IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> CC 238/08 DATED 06-10-2008<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant K.Dinesh Babu, S/o Late A.N.Krishna Setty, C/o Datta Jewelleries, N.N.Acharya Complex, Ashoka Road, <br /> Mysore-01.<br /> (By Sri.P.S.C.P., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. The Customer Relations Officer, Customer Care Centre, Standard Charted Bank, India Bank Card Centre, 3rd and 4th Floor, Raheja Point, Magrath Road, <br /> Bangalore-25.<br /> 2. The Proprietor / Manager, Trendy Castel, No.145-A, D.Devaraja Urs Road, Mysore.<br /> 3. The Proprietor / Manager, M/s River Dale Fashions, No.149, D.Devaraja Urs Road, Mysore.<br /> (O.P.1 and 3 – Exparte and By Sri.B.P.K., Advocate for O.P.2)<br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 11.08.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 04.09.2008<br /> Date of order : 06.10.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 2 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant who has approached this Forum against the Opposite parties, is that he is a customer of first Opposite party Bank having SCB card account No. That the first Opposite party voluntarily offered him Gift vouchers and holiday package. That he gifted the gift voucher given by the first Opposite party to his son, but his son returned the same bare handed and revealed that the second Opposite party a shop keeper rejected the gift voucher without honouring it to give him reebok pair of shoes stating that they are no more the authorised persons to redeem the gift voucher. Then he approached the first Opposite party who told him to approach again the second Opposite party to redeem it. Then he again approached the second Opposite party, but he refused to honour the gift voucher. Then he again informed the first Opposite party who in turn informed him to approach the third Opposite party. Then he approached the third Opposite party also many times, but the third Opposite party went on postponing and told him to meet him again and again, but was of no use. The gift voucher was valued Rs.2,219/- and he was also given the holiday card with holiday package for 2 nights and 3 days for the couples and a child at a 3 Star Hotel. According to which he had paid the reservation charges of Rs.559/- per package. He could not use the holiday card turned profile as telephone conservation with the concerned for reservation went in wein. Then he again approached the first Opposite party to correct the deficiency, but the first Opposite party telephonically informed him on 28.02.2008 and collected information again and again, but kept quite. The first Opposite party has also collected Rs.3,170/- as the additional charges from him, which is inclusive of service tax of Rs.345.78. Even issue of legal notice on 21.02.2008 did not yield any fruitful result and therefore has prayed for a direction to the Opposite parties to pay damages of Rs.25,000/- for injury of his reputation, Rs.2,00/- as expenditure of having contact the Opposite parties, Rs.3,170/- additional charges collected by first Opposite party as extra cost, Rs.2,290/- the value of gift voucher, Rs.12,000/- towards value of holiday card and also to award damages of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and also Rs.1,540/- towards cost.<br /> 2. First and third Opposite parties who were served with the notice of this complaint have remained absent, therefore are ed exparte. Second Opposite party has appeared through their advocate and filed version denying all the gations made against them in the complaint and stated to have no knowledge of the grievance of the complainant and stated that long back he was authorised to redeem the vouchers, but after the establishment of the exclusive outlet that is the third Opposite party hi rights to redeem the vouchers were taken away by the first Opposite party, therefore denying all other allegations has stated that the complaint is not maintainable against him and to dismiss the same.<br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Vishnu.B.R. for the second Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reiterating what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced copy of the credit card, gift voucher given by the first Opposite party and holiday card, copies of letters he addressed to first Opposite party and replies he received from the first Opposite party. Heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records.<br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite parties have caused deficiency in their service in not providing him the benefit offered under the gift voucher and under the holiday card?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the Negative.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Point no. 1:- The first Opposite party being the contesting Opposite party in this case who has issued the gift voucher and holiday card is not participating in the enquiry. The second and third Opposite parties are the outlets said to had been authorised by the first Opposite party for honouring the gift voucher given by the first Opposite party and to provide the facilities offered under two cards. The third Opposite party is also placed exparte. Admittedly, there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the second Opposite party to honour the gift voucher and to provide the facilities assured under the gift voucher to the complainant. The further contention of the second Opposite party that after establishment of third Opposite party he has not been authorised to redeem the gift voucher of first Opposite party has not been controverted by the complainant and therefore we find no evidence and materials before us to prove that the second and third Opposite parties are bound under law to provide the facilities assured under the gift voucher or under the holiday card, as such we find no case against the second and third Opposite parties, as such the complaint against them is liable to be dismissed.<br /> 7. Coming to the grievance of the complainant against the first Opposite party is concerned the complainant has produced Xerox copy of the credit card, gift voucher and holiday card said to have been issued by the first Opposite party. The letters sent to the complainant are also placed before us in which we do not find any dispute between the complainant and the first Opposite party with regard to issue of gift voucher and holiday card by the first Opposite party in favour of the complainant.<br /> 8. The complainant in the complaint and also in the affidavit evidence, though stated that he had gifted the gift voucher to his son and he tried to get the benefits under the gift voucher, but his son returned bare handed, has no where stated the date, month and year on which they approached the first and third Opposite parties for redeeming the benefits due under the gift voucher. The complaint and affidavit evidence of the complaint are totally silent about the date of approach. These particulars are relevant for deciding this case, because the gift voucher conditions provide that the gift voucher is valid for 4 months from the date of issue. This gift voucher was issued admittedly on 27.10.2006. The holiday card disclose the condition and it is stated that it is valid till 15.5.2007. It is because of these conditions, the complainant is required to prove that he had attempted to avail the benefits offered under these 2 cards within the specified period. But as already stated by us above, the complaint and affidavit evidence of the complainant are bereft of this fact. However, the complainant in the complaint has stated as if the first Opposite party contacted him on 28.02.2008 and collected information again and again then kept quite, then he also referred to a legal notice he got issued to first Opposite party on 21.02.2008. Except these dates, the complainant has no where stated that the date, month and year on which he approached to encash the benefits under the cards. The complainant has produced a copy of the letter he had addressed to the first Opposite party on 04.11.2007 in which he has stated that his gift card was in valid that iis date of validity is passed away on 31.10.2007 and requested the first Opposite party to honour his gift voucher. For which, the first Opposite party wrote a letter to the complainant on 14.12.2007 stating they would not be able to revalidate the gift voucher issued in the year 2006 and thereby stated that the offer made to the complainant is closed and regretted for inconvenience caused to the complainant. The first Opposite party again on 29.01.2008 also expressed regrets in their inability to revalidated the gift card issued to the complainant. Further, the complainant in his letter on 12.02.2008 also informed the first Opposite party that the shop which was authorized for redeeming the gift voucher was not a authorised shop and further stated, at the same time he was not pleased with that so he has not used the holiday card too. This letter of the complainant addressed to the first Opposite party further reveal that he did not approach the first Opposite party for redeeming the benefits and he was also not pleased with the first Opposite party, therefore has not used the holiday card given to him by the first Opposite party. All these contentions of the complainant, the letters he had written to the Opposite party and replies given by the first Opposite party to the complainant make it manifest that the complainant did not attempt or chose to avail the benefits offered to him under the gift voucher and also under the holiday card within the time prescribed in them. The complainant has also not proved and produced any materials to prove that he made any attempt or attempts to avail the benefits offered under the cards in question, as such for the lapse of his own, the complainant cannot blame the first Opposite party for deficiency in their service, as the result the complaint lacks merit and therefore is liable to be dismissed against the first Opposite party also. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the negative and pass the following order:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 6th October 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> <br /> <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> <br /> <br /> (Shivakumar.J.)<br /> Member<br /> -<br />