no.5 on 24.12.07 through the credit card of the complainant which credit card facility was provided by o.p. nos.3 and 4. The said payment was made by using the credit card in the transaction machine of o.p. no.1 and 2. It was not possible for delivery of the pre-used car on the same date as that has not been registered before the competent registering authority in the name of the complainant. O.p. no.5 took some time for doing registration proceeding. After some days when complainant approached o.p. no.5 for the said car o.p. no.5 told that the consideration amount was not credited in their bank account. Complainant observed that o.p. nos.3 and 4 duly debited the amount from his credit card account. Then complainant contended o.p. nos.1 and 2 with a request to credit the amount in the account of o.p. no.5. Later complainant came to know that o.p. nos.1 and 2 already credited the amount to o.p. no.5. But till date o.p. no.5 did not deliver the car. Having no other way out the complainant started to pay the amount for purchasing the said car without getting the delivery of the same from o.p. no.5. Complainant in such a way made a payment of Rs.250,000/- more or less till date to o.p. nos.2 and 3. O.p. nos.1 and 2 disbursed the consideration amount to o.p. no.5 after a lapse of more than one year. After getting such information the complainant rushed to the office of o.p. no.5 interalia demanded the car. O.p. no.5 assured the complainant that they would hand over the car very soon. But o.p. no.5 ultimately refused the complainant to deliver the said car. For this reason complainant has suffered tremendous mental and physical pressure and he became ill and admitted in the hospital suffering from acute hypertension (annex-B) of the petition of complaint. After payment of full consideration amount the complainant had to run from pillar to post to offices of  all the o.ps. Finding no other alternative complainant filed the instant case with prayer to release a car of the said model “Ford Icon’ and/or refund a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- along with compensation.  

            O.p. nos.1 and 2 and o.p. nos.3 and 4 filed separate written versions. Though the notice was duly served upon o.p. no.5 they did not appear before this Forum and therefore, the case was fixed ex parte against them.

            In their written version o.p. nos.1 and 2 denied all material allegations interalia they have mentioned that the complainant is credit card holder of another bank. No service was rendered to the complainant or no service was hired by the complainant from o.p. nos.1 and 2. As such, no complaint can lie against o.p. nos.1 and 2 i.e. Axis Bank in respect of the subject matter of this dispute. In their written version o.p. nos.1 and 2 also stated that the average transaction size of o.p. no.5 would be Rs.5000/- when o.p. no.5 enrolled itself as a Merchant Establishment with the Axis Bank. As per that agreement o.p. nos.1 and 2 were entitled to refuse total or partial payment to the Merchant if the transaction was for any reason unlawful or unreasonable. Here the transaction amount was Rs.2,52,000/-. However, o.p. nos.1 and 2 released the amount on 3.4.08 for the transaction dt.27.12.07 on sub mission of relevant document by the Merchant Establishment. So o.p. nos.1 and 2 pray for dismissal of the instant case.

            In their written version o.p. nos.3 and 4 stated that they came to know from the petition of complaint that the complainant used their credit card for purchasing a second hand Ford Icon car from o.p. no.5. They have denied all the material allegations content in the petition of complaint. They also stated that the payment of Rs.2,52,000/- as shown to have been paid by the complainant to o.p. no.3 was a legitimate payment payable by the complainant to o.p. no.3. They prayer for releasing a sum of Rs.2,52,000/- do not relate or concern to o.p. nos.3 and 4 as there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice done by o.p. nos.3 and 4. So the complaint should be dismissed with cost.   

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted fact that complainant is a credit card holder of o.p. nos.3 and 4 and purchased a second hand car from o.p. no.5. O.p. no.5 simply used the swipe machine of the Axis Bank i.e. o.p. nos.1 and 2. Hence the complainant is clearly a consumer of o.p. nos.3, 4 and 5 and not o.p. nos.1 and 2. There is no jural relationship between the complainant and o.p. nos.1 and 2 since o.p. nos.1 and 2 are not the service provider to the complainant. There has been no privity of contract between o.p. nos.1 and 2 and the complainant and further no consideration was taken from the complainant by o.p. nos.1 and 2.

            There is a delay of disbursing the amount from o.p. nos.1 and 2 to o.p. no.5 because the transaction limit between them was Rs.5000/- as per their Merchant Establishment Agreement. However, o.p. nos.1 and 2 disbursed the amount after observing the formality and scrutinizing that the transaction was not unlawful. If there is any deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 in that case o.p. no.5 would alleged against them. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are service provider to o.p. no.5. In spite of full and final payment of the consideration price by swiping the credit card o.p. no.5 neglected and failed to deliver the car in question to the complainant. Complainant is not in any way the consumer of o.p. nos.1 and 2. So complainant is not entitled to claim any relied from o.p. nos.1 and 2.

            As per agreement of o.p. nos.1 and 2 and o.p. no.5 the clearance for the transaction amount took few months. There is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. nos.1 and 2 as they have not made any delay for this transaction. As per credit card account they have claimed the amount from the complainant and they have taken the post dated cheques.

            As o.p. no.5 did not contest the case so it is clear that they have not challenged the allegations against them. The complainant used his credit card to purchase the car in question. O.p. no.5 did not give any reasonable answer to the complainant why they have not delivered the car in question. From the statement of o.p. nos.1 and 2 it is clear that the amount of Rs.2,52,000/- was credited in account of o.p. no.5 on 3.4.08. But till date o.p. no.5 did not make any contact with the complainant. So it is clear there is gross deficiency in service on the part of o.p. no.5. Accordingly, the complainant has substantiated his case and he is entitled to get relief u/s 14 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is allowed ex parte with cost against o.p. no.5 and dismissed on contest against other o.ps. O.p. no.5 is directed  to release the car in question or to refund Rs.2,52,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty two thousand) only to the complainant and is further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.