Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/717/2015

Dilraj Singh Bhinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zara - Opp.Party(s)

Tejpratap Singh Kahlon

28 Jan 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/717/2015
Date of Institution	:	20/10/2015
Date of Decision	:	28/01/2016

 

Dilraj Singh Bhinder s/o S. Sukhdeep Singh Bhinder r/o House No.1136, Sector 69, SAS Nagar, Mohali.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     Zara, Plot No.178, Shop No.26-29, Ground Floor, Elante Mall, Industrial Area, Phase 1, Elante Mall, Chandigarh, 160002 through tis Manager.

2.     Zara Head Office, Building 9A, 15^th Floor, DLF Phase 3, Gurgaon, 122002, Haryana through tis Manager.  

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	PRESIDING MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                               

                                               

ARGUED BY	:	Complainant in person
		Sh. Gurmukh Singh, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

1.         Sh. Dilraj Singh Bhinder, complainant has filed this consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, against Zara and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), alleging that on 7.10.2015 he went to OP-1 alongwith his friend and bought a bag having MRP of Rs.2,990/-.  The complainant chose to pay by way of his State Bank of Patiala debit card. The salesman at the billing counter swiped the card and the transaction was cancelled, but, the amount of Rs.2,990/- was debited from the account. On enquiry, the complainant was told that the transaction had been cancelled due to some server problem and that card was to be swiped again. The complainant was also told that the amount had been credited into their suspended account and that the same would be credited to his account within 5-7 working days. Thereafter the card was swiped again and the amount of Rs.2,990/- was debited again from the complainant’s account. However, when the refund was not effected till 19.10.2015, the complainant again went to OP-1, but he was insulted and told to get his money from the concerned bank. Alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs, the complainant has filed the instant complaint. 
2.         In their written reply, OPs have averred that since the credit was not received by them, they were not responsible to refund the same.  It has been stated that in order to confirm about the status of the payments done on 7.10.2015, they asked a letter from their bank i.e. Citi Bank  and got a confirmation that no payment was received from the State Bank of Patiala i.e. the issuer bank of the debit card.  It has been contended that the fault and delay in refund was on the part of the debiting bank of the complainant which his bank has already ratified thereby crediting his account by same amount.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.         We have gone through the record and heard the arguments addressed by the complainant in person and learned Counsel for the OPs.
5.         As per the OPs, the transaction in dispute got cancelled due to some server problem at their outlet.  But, admittedly this transaction was actually done successfully. Due to wrong observation of the salesman of the OPs or due to certain technical problem in their server, the complainant was forced to get the transaction done by getting his card swiped again. No doubt the amount in question was refunded by the OPs to the complainant during the pendency of the present complaint, however, had the OPs been vigilant and not taken so long to refund the amount to the complainant, he would not have indulged into the present litigation. Hence, the delay by the OPs in refunding the amount of Rs.2,990/- to the complainant, proves deficiency in service on their part. The OPs are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the harassment caused to him alongwith some litigation costs.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to succeed and the same is partly allowed. OPs are directed :-

(i)     To pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant for the deficiency in service on their part and harassment caused to him.

(ii)    To also pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses. 

7.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(i) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint, till realization, apart from compliance of direction at Sr.No.(ii) above.
8.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-
28/01/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]
hg	Member	Presiding Member