Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/471/2023

VARUN MANCHANDA - Complainant(s)

Versus

YES BANK LTD. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER - Opp.Party(s)

04 Nov 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

                                     

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/471/2023
Date of Institution	:	29/9/2023
Date of Decision	:	4/11/2024

 

Varun Manchanda S/o Sh. Jatinder Manchanda, resident of House Number 3073, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh.

Complainant

 

VERSUS

 

1. Yes Bank Limited, SCO 179-180, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh, 160017 Through Branch Manager

2. Aditya Birla Capital - Health Insurance, SCO-2473-2474, 1st Floor, Sector 22-C, Chandigarh, 160022 Through Branch Manager.

Opposite Parties

 

CORAM :	SHRI PAWANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
	:	Sh. Kaveesh, Advocate for OP No.1
	:	Ms. Sanjivni Gupta, Advocate proxy for Ms. Archana Sharma, Advocate for OP No.2.

Per Pawanjit Singh, President

1. The present consumer complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  (hereinafter referred to as the OPs). The brief facts of the case are as under :-
   1. It transpires from the averments as projected in the consumer complaint that  on 26.9.2022,  the complainant had purchased Health Insurance for his father Sh. Jatinder Manchanda from Aditya Birla Capital Health Insurance against payment of Rs 48649/- and the said payment was made by the complainant online by using credit card issued by OP No.1 but  due to some error  in the website of OP No.2,  the payment was deducted twice. A copy of Yes Bank Credit Card statement from 15 September 2022 to 14 January 2023 is annexed as Annexure C-1. Thereafter the complainant approached Aditya Birla Capital and shared the transaction ID's for claiming refund. On 7 October 2022, the complainant raised dispute with OP No.1 bank for the duplicate transaction vide mail Annexure C-2.  On 11.10.2022 OP No.1 asked the complainant to contact the merchant i.e. OP No.2 asking them to reverse one transaction and to process only one transaction. On 12.10.2022 the complainant replied to OP No.1 that OP No.2 will bill for 1 transaction only and suggested to OP No.1 that it needed to cancel the other transaction. The complainant also shared the Payment Receipts shared by OP No.2 for billing with OP No.1 vide email Annexure C-3. On 13.10.2022 the complainant sent email to OP No.2  to confirm that they have billed for one transaction only and on this OP No.2 vide Annexure C-4 replied that extra payment will be refunded within 7 days.   Thereafter the complainant received an email from OP No.1 on 21.10.2022 stating that amount of Rs. 48649/- has been frozen and he will not be charged for it. Again the complainant contacted both the OPs for the refund of amount of one transaction  through which excess payment has been deducted from the account of the complainant by sending mails which were also replied by OPs and both the OPs asked the complainant to approach to other OP. However in reply through email dated 15.9.2023 Annexure C-10 the OP No.2 had stated that  one transaction was refunded from their end and the other transaction was dishonored by the bank and thereafter the complainant approached the  OP No.1 bank through email  Annexure C-11, which was replied by OP No.1 that only one transaction was disputed and refunded. In this manner, the aforesaid act amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. OPs were requested several times to admit the claim, but, with no result.  Hence, the present consumer complaint.
   2. OP No.1 resisted the consumer complaint and filed its written version, inter alia, taking preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action, suppression of fact and also that the complainant has not approached this Commission with clean hands. On merits admitted that  on 26.9.2022 the complainant made two transactions  to OP No.2 insurance company by using credit card and as the payment of both the transactions was made to OP No.2 insurance company and the OP No.1 was not holding the amount with it, as such the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP. On receiving the mail from complainant, the answering OP responded on 11.10.2022.  Thereafter the complainant again sent email dated 13.10.2022  to  OP No.2 complaining about two transactions.  The OP No.2 stated that the extra payment will be refunded. The OP No.1 vide email dated 21.10.2022 intimated the complainant that as per revert received from concern team the OP No.1 wished to inform you that chargeback has been raised and amount of Rs.48649/-  has been freeezed  on 15.10.2022 . On 23.11.2022 the OP No.1  sent a mail  to complainant intimating that  there was a freeze on the referred amount and the  transaction will be excluded in the credit card statement and also that on the frozen amount the answering OP will not charge any interest and other charges. However. OP No.1 refunded the frozen amount of Rs.48,649/-    on 2.12.2022. On merits, the facts as stated in the preliminary objections have been re-iterated. The cause of action set up by the complainant is denied.  The consumer complaint is sought to be contested.
   3. In its written version OP No.2  took preliminary objection of maintainability, concealment of facts and alleged that on 26.9.2022  the answering OP had received two payments each amounting to Rs.48,649/-    through RAZORPAY  which were associated with payment ID KMWme9w7RpodCv and KMWnyCgV9dFrqO  and the answering OP had issued the policy against the second payment ID ending number qO for Rs.48,649/- regarding which reference has also been made in the policy receipt Exhibit OP-2/1  on 13.10.2022. The complainant requested refund for the excess payment with payment ID ending No.Cv i.e. the first payment ID and as per the request of the complainant refund for the excess payment with first payment ID ending number Cv  was initiated on 19.10.2022  and was credited to the source bank account within the specified  timeframe. However,  during this period the complainant froze/dishonoured another payment with second payment ID ending number qO  for which the policy  was issued and as a result of which the policy was cancelled and the entire policy amount was refunded back to the source bank within the stipulated time. In this manner the answering OP had refunded both the payments received from the complainant to the source bank  account, thus, the complainant has no cause of action against the answering OP.  
   4. In rejoinder, complainant reiterated  the claim put forth in the consumer complaint and prayer has been made that the consumer complaint be allowed as prayed for.
2. In order to prove their respective claims the parties have tendered/proved their evidence by way of respective affidavits and supporting documents.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the file carefully, including the written arguments.
   1. At the very outset, it may be observed that when it is an admitted case of the parties that  in order to purchase the health insurance policy the complainant had transferred online premium amount to the tune of Rs.48,649/- to OP No.2 by using  credit card issued by OP No.1 bank and due to error in the website of OP No.2 the payment was deducted twice  to the tune of Rs.48,649/- each against payment IDs KMWme9w7RpodCv and KMWnyCgV9dFrqO and against the second payment ID ending No. qO the OP No.2 had issued health policy in the name of the complainant as is also evident from Annexure OP-2/1 and on finding that the two transaction had taken place for the amount of Rs.48,649/-  in favour of OP No.2, the complainant approached both the OPs for refund of the amount of one transaction i.e. excess payment made by him and the OP No.2 had firstly refunded the excess amount against first ID ending number Cv  to the source bank account i.e. OP No.1 and later on when it was found by OP No.2 insurance company that the payment of second ID ending No.qO  has been frozen by the complainant in his credit account with OP No.1, the OP No.2 cancelled the policy and refunded the premium amount to the source bank account, the case is reduced to a narrow compass as it is to be determined if the  there is any deficiency on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled for the relief as prayed for as is the case of the complainant or if complaint of the complainant being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed as is the defence of the OPs.
   2. Admittedly,  the complainant has received refund of the first ID ending No.Cv from OP No.1 on 2.12.2022 as is evident from Annexure C-11 the email sent by the bank to the complainant. However, when it has come on record that OP No.2 had only cancelled the policy when even the premium paid to OP No.2 through second payment ID ending No.qO  was also frozen by the OP No.1, it is clear that there was no other option for the OP No.2 insurance company except to cancel the insurance policy and refund the premium amount to the complainant especially when OP No.2 could not get the premium amount due to freezing of the  premium amount  paid through second payment ID ending No.qO.
   3. Moreover, when it has come on record that OP No.2 had already refunded even the premium amount of Rs.48,649/-  to the source bank i.e. OP No.1 on finding that the said account has been frozen by OP No.1  which fact has also been admitted by OP No.1 in its email Annexure C-11 regarding which intimation was given to the complainant on 18.9.2023, it is safe to hold that by holding the aforesaid amount  of Rs.48,649/-  even after receiving from OP No.2, is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP No.1.
   4.  Furthermore, it is apparent on record that the complainant made request to OP No.1 vide email dated Annexure C-3  that OP No.2 has confirmed him that transaction ID ending No.qO   has been accepted by OP No.2 and the refund with respect of other ID ending number Cv  be made in his favour. However, the OP NO.1 instead of freezing the payment ID ending NO. Cv had frozen payment ID ending No.qO  through which the premium amount was paid to OP No.2, which shows negligence on the part of the OP No.1, which is the root cause   of the dispute in the instant case. Hence, it is safe to hold that  due to the negligent act of OP No.1 the complainant has to  undergo a lot of mental agony and physical harassment and deficiency in service is writ large on the part of OP No.1.
   5. So far as the quantum of relief is concerned, since the OP No.1 has withheld the premium amount of Rs.48,649/- which was reverted back to it by OP No.2 on 19.10.2022 as is evident from the details given in table of para 6 of its written version as also from Annexure OP-2/2  and  the OP No.1 refunded the said amount to the complainant only on 31.5.2024 which has been affirmed by the complainant vide his separate statement dated 5.6.2024 i.e. after retaining the same with it for more than one and half year,  to our mind OP No.1 is liable to pay interest on the amount of Rs.48,649/- to the complainant from 19.10.2022 till 30.5.2024 alongwith compensation.    
4. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds, the same is hereby partly allowed and OP No.1 is directed as under :-
   1. to pay interest @ 9% per annum (simple) on the amount of Rs.48,649/- from  19.10.2022 till 30.5.2024. 
   2. to pay ₹7000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment;
   3. to pay ₹5000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

 

5. This order be complied with by the OP No.1 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy thereof, failing which the amount(s) mentioned at Sr.No.(i) & (ii) above shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum (simple) from the date of expiry of said period of 45 days, instead of 9% [mentioned at Sr.No.(i)], till realisation, over and above payment of ligation expenses.
6. Complaint qua OP No.2 stands dismissed.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stands disposed off.
8. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Announced 4/11/2024			[Pawanjit Singh] President
mp
			[Surjeet Kaur] Member
			[Suresh Kumar Sardana] Member