Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

410/2005

A.Radhakrishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager,ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

N.Ramakrishanan

18 Jan 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :    20.06.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :    18.01.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO. 410/2005

WEDNESDAY THIS  19^TH  DAY OF JANUARY 2017

A.  Radhakrishnan,

Civil Engineering Contractor,

E2- Sri Mahalakshmi Contractor,

No.75,  Gandhi Road,

Choolaimedu,

Chennai 600 094.                                        .. Complainant.

                                ..Vs..

1.  The Manager,

I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd.,

NO.46, Gandhi Mandapam Road,

Kotturpuram,

Chennai 600 085.

 

2. The Manager,

I.C.I.C.I Bank Ltd.,

Charge Back Department,

Mumbai 400 013.                                          ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant             :  M/s. N. Ramakrishnan

Counsel for the opposite parties        :  M/s. V.V.Giridhar & S.Ansari

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to set aside the alleged transaction of Rs.18,369.44 on 14.1.2005 mentioned in the statement of summary transaction dated 20.1.2005 for the period of December 2004 and January 2005 and also to pay a sum of Rs.79,500/- for deficiency of service.    

 

1. The averments of the complaint are brief as follows:

         The complainant is holding credit card and add on card of the opposite parties bank vide account No.4477 4681 1634 7001 and No.4477 4681 1634 7100 respectively.   The add on card is in the name of his son viz Mr.R.Vikram.  The complainant states that he is having the credit cards from April 2004 and paying the dues without any default till the present dispute has crept.   When everything was going on smooth, during last week of January 2005 he received periodical statement of Transactions dated 20.1.2005 for the period of December 2004 and January 2005 to his shock and surprise he found that he has been charged to a sum of Rs.18,369.44 said to be spent on two spells at Rs.9,184.72 each on 14.1.2005 in Barbican Hotel in London under the head  “ INTERNATIONAL TXNS”.  This amount has been charged in his Add on card explained.   

2.     That neither himself nor his son viz. Mr.R.Vikram has visited London during the month of January 2005 and even before or after the crucial date of 14.1.2005.  Besides he is keeping his credit cards safely in his custody.   In respect of his son or he even does not have passport at all.   The complainant had brought all those facts to the notice of opposite parties by lodging a complaint to the 2^nd opposite party by his letter dated 23.2.2005 but the 2^nd opposite party has failed to act upon his complaint. 

3.     In the mean time M/s. Murugesan, Selvaraj and Sridhar said to be the representatives of the 1^st opposite party were frequently coming to his house during day and night and insisted for payment of such miscredit amount.  Further, they were harassing him to obtain his signature in plain paper.  The said representatives of 1^st opposite party were insisting him the payment immediately over phone during day and night for the above wrong credit amount.   Therefore, on 18.4.2005 he was constrained to issue legal notice through his counsel to revoke the miscredit amount and to issue revised statement deducting the wrong credit which was duly acknowledged by the opposite parties.  However no reply was received by him or by his counsel.

4.     Fed up with the pedantic attitude of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties and atrocious act of 1^st opposite party through his representative, he issued another statutory notice to the opposite parties on 18.5.2005 and dispatched on 19.5.2005 through French Express Courier
Service which has also became a futile exercise as he has not received any reply so far from the opposite parties.  The act of the opposite parties not only resisted him from utilizing the credit card facilities and brought deficiency of service but also foisted great hardship, pain and mental agony.  Hence the complaint. 

5. Written Version of   opposite parties is in briefly as follows:

        The opposite parties deny each and every averment made in the complaint except those that are specifically admitted herein.   That it is the universal procedure that though the additional card issued in the name of different person, all the charges spent by the additional card holder will be charged in the account of the primary card holder.  In the present case, the entire amount spent by the complainant’s son will be added in the bill of the complainant. 

6.  Whenever the credit is used by the card holder, the same will be automatically added to the credit card account in the system.   Therefore there is no question of manipulation of the records by the opposite party  as the entire credit card bill is connected with the system.   In the present case also whenever the complainant or his son uses their card, the same operation will be decoded and the system will automatically record the card number and add the bill amount to the debit of the credit card of the complainant. 

7.   The opposite parties states that as all the records in respect of the above case pertains to January 2005, the opposite parties are taking all the efforts to retrieve the data in respect of the case in hand.    As all the records would be available in Mumbai, the opposite parties would take some more time to file their full fledged version.   Therefore, the opposite parties reserve their right to file the additional version after retrieving all the data pertaining to the above case.  Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

8.       In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and no document was marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

9.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

10. Point No.1

It is admitted case that the complainant is  holding credit card and add on card of the opposite parties bank vide account No.4477 1634 7001 and 4477 4681 1634 7100 respectively.   The add on card is in the name one Mr.R.Vikram who is the son of the complainant herein.   In such circumstances it is learnt from the evidence of the complainant that during last week of January 2005 from Ex.A1 it is found by the complainant that he has been charged a sum of Rs.18,369.44  said to be spent on two spells at Rs.9,184.72 each on 19.1.2005 in Barbican Hotel in London under the head “INTERNATIONAL TXNS”.    Further it is stated by the complainant that neither the complainant nor his son does not have passport at all and not visited London for the alleged date and therefore immediately the complainant has sent a letter to the 2^nd opposite party through Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 legal notice but the 2^nd opposite party has failed to reply.  Further again Ex.A4 statement shows to same and therefore again the complainant has sent Ex.A5 legal notice to the 2^nd opposite party but not come forward to comply the demands of the complainant.

11.      While being so, on perusal of the written version as well as evidence  of the opposite parties,  it is stated that it is the universal procedure that though the additional card issued in the name of different person, all the charges spent by the additional card holder will be charged in the account of the primary card holder and as if  in this case also the charges debited.  Therefore there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.

12.      At the outset, on careful perusal of Ex.A1, it is crystal clear that there is an entry made on 14.1.2005 the complainant has charged a sum of Rs.18,369.44 said to be spent on two spells at Rs.9,184.72 each on 14.1.2005 itself in Barbican Hotel.  The same entry made in Ex.A4 also i.e. after nearly two months from Ex.A1.  Moreover,  it is seen from Ex.A4 that on 19.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.8,849.55 shown as C.R.,  the above said entries in Ex.A1 and Ex.A4 has not at all disputed by the opposite parties.   In such circumstances the complainant vehemently  stated that he or his son is not at all having any passport and visited Landon on the particular dates i.e. on 14.1.2005.  If it is so, the duty of the opposite parties to prove that the alleged charges have been spent by the complainant or some other person authorized by the complainant.    But no such document produced on the side of the opposite parties before this forum.  But per contra, it has been mentioned in version that the opposite parties are taking all the efforts to retrieve the data in respect of the case in hand and also all the records would be available in Mumbai, the opposite parties would take some more time to file their full fledged version.    But till date of disposal the opposite parties have not come forward to collect the records which are available at Mumbai and file before this forum which clearly shows that the opposite parties failed to prove the same, and also there is no such relevant document with the opposite parties.   Similarly the entry found in Ex.A4 on 19.3.2005 for a sum of Rs.8,849.55 shown as C.R.   has not been explained either in version or in the proof affidavit of the opposite parties which also clearly reveals the fact that something has been in a  happened wrong manner on the side of the opposite parties.   Moreover without taking the plea as mentioned in  para-6 written arguments and the  written version cannot be acceptable.

13.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances this forum can easily, come to the conclusion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, and the same has been proved by the complainant with available evidence.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly. 

14.   POINT NO.2:-.  

        As per the conclusion arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled to set aside the alleged transaction of rs.18,369.44 on 14.1.2005 mentioned in the statement of summary transaction dated 20.1.2005 for the period of December 2004 and January 2005 and also to get reasonable compensation with cost.  Thus point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally  directed to set aside the alleged transaction of Rs.18,369.44 (Rupees eighteen thousand three hundred and sixty nine and forty four paisa only) on 14.1.2005 mentioned in the statement  of summary transaction dated 20.1.2005 for the period of December 2004 and January 2005 and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties   and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.    

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

          Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  18^th    day  of  January  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 20.1.2005  - Copy of the statement for December 2004 & January 2005.

Ex.A2- 23.2.2005  - Copy of the complaint with Ack. card.

Ex.A3- 18.4.2005  - Copy of legal notice with Ack. card.

Ex.A4- 21.4.2005  - Copy of Statement for March, April 2005.

Ex.A5- 18.5.2005  - Copy of Legal notice with counter slip.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.