Order No. 12 dt. 10/07/2019
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased some items from Amazon amounting to Rs.8327/- on 22.1.18 and subsequently cancelled the payment. The complainant, thereafter, purchased another items with same amount by using the credit card on 27.1.18 and these continued for several months. After several requests EMI amount was reversed, but till the date of filing of the case the amount of Rs.5086 still stands outstanding on the credit card account of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that he obtained the service of o.p. bank by using the credit card issued by o.p. bank from Amazon. The complainant in order to get the relief sent a lawyer’s notice to o.p. bank, for which he had to bear the amount of Rs.2000/- for legal expenses and also prayed for compensation.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant purchased some items from Amazon amounting to Rs.8327/- on 22.1.18 and subsequently cancelled the payment. The complainant, thereafter, purchased another items with same amount by using the credit card on 27.1.18 and due to mistake both the amounts were charged, but subsequently the amount of Rs.8327/- was duly credited by o.p. bank. It was further stated that on 30.3.18 and 21.4.18 was charged with Rs.500/- each under the head ‘over limit fees’ as the complainant exceeded the limit of payment through credit card. The complainant for the purpose of monetary gain filed this case and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant used the credit card for purchasing the articles?
- Whether there was any mistake on the part of o.ps. for which the complainant was charged extra amount?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased some items from Amazon amounting to Rs.8327/- on 22.1.18 and subsequently cancelled the payment. The complainant, thereafter, purchased another items with same amount by using the credit card on 27.1.18 and these continued for several months. After several requests EMI amount was reversed, but till the date of filing of the case the amount of Rs.5086 still stands outstanding on the credit card account of the complainant. The complainant has further stated that he obtained the service of o.p. bank by using the credit card issued by o.p. bank from Amazon. The complainant in order to get the relief sent a lawyer’s notice to o.p. bank, for which he had to bear the amount of Rs.2000/- for legal expenses and also prayed for compensation.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant purchased some items from Amazon amounting to Rs.8327/- on 22.1.18 and subsequently cancelled the payment. The complainant, thereafter, purchased another items with same amount by using the credit card on 27.1.18 and due to mistake both the amounts were charged, but subsequently the amount of Rs.8327/- was duly credited by o.p. bank. It was further stated that on 30.3.18 and 21.4.18 was charged with Rs.500/- each under the head ‘over limit fees’ as the complainant exceeded the limit of payment through credit card. The complainant for the purpose of monetary gain filed this case and on the basis of the said fact o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.
It appears from the materials on record that both the parties did not adduce any evidence and by filing petitions both the parties stated that the petition of complainant and the w/v be treated as evidence. The complainant has claimed that he was asked to pay the extra amount, for which he was harassed and as such, the complainant filed this case. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant purchased the articles by using the credit card for the articles worth of Rs.8327/- and subsequently he cancelled the said purchase, but afterwards he purchased articles worth of the same amount by using the credit card. The o.ps. have categorically stated in the statement of account that the amount claimed by the complainant was further credited to the account of the complainant and due to such mistake the reversal of the amount was made by o.p. bank and the amount was credited in the account of the complainant. The complainant was charged extra amount for exceeding the limit for using the said credit card. It is the contract between the parties i.e. between the complainant and the o.p. bank that if the user of the credit card exceeds the limit of purchasing goods more than the value of the credit card as fixed by bank the extra charge is to be paid by the user of the credit card. Since the complainant exceeded the limit, therefore, the extra charge was made. On perusal of the materials on record we find that immediately after the detection of the fault on the part of the bank the amount was credited to the account of the complainant and for which no extra charge was claimed by the bank. The question of sending the name of the complainant to the CIBIL for recording his name in the CIBIL list never arose. Therefore, we hold that the complainant could not make any case against the o.ps. for getting relief. As such, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.283/2018 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
