State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bank Of India vs Sri Bhima Prasad Maity on 25 May, 2012
State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission West Bengal BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR) 31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE KOLKATA 700 027 S.C. CASE NO- FA/402/2011 (Arising out of Case no 40/2010 of District Forum 24-Parganas (North) DATE OF FILING: 12.09.2011 DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 25.05.2012 APPELLANTS : 1. Bank of India represented by Assistant General Manager, Head Office, Card Products Department, 70/80, Mahatma Gandhi Road, (Flora Fountain), Mumbai- 400 001, 2. Chief Manager, Bank of India, Bangur Avenue Branch, 413/414/415, Bangur Avenue, P.S. Lake Town, District- 24 Parganas (North), Kolkata- 700 055. RESPONDENT : Sri Bhima Prasad Maity, S/o Late Provash Chandra Maity, Flat No. B/2, Udayachal Appartments, 119, Canal Street, Sreebhumi, Kolkata- 700 048, P.S.- Lake Town. BEFORE HONBLE MEMBER : Smt. Silpi Majumder. HONBLE MEMBER :
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya.
FOR THE APPELLANTS : Mr. Jayanta Bhattacharya, Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr. Kallol Banerjee, Advocate.
Silpi Majumder, Member This appeal has arisen out of judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum, 24-Parganas (North), on 29.07.2011, in its case no-40/2010, whereby the Ld. District Forum allowing the complaint in part on contest with cost has directed the OP-bank to pay a sum of Rs.13,960.53/- along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of debiting the amount till its realization. The OP-Bank was further directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost of litigation and to restore the credit card in favour of the Complainant with its immediate effect, in the event of non-compliance of any of the directions aforesaid within 45 days by the OP-Bank the Complainant would be at liberty to put the decree into execution as per provision of law.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that the OP-Bank issued a credit card on 03.08.2006 to the Complainant and the limit of the said card was Rs.1,00,000/- which was subsequently increased to Rs,1,10,000/- and renewed after the end of three years validity period from August, 2009 ending 2012 carrying advance payment of annual fees Rs.1,500/-. The specific case of the Complainant is that he had been using the said credit card since it was issued for purchasing photograph equipments and other related items from both national and international sellers situated outside India. The goods were purchased by the Complainant y using credit card and made payments against the value of the goods or services by depositing cheques through pay slip within period stipulated by the Bank. It is also stated by the Complainant that by introduction of electronic device the contracts are made through internet regarding purchasing and selling by credit card and this practice was also followed by the Complainant so that the prospective buyer at the first instance is required to visit the electronic format of the contract posted on the website of the foreign seller and then entered his name, credit card number, the validity period of the credit card at the appropriate website. Thereafter the buyer signifies his approval of the transaction through the electronic device relating to the goods including shipping charges if any. Then the next procedure is that the foreign seller will ask for authorization of the approval giving by the purchaser from the bank who issued the credit card. On receipt of the authorization from the bank the foreign seller arranges for the shipment of the materials. The Bank at the end of the month will issue statement to the card holders for making payment within 45 days. On the basis of such arrangements the Complainant entered into an electronic contract on 15.10.2009 through the website of a Company Adorama situated in New York, USA for purchasing of some photographic equipments and gave his approval for 573 US$ by a single transaction through the website of the Company which was confirmed by the Company through e-mail dated16.10.2009. But even after expiry of a considerable span of time the said equipments were not reached to the Complainant for which he gave further approval of 293.49 US$ to the foreign seller on 13.11.2009. The Complainant did not enter into any agreement with any third party other tan the foreign seller prior to processing the purchase. It is further stated by the Complainant that he became astonished when he discovered that the OP-1 approved three debits against the Complainant i.e. 293.49 US$, 50 US$ and 289.5 US$ in favour of the foreign seller on a single approval no-5969 dated 19.11.2009 but the Complainant never gave any approval for multiple debits in favour of the foreign sellers nor did authorize the OP-1 to effect multiple debit in respect of the relevant transaction. The Complainant immediately took up the matter with the foreign seller through e-mail on 20.11.2009 requesting to clarify the reason for multiple debits along with the direction to stop the shipment of the consignment. The OP-1 had constructive knowledge of the e-mail of the Complainant dated 20.11.2009 more particularly the fact that the Complainant scrubbed the contract. It is further stated by the Complainant that in the said e-mail specific direction was given to the OP-1 to stp payment of 293.49 US$, but the OP-1 did not take any action and on the contrary charged 293.49US$ and asked the Complainant to pay the same. The OP-1 through the Ld. Advocate demanded the equivalent value of 293.49 US$ of Indian currency from the Complainant, failing which the credit card will be cancelled and finally the OP-Bank cancelled the credit card. According to the Complainant that the OP-Bank has failed to render satisfactory service to him by not crediting 573 US$ transmitted to him by the foreign seller in the credit card following the cancellation of the contract and returned of the goods purchased to the foreign seller by him. It is further stated that the OP-1 has no authority to force the Complainant to pay sum of Rs.13,960.52/- and to cancel his credit card arbitrarily on false allegation of non-payment. Hence the complaint was filed before the Ld. Forum below praying for direction upon the Bank to comply with the demand as prayed for in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
Being aggrieved by the abovementioned judgment the Appellants have preferred the present appeal contending that the Ld. District Forum has failed to appreciate that in case of cancellation of the order as claimed by the Respondent, the foreign merchant refund the amount through its requiring bank and the same is automatically credited to card account through VISA settlement system. Issuing bank has no option to interfere in this mechanism as the same is done automatically by VISA settlement system itself. In case of dispute between the card holder and the merchant, card holder has right to charge back the transaction as per VISA Charge Back Rule. The Forum below has failed to appreciate that as per VISA Rule, the Bank does not have any right to stop the payment as it is automatically debited by VISA settlement system. According to the Appellants the judgment passed by the Ld. District Forum being erroneous is liable to be set aside and prayer is made for allowing the present appeal.
We have perused the record and heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties. It is seen by us that admittedly the Complainant booked a consignment of photographic equipments through the website of a Company in New York, USA against consideration. Further admitted fact is that the Complainant gave his approval of 293.49 US$ to the foreign seller by a single transaction. Subsequently, the Complainant cancelled the contract and informed the bank to stop payment of 293.49 US$. The main grievance of the Complainant is that inspite of giving direction for stop payment the bank did not pay any heed and debited the said money from the account of the Complainant. The contention of the OP-Bank is that as per VISA Rules the bank has no authority to stop payment and it would automatically credited to the account of the Complainant through VISA settlement system. According to the Appellants the Complainant is at liberty to make his claim against merchant bankers with whom he booked the consignment. We have noticed that neither before the Forum below nor this Commission the Bank has proved to substantiate its stand by cogent and sufficient documentary evidence to the extent which prevented it from making a direction to stop payment in case of a visa international gold card. Therefore we are at one with the view as taken by the Ld. Forum that inspite of information given to the bank to stop payment, the bank debited the amount from the account of the Complainant which amounts to deficiency in service. During hearing before this Commission the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent submitting a Xerox copy of the pay order dated 07.03.2012 has stated that in the meantime as per the direction of the Ld. Forum below the Appellants have already issued the abovementioned pay order amounting to Rs.9344/- in favour of the Complainant-Respondent out of the amount Rs.13,960.53/- as awarded by the Forum below. Therefore we are inclined to direct the Appellants to make payment of the balance amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of debiting the amount till its realization and the amount of litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the Complainant-Respondent within 45 days from the date of passing this judgment. In default, the abovementioned total amount shall carry penal interest @10% p.a. for the default period.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence, it is ordered, that the appeal be dismissed on contest without any cost and the judgment passed by the Ld. Forum below is hereby affirmed.
Sri Debasis Bhattacharya Silpi Majumder Member Member