By Jayasree Kallat, Member: The petitioner in this case filed the petition alleging deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The case of the complainant is that they had availed the service of the opposite parties by receiving the equipments to process the credit cards to the complainant. It was agreed upon by both parties that the credit card holders of the opposite party will be given the facility of paying the amount for purchase through the credit card in the first opposite party’s account and the first opposite party in turn, credit the same amount to the complainant’s account. The opposite party failed to credit the amount due to the complainant on account of the purchase made by the cardholders. The complainant informed this matter to the first opposite party. Even through the first opposite party agreed to credit these amounts to the account of the complainant they failed to do so. Complainant alleges that deficiency in service has occurred on the part of the opposite parties. Complainant also alleges unfair trade practice has been done by the opposite parties. Hence this complaint. Even in the first instance notice was issued only to the complainant for hearing on the maintainability issue, as the complainant is Meezan Jewelers Ltd. represented by its Managing Director. Forum had heard the complainant’s side regarding the maintainability of this petition in this Forum. The issue was whether the complainant will come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has convinced the Forum that opposite parties had supplied the equipments to process credit cards to the complainant. It is true that complainant is doing business but the service given to the complainant was deficient. The equipment provided by the opposite party was defective. Complainant had requested the opposite party to rectify the defects and credit the amount due to the complainant in the account of the complainant. Even though opposite party agreed to do so they have not done which is unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties. The complainant thus convinced the Forum that this petition will lie in this Court. Notice was issued to opposite parties on 11-11-08. After two posting on 16-1-09 notice to opposite parties-2 and 3 was served acknowledgement received. But they did not appear in Court. Again the case was posted to 23-1-09 opposite parties were not present. The case was posted to 6-2-09 as the notice to opposite party-1 has not been returned. On 6-2-09 complainant filed affidavit. On that date opposite party-1 proposed to appear. But opposite party-2 and 3 were absent. One more chance was given to opposite party-1 but they did not file the version. In that instance the next posting date after 5 postings opposite parties were called absent and set exparte. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on complainant’s side. From the evidence and exhibits it has come out that on 16-6-05, a customer had bought gold from the complainant for which the opposite parties’ credit card was used the, amount was Rs.2081/- which was not credited in the account of the complainant. The same mistakes had happened on 23-6-05 for an amount of Rs.1851/-, on 25-6-05 for an amount of Rs.5116/- altogether a total of Rs.9048/- was not accounted in the complainant’s account. This matter was informed to the opposite party but they did not respond in any manner. The Forum is of the opinion that the act of the opposite party was negligent and deficient in service. The amount from the customers will surely go in the account of the opposite party. This amount was the actual payment to be made to the complainant. The opposite party has received money due to the complainants and retained the amount, which was to be credited in the account of the complainant. This is a sort of unfair trade practice. Therefore the Forum is of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.9048/- with 12% interest. In the result the petition is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.9048/- with 12% interest from 28-8-08 that is date of filing of the petition till realisation and a compensation of Rs.1000/- along with a cost of Rs.500/- to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Pronounced in the open court this the 21st day of May 2009. Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER APPENDIX Documents exhibited for the complainant. A1. Photocopy of Regd. Lawyer notice dt. 23-5-07. A2. Photocopy of postal receipt. A3. Photocopy of letter dt. 18-8-05. A4. Photocopy of settlement report showing the transction. A5. Authorisation letter dt. 4-2-09. Documents exhibited for the opposite party. Nil Witness examined for the complainant. PW1. Merlin, Branch Manager, Meezan Gold, Kozhikode. Witness examined for the opposite party. None. Sd/- President // True copy // (Forwarded/By order) SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.
......................G Yadunadhan B.A.
......................Jayasree Kallat M.A. | | 
