BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.H.JANARDHAN, MEMBER

1. This complaint has been filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 seeking relief against the OP to release amount of Rs. 15,04,613/-  withheld by OP Bank  along with interest at 12% per annum or to pay a damage of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and such other reliefs. 

2.  The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant is the proprietor ofM/s D.I. Brand shop,garments shopsituated at HSRlayout, Bengaluru and running the businessin the said proprietorship concern to earn her livelihood and as such the complainant got into service agreement with OP bank for net banking services. The complainant had account with the OP bankbearing A/c No.3309002076 and in which the card swiping machinewas given to thecomplainant concerned to get the payment from their purchasers/customers of the complainant when ever a purchase of garment material done at M/s D.I. Brand shop.When the above service was taken by the complainant several papers where shown to the complainant by the representative of OP bank thatwould help in the business of the complainant and the signaturesof the complainantwere taken on the paper for availing said services. Further the said papers was kept in the custody of OP bank under the service agreement when any transactionswere processed with any customer/purchaser using debit card for purchase at complainant concern the payment were received by swiping the debit cards to the machine of OP bank and said amount wascredited to the account of the complainant at OP bank, simultaneouslyunderthe due process of the bank in respect of payment receivedwere also acknowledged in the machine transaction. On 03.09.2014 Rs.1,85,046/-, on 12.09.2014 Rs.9,79,035/- and on 13.09.2014 Rs.2,71,267/- were processed by the complainant from theirpurchasers for the sale of garments at the complainant concern and in all total of Rs.15,04,613/- was credited to the said account were duly acknowledged by the OP bank. As per the service agreement bank was obligated to credit thesaid amount within 24 hours of swiping the card to the account of the complainant. Since the bank fails to doso in respect of Rs.15,04,613/-. The complainant made several requests on 15.09.2014 to that effect, but the bank official admitted processing is delayed due to the internal problems of the OP Bank’s head office and since vague and unreasonable grounds were cited by OP bank in clearing the dues to the complainant, it forced the complainant to give a complaintbefore HSR layout police station on 19.09.2014 against the OP bank expressing the hardship caused to the complainant for non payment by the OP bank. As such thePolice have registered as NCR No.1028/2014 and summoned the OP bank Manager to the police stationand the manager of the bank had undertook before the police that the payment will be made in short time and requested not to take action against the bank. The complainant on good faith and with a hope of getting matter settled amicably agreed, but OP bank postponedin one way or the other. Hence, the complainant alleged deficiency on the part of the OP for non crediting amount to complainant’s account by the OP bank and the complainant alsodecided to issue legal notice on 29.10.2014 called upon the OP to clear the due to the complainant, but said notice was duly served on 30.10.2014, but OP not bothered to replynor made effortsto credit the same to the complainant’s account and hence being aggrieved by the said act of the OP, complainant filed thiscomplaint.

3. After service of the notice, OP  appeared through counsel and filed version. In the version OP has contended that complaint is not  maintainable, complaint is wholly misconceived, untenable. The complainant is very much aware as to why the complainant’s transaction that took between  03.09.2014 to 13.09.2014 are withheld by the OP. Inspite of the same the complainant has come up with this false claim. Further, the OP disputed the transactions. The OP contended that the transactions not been   credited to the account of the complainant until and unless it gets  the confirmation from the card-holders bank  within 24 hours of   swiping card of the account of the complainant is false.  Though the payment of the transaction gets the confirmation from the card holders bank, the OP cannot release the amount and the alleged transaction between 03.09.2014 to 13.09.2014 are  all appears to be fictitious transactions and the card holder’s bank has put on hold on the payments which has been credited  and the claim made by the complainant on the basis of fictitious  transactions  and the same is liable to be dismissed. And also it could be seen from the statement the complainant has crossed  the  floor limit in the month of September 2014. Hence, for this reason also the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further, the OP contended that OP has given detailed reply to the notice issued by the complainant. In spite of reply, the complainant with  malafide intention harassing the OP bank which is dealing in public money and OP contends that  they have not  violated any terms and conditions as stipulated under the service agreement entered into between the complainant and OP. Further, the OP contends that they have every right to investigate, if any breach or fraud transaction is suspected till such investigation is completed, the OP can suspend all the payment due under such transactions. Hence,  OP bank has rights adhered to the clause-18 of the service agreement. As such acted according to the terms and conditions of service agreement and  denies all other allegations made in the complaint and prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. After the case has been admitted by this Forum, subsequently when the matter was posted for affidavit evidence of the complainant. The complainant even though sufficient  opportunity was given, but fails to lead her evidence. Hence, this Forum has dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution.  Against the said order the complainant preferred Appeal before the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal NO.1758/2016, in which the Hon’ble State Commission has remanded the said matter stating that there is sufficient cause  shown by the complainant  for non-appearance and hence an opportunity was provided to the complainant to contest the case on merits. But, further sufficient opportunity was granted by the Hon’ble District Forum  to the complainant after remanding the case by the Hon’ble State Commission in Appeal no.1758/2016.  But, for the reasons best known to the complainant failed to  appear before this Forum to lead her evidence. Hence, affidavit evidence of the complainant was taken as nil. More over after the order in Appeal no.1758/2016, notice was issued to the OP and the notice to the OP was duly served, but OP did not appear.

5.  Both the parties to the proceeding were absent. Hence,  arguments of the both parties taken as nil. Perused the records.

6.   The points that would arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:- Negative.

      Point No.2:- Negative.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8.  Point No.1 & 2: It is seen from the pleadings of the complainant that the complainant was holding an account with OP bank bearing no.3309002076 along with  card swiping machine which was given to the complainant concern i.e. M/s DI Brand Shop for the purpose of purchasers/customers of the complainant, where in a purchase of garment material to help the complainant in the business. After which the complainant has signed several papers with the OP under the service agreement with OP, made several transactions which were processed by the OP bank when ever any purchaser/customer used the debit/credit  card for the purchase at the complainant concern, the payment were received by swiping Debit/credit card to the machine  of the OP Bank and the said amount was credited to the complainant’s account at OP bank.  But, while being doing so on 03.09.2014 Rs.1,85,046/-, on 12.09.2014 Rs.9,79,035 and on 13.09.2014 Rs.2,71,267/- were processed /payments were received by the complainant  from their purchasers for the sale of the garments at the complainant’s concern in total for a sum of Rs.15,04,613/- credited to the said account which was duly acknowledged by OP, but the said amount was not credited to the account of the complainant’s account and the complainant  alleges  that bank has failed to credit Rs.15,04,613/- to the complainant. Though the complainant made several requests on 15.09.2014, but the OP has not reverted  the said amount to the complainant.  Further, the OP in the version has stated that the complainant was fully aware that why the payment  of alleged transaction is not made and more over the OP contends that the payment  of alleged transaction that took place between 03.09.2014 to 13.09.2014 are  also held up by the OP bank  as the said transaction was fictitious one. OP also submits that transaction one’s credited to the  account of the complainant until and unless it gets confirmation from the card holders bank. The OP account releases the amount and the card holder bank has put to hold the payment which has been credited to the account. On the basis of  fictitious transaction and also OP contends, complainant  already crossed floor limit in the month of September 2014. As such the complainant violated the terms and conditions as stipulated in service agreement entered into between the complainant and the OP. More over, the complainant who is alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP that opportunity was granted for the complainant to prove his case. The complainant has not  produced any documents i.e. service agreement and also the transactions which were held up by the OP as fictitious  one  to show  that the said transaction is not factious one. Moreover the complainant has not produced any documents  to show that amount of Rs.15,04,613/- were credited to the OP bank and regarding that no bank statement or any documents to substantiate the same has been produced to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant has not producing  any cogent  documents for alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OP and without  which the forum cannot come to the conclusion. Hence, the complainant has failed to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP. Hence,   we answer the point no.1 &2 in the negative.

9.  Point no.3:- For the for going reasons,  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is dismissed without cost.
2.  Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the complainant. 

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 13^th  day of October, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-PW.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :  Nil.