DATE OF FILING : 04-09-2012. DATE OF S/R : 04-10-2012. DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 11-02-2013. N.C. Basak & Sons, a partnership firm having its place of business and office at 346, Netaji Subhas Road, Howrah – 711101, P.S. Howrah, District –Howrah, being represented its partner Sri Debasis Basak.-------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT. Versus - 1. The Branch Manager, AXIS Bank Ltd., Panchanantala Branch, 2, Despran Sasmal Road, P.S. Bantra, Howrah – 711101. 2. The Customer Relation Officer, 'AXIS BANK LTD.' Eastern Zonal Office, Merchant Acquiring Division ( Business Banking Department ) 5, Shakespeare Sarani ( 1st floor ), P.S. Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata – 700071.--------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES. P R E S E N T President : Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS. Member : Shri P.K. Chatterjee. Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha. F I N A L O R D E R Complainant N.C. Basak & Co. by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to credit the sale transaction amount of Rs. 64,059.69 of a gold chain sold by them to their Current A/c. being no. 891010200004916 lying with o.p. no. 1 along with the statutory interest since 17-08-2011 till date, to pay an amount of Rs. 50,000/- and other costs along with other orders as the Forum may deem fit and proper. Brief facts of the case is that complainant being one partnership firm running jewellery business applied for installation of a credit card accepting machine which was installed by o.p. no. 1 on 07-09-2007 and Axis Bank logo was activated. Complainant had been using that machine since then absolutely problem free. On 17-08-2011, one Mr. Siddhartha Daga bought one gold chain from the complainant's showroom and gave his credit card being no. 4050282000558358 issued by HDFC Bank for payment of Rs. 64,059.69. Complainant after verifying and comparing the signature of the said customer with the signature appearing on the said credit card, processed the said card under swift mode system to o.p. no. 1 through their said credit card accepting machine. And o.p. no. 1 gave clearance of the said transaction through said credit card and also confirmed the credit of the said sale price of Rs. 64,059.69 to the above mentioned current account of the complainant lying with o.p. no. 1 vide annexure transaction clearance intimation dated 17-08-2011 showing 'Settlement successfully'. And only after obtaining such intimation from o.p. no. 1, complainant issued cash memo cum tax invoice in the name of the said customer and after obtaining his signature on the cash memo, it was delivered to the said customer along with the gold chain with 'S'. But immediately on 18-08-2011, one letter was sent to the complainant by o.p. no. 2 with an intimation stating therein that the payment of said transaction had been held back for high value transaction and complainant was also asked to send all charge slips duly signed by that customer along with the invoice singed by that customer. The letter was received by the complainant on 24-08-2011 and on 28-08-2011, again complainant received same kind letter from o.p. no. 2 with a threat to do the needful within three days otherwise the amount would be deposited from complainant's account vide copy of letters annexed. So, complainant immediately on 29-08-2012 sent all charge slip of the said transaction and invoice singed by the said card holder vide annexure letter dated 29-08-2012. Thereafter, on verifying their current account balance, it was found that the transaction amount of Rs. 64,059,69 had not been credited to their account. And complainant sent one letter on 13-09-2011 to o.p. no. 1 requesting them to credit the same vide annexure letter dated 13-09-2011. But complainant did not get any fruitful result. Even after several requests made by the complainant, o.p. no. 1 remained silent without doing the needful with a verbal assurance that as soon as the temporary order of 'Payment on hold' is withdrawn by the higher authority, such amount would be credited to the complainant's current account. Complainant's representatives also met o.ps. higher officials but all their efforts went in vain. In the mean time, complainant further received one letter dated 29-10-2010 although it should have been letter dated 29-10-2011 with the same direction of submitting all documents like charge slips, invoice etc, which were already submitted by the complainant on 29-08-2011. Complainant further sent letters on 23-04-2012 & 14-05-2012 to o.p. no. 1 with the same request to credit the said transaction amount to their account with a copy to o.p. no. 2, copy of letters annexed. Even complainant sent one letter dated 04-06-2012 each to the General Manager, Customer Service Department of R.B.I., Mumbai, and to the Regional Directorate of R.B.I., Kolkata vide annexures. But nothing fruitful has come up. And finding no other alternative, complainant filed this case against o.ps. with aforesaid prayers alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice that caused severe mental agony and harassment to the complainant. Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, case heard on contest. Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination : i) Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps. ? Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? DECISION WITH REASONS : Both the points are taken up together for consideration. O.ps. in their written version vide paras 7, 8 & 9 contended interalia that they had not withheld the amount rather they had returned the amount to the card issuer bank, i.e. HDFC as one fraudulent transaction by an unauthorized card holder of the lost card was reported to Shakespeare Sarani Police for due investigation. So, they are not at fault for which o.ps. also cited some reported judgments of Hon'ble National Commission in their favour. But our question is why o.p.'s card swiping machine installed by them showed 'Settlement successful ' ( one line ). It is not at all possible for the complainant to know that a customer was using one lost credit card. It is sole duty of the bank to take care of all these technicalities. If, at all, the card was lost from the custody of the original card holder, it should have been within the knowledge of issuing bank. Complainant has sold the item through credit card and when it was processed for clearance, o.p. no. 1 gave green signal. Is it the duty of the complainant to verify whether that card is a stolen or lost one. To avoid this kind of misuse, Banks should have taken steps by embossing the photograph of the original card holder on the card itself. However, this kind of taking precaution is not in practice in India which could have saved people from such unhappy incidents. However, o.ps. have filed their written version without swearing an affidavit, whereas complainant filed its petition of complaint as well as affidavit reply on oath and that has got more evidentiary value in the eye of law. Accordingly by not crediting the transaction value of Rs. 64,059.69 to the complainant's account, o.ps. have been found to be grossly negligent and for such non-action cause severe mental agony and harassment to the complainant. For no fault of the complainant, it has been punished and that should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly, the case succeeds on merit with costs against o.ps. Points under consideration are accordingly decided. Hence, O R D E R E D That the C. C. Case No. 101 of 2012 ( HDF 101 of 2012 ) be allowed on contest with costs against all the O.Ps. That the O.Ps. are jointly and severally directed to credit the transaction amount of Rs. 64,059.69 within 30 days from the date of this order. That the o.ps. are further directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. If the o.ps. fail to comply the above order in toto within the stipulated period, the entire amount of Rs. 76,059.69 shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full realization. The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period. Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule. | 
