Date of Filing: 13/07/2011
Date of Order: 24/09/2011
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 24th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO. 1283 OF 2011
A.Murali,
S/o. M.Annamallai,
Aged About 42 years,
R/at: No.601, Ayyappa Street,
R.S. Palya, Bangalore-560 033.
(Rep. by In-person) Complainant.
-V/s-
The Manager,
I.C.I.C.I. Bank Limited,
Indiranagar Branch,
Bangalore-560038.
(Rep. by Advocate V.Suresh) Opposite party.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT
ORDER
The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.15,71,910/-, are necessary:-
The complainant is having S.B. account with the opposite party and also having a debit card. The opposite party had debited Rs.5,910/- from the account of the complainant to some unknown credit card. This was noticed by the complainant on 15.05.2011 after receiving some SMS. He has visited the opposite party, three to four times, in this regard who stated that a credit card has been issued to the complainant. No credit card has been delivered to the complainant to till date and the complainant had not received any credit card nor made any transaction. The complainant requested the opposite party to furnish the proof of delivery of the credit card. They sent an untenable reply. Hence the complainant is entitled to the refund of Rs.5,910/-, Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.25,000/- towards torture, Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance charges, Rs.1,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses and Rs.15,00,000/- towards prestige lowered in the eyes of the society.
2. In brief the version of the opposite party are:-
The complainant is not a consumer. The complainant is having a SB account and debit card are all admitted. The complainant had telephoned for a credit card. The complainant has acquired a credit card No.4864107905700001which was issued to him in the year 2009. Based on the telephonic acceptance and confirmation having credit limit to an extent of Rs.1,500/-. As per the telephone instruction the opposite party sent the statement of account to his phone via SMS alerts. The complainant communicated to the opposite party on 29.04.2011. This was investigated and found that the transaction was done on the credit card issued by the opposite party to the complainant. The amount of Rs.5,910/- was recovered Under Section 171 of the Contract Act from the S.B. account. This is valid in law. Hence the complaint be dismissed.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the opposite party has filed the affidavit. The complainant has stated that his complaint and documents be read as his evidence. The opposite party filed written arguments. The arguments were heard.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are:-
- Whether the act of the opposite party is an unfair trade practice/deficiency in service?
- What order?
5. Our findings on the above points are:-
Point (A):In the Positive
Point (B):As per the final order
For the following:-
REASONS
POINT (A) to (B):-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavit of the opposite party and documents of both the parties on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having S.B. account with the opposite party Bank and also having a debit card. It is also an undisputed fact that the opposite party had taken Rs.5,910/- from the SB account of the complainant on 15.04.2011. When the complainant questioned it was revealed to him that to the credit card account this amount has been transferred. The complainant has clearly stated he has not made any application for the credit card nor he has received any credit card nor he made any transaction in the credit card. The opposite party contends that it is the credit card has been issued to the complainant which has been utilized and transactions were made and the amount that was due under the credit card is Rs.5,910/- which as Under Section 171 of the Contract Act they have exercised the lien in the SB account and taken that money.
7. When the complainant had denied the acceptance of any credit card, it was incumbent on the part of the opposite party to produce any document to show that the complainant had made an application for credit card, it was issued to him, it was delivered to him and this is the acknowledgment and it should have stated that these are the transactions made by the complainant in the credit card and these are the statement of the accounts issued to the complainant and this is the acknowledgment. The opposite party has not produced any copy of the credit card nor produced any acknowledgment to show that the complainant had received the credit card from the opposite party on any date. The opposite party has also not produced any documents to show that the complainant has received the statement of accounts from the opposite party.
8. The opposite party simply states that over telephone the complainant has requested for the credit card, the offer for credit card and they have sent the statement of accounts by SMS. This is not accepted by the complainant.
9. The opposite party has produced the Application Credit Evaluation Sheet which does not contain the signature of the complainant at any place by complainant. Who has prepared this on 10.06.2008? there is no answer. Who telephoned to the opposite party for the credit card? In which phone number? Is not at all whispered by anybody. The opposite party has produced one photostart copy of the application, even this does not contain the signature of the complainant. The opposite party has produced the copies of the alleged statement of accounts with respect to statements of 16.09.2010, 16.11.2010, 16.12.2010, 16.01.2011, 16.02.2011, 16.03.2011, 16.04.2011, 16.08.2011, 16.07.2011, 16.06.2011 and 16.05.2011 credit card No. 4864107905700001. These statements does not prove that this has been received by the complainant nor it proves that it has been sent by SMS to the complainant in a particular phone number belonging to the complainant.
10. Even otherwise when the complainant disputes about receipt of any credit card and doing transactions in the credit card it was incumbent on the part of the opposite party to establish that it has issued a particular credit card to the complainant and the complainant received it on a particular date and he did the transactions that has not been done. Merely stating that the complainant has requested for the credit card over phone there is no material to say that the complainant had been issued with any credit card and he did the transaction in the credit card. When the complainant has not been issued with the credit card the question of the complainant doing transaction on the basis of credit card and the opposite party recovering money from the SB account of the complainant is unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party.
11. It is contended that the complainant is not a consumer; the complainant has the SB account and the opposite party had taken money from it. The complainant has utilized the service of the opposite party for his SB account and transaction and what the opposite party did is an unfair trade practice and the complainant is thus the consumer also.
12. Even otherwise if the opposite party had any lean they should have issued a notice to the complainant Under Section 171 of the Contract Act mark a lien on the SB account hold an enquiry then they have to recover money that has not been done. In any event when the complainant had not been issued with any credit card, when he has not received any credit card, charging any money of the credit card on the SB account of the complainant is nothing but an unfair trade practice. Under these circumstances the opposite party is liable even for punitive damages. The opposite party can initiate action against its officials officers who are responsible for this and recover money from them for which this order will not come in that way. Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.50,000/- within 30 days from the date of this order.
3. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.
4. The opposite party is directed to send the amounts as ordered at Serial Nos. 2 & 3 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.
5. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
6. Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 24th Day of September 2011)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
