Punjab

Moga

CC/17/50

Navyug Telecom - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. Satnam Singh

20 Sep 2017

ORDER

THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MOGA.

 

 

                                                                                      CC No. 50 of 2017

                                                                                      Instituted on: 18.05.2017

                                                                                      Decided on: 20.09.2017

 

Navyug Telecom, opposite Mittal Book Depot, Main Bazar Moga, District Moga, through its Proprietor Navdeep Kumar.

                                                                                ……… Complainant

 

Versus

The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Branch Moga, Tehsil and District Moga, Ferozepur Road, Moga.

                                                                           ……….. Opposite Party

 

 

Complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

 

Quorum:    Sh. Ajit Aggarwal,  President

                   Smt. Vinod Bala, Member

                   Smt. Bhupinder Kaur, Member

 

Present:       Sh. Satnam Singh, Advocate Cl. for complainant.

                   Sh. Ajay Gulati, Advocate Cl. for opposite party.

 

 

ORDER :

(Per Ajit Aggarwal,  President)

 

1.                Complainant has filed the instant complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") against The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Branch Moga, Tehsil and District Moga, Ferozepur Road, Moga (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) directing them to supply the Swipe Machine and to refund the amount of Swipe Machine deducted second time by them from the account of the complainant. Further opposite party may be directed to pay Rs.4 lacs as compensation, which includes the refund of swipe machine price, with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of deducting the amount first time from the account of the complainant and any other appropriate relief, which this Forum deems fit and proper be granted.

2.                Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant is running the business of mobile phones and electronic goods under the name and style of Navyug Telecom and Navdeep Kumar is its sole Proprietor, so the present complaint on behalf of Navyug Telecom Moga is being filed through its Proprietor Navdeep Kumar. The complainant applied for the Swipe Machines in the month of January, 2017 from ICICI Bank Branch, Moga i.e. opposite party for the purpose of digital transaction as per government rules and notifications. Unfortunately, it is bad luck of complainant that till date, he has not received any Swipe Machine from opposite party, but the opposite party has deducted the machine' amount twice from the account of the complainant. Due to this reason the business of complainant has been adversely effected very badly and he has faced monetary loss as well as business loss. Only the opposite party is responsible for this and after repeated number of requests, the opposite party has not given any satisfactory answer and behaved very rudely with complainant. The complainant also informed to higher authorities of opposite party regarding the misconduct, misbehave and the financial loss suffered by the complainant, but to no effect. Due to the non-supply of swipe machines, the complainant has suffered financial loss of more than Rs.4 lacs. The complainant also served a legal notice dated 03.04.2017 upon the opposite party, but to no effect. Due to the act of opposite parties, the complainant has suffered mental tension, harassment and agony. Hence this complaint.

3.                Upon notice, opposite parties appeared through counsel and filed written reply taking certain preliminary objections that this Forum has got no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint as the alleged dispute involves transactions meant for 'Commercial purposes'; that the complaint is not maintainable; that the complainant is estopped to file the present complaint by its own act and conduct; that no deficient services have been rendered by the opposite party as alleged by the complainant. The amount involved in question has already been transferred/credited in the account of complainant vide its a/c no.023705500320. The complainant did not mention any amount in the complaint and the complaint being vague, wrong and false may kindly be dismissed with compensatory costs. On merits, it is submitted the complainant did not mention as to what amount was deposited by it. However, as per record with opposite party amount of Rs.19,545.40p was withdrawn from the account of the complainant. The opposite party bank upon having required approvals from the higher authorities has refunded the amount in question and the account of the complainant has been credited for Rs.19,560.37p. The complainant was duly informed by the opposite party bank about the refund of amount in question vide e-mails. All other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint with compensatory cost has been made.

4.                In order to prove the case, complainant tendered in evidence his duly sworn affidavit as Ex. C-1 and copies of documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. 

5.                On the other hand, opposite party tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Dapinder Singh, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd Ex.OP-1 and copies of documents Ex.OP-2 & Ex.OP-3 and closed the evidence.

6.                We have heard ld. counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through record placed on file.

7.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant is dealing in the business of mobile phones and electronic goods and for its business, he applied for providing of Swipe machines with opposite party bank in January, 2017 for the purpose of digital transaction. However, the opposite party bank failed to provide swipe machines to complainant till date, rather they deducted the amount of the machines twice from the account of the complainant. The complainant requested the opposite party for providing said machines a number of times, but they failed to give any satisfactory answer. Due to non supply of machines the complainant suffered loss in its business. All these acts of opposite party, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part. On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party admitted that the complainant applied to them for providing of POS machines and necessary charges was debited from the account of the complainant. They further admitted that they failed to provide the said machines to complainant. Ld. counsel for opposite party argued that as per the record of opposite party they debited an amount of Rs.19,545.40p from the account of the complainant and after getting required approval from the higher authority of the bank, this amount was credited in the account of the complainant to the tune of Rs.19,560.37p  and they informed regarding the same to complainant vide e-mail. As the opposite party already refunded back the amount taken by them to complainant for the purchase of POS machines, so now nothing is due towards opposite party, as they have already refunded back the amount taken by them.

8.                Now, it is admitted case of the parties that the complainant applied for providing of POS machines with opposite party and requisite charges was debited from the account of the complainant by opposite party bank, but they failed to provide POS machines to complainant, despite repeated requests of the complainant. The plea of the opposite party bank is that they have refunded back the amount received by them to complainant for providing POS machines. So, the complainant has no cause of action to file this complaint against opposite party. As per opposite party, they have already refunded the amount of the complainant, but they refunded the amount on 30.06.2017 i.e. much after filing of the present complaint and now only by saying that they refunded back the amount to complainant taken by them for the purchase of POS machines, they cannot escape from their liability. This act of opposite party for non-providing of POS machines to complainant, after deducting the requisite charges from his account, amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on their part.

9.                In view of the above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed with a direction to opposite party to pay Rs.8000/-(Eight thousand only) as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment, agony and monetary loss suffered by the complainant and Rs.2000/-(Two thousand only) as litigation expenses to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled to initiate proceedings under section 25 & 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in Open Forum.

Dated: 20.09.2017.

 

                              (Bhupinder Kaur)                   (Vinod Bala)        (Ajit Aggarwal)

                                       Member                              Member                 President