BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, GADAG. Basaveshwar Nagar, Opp: Tahasildar Office, Gadag COMPLAINT NO.176/2022 DATED 5TH DAY OF APRIL-2023 |
BEFORE: | | | HON'BLE Mr. D.Y. BASAPUR, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) PRESIDENT | | HON'BLE Mr. RAJU. N. METRI, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) MEMBER HON'BLE Mrs. YASHODA BHASKAR PATIL, B.Com, L.L.B(Spl.,) M.Ed., WOMAN MEMBER |
|
Complainant : 1. Parushuram S/o Mariyappa Jambagi,
Age: 63 Yrs, Occ: Retired Employee,
R\o : Laxmi Raman Nilaya Kariyamkal
Badavane Near P & T , Gadag.
Tq & Dist: Gadag,
Mobile No : 9449761530
(Rep. by Shri C. B. Hatti Adv.)
V/s
Opponents :- | | 1. The Manager, State Bank of India A.P.M.C Yard Gadag ((Rep. by Shri N. B. Chinchali Adv. for OP 1) 2. Principal Nodel Officer B Block, 2 Building 2nd Floor Tower B, 10th to 12th Floor DLF Infinity Tower-3, Cyber City Gurugram,Hariyana-122002. PIN: 122002. (Rep. Absent) |
| | |
..2.. CC.176/2022
JUDGEMENT
JUDGEMENT DELIVERED BY SRI. RAJU.N.METRI, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the complaint U/Sec.35 of C.P Act, 2019 seeking direction against Ops for refund of 2946.46 with interest at 18 %, towards mental agony Rs.50,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:-
The complainant is a customer of Op No.1 bank bearing S.B. Account No.10824935933 and he produced documents on the request of bank for issuance of credit card. No credit card is issued to the complainant, but On 7-09-2019, 7-09-2020, 7-09-2021 debited a sum of Rs.2946.46ps to his account. During the year 2019 a message was received to his mobile phone as “we have selected 78 customers from our bank to issue the credit card and you are one of them he told.” Later again he received the message from bank to collect the credit card. He went to the bank, but no credit card was issued. So complainant submitted a application to the Op 1 to refund the credit card amount with interest, but bank has not responded. Finally, complainant got issued a legal notice through his Advocate to Op 1. Bank but he received a evasive reply and didn’t refund the amount. Therefore, Op 1 has committed the deficiency of service. Hence, filed this complaint.
3. After admitting the complaint, notices were issued to the OP 1. Who has appeared through their counsel and filed the written version. Subsequently Op 2 was impleaded, inspite of service of notice Op 2 remained absent.
4. The brief facts of written version filed by OP 1. are as under:-
OP 1 denied the various allegations and admitted that, the complainant is a customer, but denied that, Op 1 has committed the deficiency of service. Op 1 submitted that, after receiving the said application the respondent bank has verified his application and came to know that this complainant has applied through online portal i.e. www.sbicard.com for issuance of credit card, and also the complainant has given authority to deduct the credit card charges etc., to the S.B.I. online team in respect of credit card to his account i.e. A/c. No. 10824935933, which is maintained by respondent bank. Hence, the respondent bank has no obligation or
..3.. CC 176/2022
liability to the complainant to issue credit card and deduct the from his account towards credit card charges etc. from his S.B. account maintained by respondent bank, and this fact is often told by the Op 1 to the complainant. Concealing this fact the complainant has got issued a legal notice through his Advocate to the respondent bank and after receiving the said legal notice, the respondent bank has intimated the same thing to the counsel of the complainant on 6.8.2022 and also referred the grievance of the complainant to the SBI credit card team to take up the issue on priority basis. Hence, this respondent bank has no obligation or liability to issue a credit card to the complainant because the complainant has applied through online portal i.e. www.sbicard.com and acknowledged the terms and conditions of the S.B.I. credit card team. It is the duty of the complainant to approach the S.B.I. credit card team through online portal i.e. www.sbicard.com and for any queries in respect of credit card. Hence this respondent bank has not deducted any amount from his A/c. No.10824935933. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
5. To prove the case, the complainant has filed affidavit evidence and was examined as PW-1 and got marked the documents as Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5. Ops have not chosen to file affidavit evidence.
6. Heard the argument on both sides.
7. The points for our consideration arose are as under:
i) Whether the complainant proves that, there is a deficiency of service committed by the OPs?
ii) Whether the complainant proves that, he is entitled for the relief?
iii) What order?
8. Our findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1: In the affirmative.
Point No.2: In the partly affirmative.
Point No.3: As per final order.
..4.. CC 176/2022
REASONS
9. Point No.1 & 2:- The points are taken together to avoid the repetition of facts. The learned counsel for complainant argued that, as per evidence of PW-1 and Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-5, complainant has proved the deficiency of service committed by the Ops. The learned counsel for Op 1 argued that, no deficiency of service is committed by the Op 1.
10. On careful perusal of the materials placed before us, PW-1 has filed affidavit in-lieu of his chief examination and reiterated the contents of the complaint. PW-1 has stated that, he is a customer of Op No.1 bank bearing SB Account No.10824935933 and he produced documents on the request of bank for issuance of credit card. No credit issued to the complainant. But On 7-09-2019, 7-09-2020, 7-09-2021 debited of Rs. 2946.46ps to his account. During the year 2019 a message was received to his mobile phone as “we have selected 78 customers from our bank to issue the credit card and you are one of them he told”. Later again he received the message from bank to collect the credit card. He went to the bank, but no credit card was issued. So complainant submitted a application to the Op 1 to refund the amount with interest, but bank has not responded. Finally, complainant got issued legal a notice through his Advocate to Op 1. Bank but he received a evasive reply and didn’t refund the amount. Therefore, Op 1 has committed the deficiency of service.
11. At the very outset, OP 1 is not disputing that, the complainant is having SB account and debited the credit card charges to his account. The main contention of Op 1 is that, complainant applied through online portal for issuance of credit card and as given authority to deduct the credit card charges and Op 1 bank has no obligation or liability and no deficiency of service is committed by the bank.
12. Exc. C.-5 pass book of the complainant reveals that, the credit card charges of Rs.1786.82 Ps on 7-09-2019, Rs. 588.82Ps on 7-09-2020, Rs. 588.82Ps on 7-09-2021 respectively was debited. Exc. C-3 application submitted to bank for refund of amount of Rs. 2946.46Ps with interest. Exc. C-1 legal notice issued through Advocate requesting to refund amount with interest. Exc. C-2 reply notice issued by the bank stating that, bank is not responsible. Exc. C-4 Pass book reveal that, 17-12-2022 Rs. 2946.46Ps. is Credited to the account of complainant by Op. 1. After filing written version by the bank, they have refunded the amount of Rs. 2946.46 Ps. Without issuing
..5.. CC 176/2022
credit card, Ops have debited the credit card charges for year 2019, 2020 and 2021. Thus Ops have committed the deficiency of service. As per Op 1 complainant has applied through online portal to Op 2 and also issued authority for debiting the charges. Anyhow, Op 1 has already refunded the charge amount. Therefore, Op No.2 is committed deficiency of service and responsible to refund the credit charges amount of Rs.2946.46Ps to Op No.1.
13. For the above, complainant has proved that, he is entitled for a sum of Rs. 2946.46Ps and with interest at 9% from the last debited date on 7-09-2021 till date of refund the amount by Op 1 on17-12-2022. Due to the act of Op No.2 this complainant had to lodge the complaint through counsel and is attending the Commission since long time, thereby he has suffered mental agony. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in the affirmative and point No.2 in the partly affirmative.
14. POINT No. 3: In the result, we pass the following:
//O R D E R//
The complaint filed U/Sec.35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, is partly allowed against Op No.2 and dismissed again Op No.1.
The complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.2946.46 Ps. with interest at 9% from 7-09-2021 till date of refund the amount by Op No.1 on 17-12-2022.
Further, complainant is entitled Rs.15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation.
Op No.2 is directed to pay the above amount within a period of two months from the date of this order.
After receiving the amount from Op 2, complaint shall repay the amount of Rs.2946.46 Ps. to Op 1 bank within 15 days.
Office is directed to send the copies of this order to the parties free of cost.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, directly on computer, corrected and then pronounced by us in the
Open Commission on this 5th day of April-2023)
,
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
..6.. CC 176/2022
-: ANNEXURE :-
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S:
PW-1: Shri Parusharam S\o Mariyappa Jambagi,
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANT/S
Ex.C-1: Legal notice.
Ex.C-2: Reply letter.
Ex.C-3: Request letter issued by complainant
Ex.C-4 & 5: Copies of Pass book of the complainant
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Nil
DOCUMENTS ON BEHALF OF OPs:
Nil
(Shri Raju N. Metri) (Shri. D.Y. Basapur) (Smt.Yashoda Bhaskar. Patil)
MEMBER PRESIDENT WOMAN MEMBER
Order passed separately and pronounced in Open Commission.
