COMPLAINT FILED: 29.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 29th NOVEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1929/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Suren G. Ijeri,<br /> Age : 26 years,<br /> Occ : Software Engineer,<br /> Trigent Software Ltd.,<br /> No. 49, 1st Floor, <br /> Khanija Bhavan, <br /> Race Course Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Manjula R. Kamadoll)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager,<br /> Credit Card Division,<br /> Barclaycard, PO Box 11567,<br /> Nariman Point,<br /> Mumbai – 400 021.<br /> Maharashtra State.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> Barclays Bank PLC,<br /> First Floor, Paramanna Layout,<br /> B.H. Road, Nelamangala,<br /> Bangalore – 562 123.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Smt. Meera Rawat,<br /> Head Service Governance – <br /> Retail Banking & Cards (India)<br /> Barclays Bank PLC, <br /> Retail Banking Division,<br /> 601/603 Ceejay House,<br /> Shivsagar Estate,<br /> Dr. Anie Besant Road, Worli,<br /> Mumbai – 400 018.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Ravindra Babu)<br /> <br /> <br /> 4. Express it,<br /> Logistics Worldwide Ltd.,<br /> Karmatyoga Building,<br /> Parsi Panchayat Road,<br /> Andheri East,<br /> Mumbai – 400 069,<br /> Maharashtra State.<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. Express it,<br /> Logistics Worldwide Ltd.,<br /> Shop No. 2, Ground Floor,<br /> Airport Exit Main Road,<br /> Konena Agrahar,<br /> HAL Post,<br /> Bangalore – 560 017.<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) not to recover Rs.25,500/- on the basis of use of credit card and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant applied for the credit card from OP.1 to 3 in the month of October-November 2007. Unfortunately he did not receive the said credit card, which is alleged to have been sent by OP.1 and 2 to his address. It is stated that the said credit card was sent through OP.4 and 5 to him. With all that complainant received an SMS from OP.1 to 3 to pay Rs.20,000/- which is in balance in pursuance of the use of the credit card. When the credit card is not at all reached the complainant the question of he using it does not arise. When he explained the said fact to OP.1 to 3 and requested them to correct the mistake, it went in futile. Thus he felt the deficiency in service on the part of OP.1 to 3 as well as OP.4 and 5. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP.1 to 3 filed their version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP on thorough investigation they found that the credit card dispatched to the complainant through OP.4 and 5 was misplaced and later on it was wrongly delivered to the 3rd party. The said 3rd party had done a fraudulent transaction by misusing the said credit card. After coming to know of the same OP.1 and 2 have reversed the said amount made under claim dated 20.06.2008. There is some delay in reversal of the said amount, it is all because of the thorough investigation. The other allegations of the complainant are all false and frivolous. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.1 to 3. There is no personal liability lies with OP.3. Among these grounds, OP.1 to 3 prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. OP.4 and 5 though appeared through their official Manager failed to file their version and evidence to substantiate their defence if any.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP.1 to 3 have also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP’s?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant opted to avail the facility of a credit card from OP.1 to 3 in the month of October-November 2007. Though OP.1 and 2 agreed to issue the credit card, but failed to deliver the same to the complainant. On enquiry complainant came to know that the said credit card is delivered through OP.4 and 5 the Express it Courier Service, but it never reached him. On the other hand OP.4 and 5 with a false endorsement returned it to OP.1 and 2. It is further contended that though complainant has not used the said credit card, but still OP.1 and 2 made a claim of Rs.20,000/- on an allegation of use of the said card. This arbitrary act of OP.1 and 2 has caused him both mental agony and financial loss. Though he is able to convince OP.1 to 3 that he never used the said card and never transacted with the said card because it is not received by him, but it went in vain. On the other hand OP.1 and 2 caused the default notice on 20.06.2008 and withdrawn all the facilities.<br /> <br /> 7. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony. It is a quality of evidence that is more important than that of the quantity. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP appears to be defence for defence sake, a mere eye wash. Para.4 of the version clearly discloses that on thorough investigation OP found the credit card dispatched to the complainant was misplaced and wrongly delivered to the third party by OP.4 and 5 and OP.4 and 5 have admitted the said fact. Unfortunately in this complaint though OP.4 and 5 appeared through their Manager they have not filed the version and the evidence. In view of the defence set out by OP.1 to 3, it appears OP.4 and 5 admits the said allegation of misplacement and non delivery of the said card to the complainant. An adverse inference with regard to the carelessness on the part of OP can be drawn. <br /> <br /> 8. Though OP.1 to 3 are aware of the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.4 and 5, they have not initiated any legal action against OP.4 and 5. It has also come in the evidence that the third party who came in possession of the said credit card fraudulently misused it with ulterior motive and drawn certain amount on 3 occasions namely on 29.03.2008, 31.03.2008 and 01.04.2008 in all to a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Further OP.1 and 2 says that after coming to know of the said mistake they reversed the said claim and there is no outstanding balance liable to be paid by the complainant to them on the basis of the said card and that the said card has been blocked. The blocking of the said card and reversal of the said amount is not denied by the complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. So the admission on the part of OP.1 to 3 clearly establishes the deficiency in service on their part as well as carelessness and negligence. There is a contributory negligence on the part of OP.4 and 5 also. Because of the hostile attitude of these OP’s complainant for no fault of his, is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. As the OP.1 and 2 have already reversed the said amount and blocked the card, we do not think the complainant is entitled for a direction restraining OP.1 to 3 from recovering the said amount, because the relief is already granted. But as regards the mental agony and financial loss complainant deserves certain relief. The claim of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- has no basis, it is high and exorbitant. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case the justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a token of compensation with a litigation cost. With these reasons we answer point nos.1 and 2 accordingly and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/-. OP.4 and 5 are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.2,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 29th day of November 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />