State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nodal Officer, Sbi Card, vs 1. Suresh Kumar Yadav on 16 June, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 180 of 2014 Date of Institution : 08.05.2014 Date of Decision : 16/06/2014 Nodal Officer, SBI Card, DLF Infinity Tower, Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002. Appellant/Opposite Party No.2 V e r s u s 1. Suresh Kumar Yadav son of Late Sh. Rohtash Singh Yadav, aged about 57 years, resident of House No.2481/A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. ....Respondent No.1/complainant 2. Dining Plus India through its Chief Managing Director, 909 Raheja Center, Free Press General Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.1 3. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sector 17, Bank Square, Chandigarh 160017, through its General Manager. ....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1 Service of respondents No.2 and 3, dispensed with, vide order dated 09.05.2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First Appeal No. : 191 of 2014 Date of Institution : 22.05.2014 Date of Decision : 16/06/2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav son of Late Sh. Rohtash Singh Yadav, aged about 57 years, r/o H.No.2481/A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. Appellant/complainant V e r s u s 1. Dining Plus India through its Chief Managing Director, 909 Raheja Center, Free Press General Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021. ...Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1 2. Nodal Officer, SBI Card, DLF Infinity Tower, Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002. ....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2 3. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sector 17, Bank Square, Chandigarh 160017, through its General Manager. ....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Argued by: Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Sh. Rajat Kapoor, Manager of respondent No.1 Sh. Sandeep Suri Advocate for respondent No.2 Service of respondent No. 3, dispensed with, vide order dated 23.05.2014 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT This order shall dispose of the aforesaid two First Appeal Nos.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others and 191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, arising out of the common order dated 07.04.2014, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint, and directed Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 (now one of which is the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in First Appeal No.180 of 2014), jointly and severally, as under:-
In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2, and the same is allowed, qua them, jointly & severally, and is dismissed against Opposite Party No.3 The Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2 are directed to:-
[a] To pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service;
[b] To pay Rs.7,000/- as cost of litigation; The above said order
shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No. 1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] of para 14 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.
2. The facts, in brief are that the complainant had been holding Credit Card bearing No. 4377 4869 4512 5647 of Opposite Parties No.2 and 3, for the last 06 years. He was approached by the representative of Opposite Party No.1, who induced him to part with his Credit Card, on the ground that he was declared as a lucky winner, in the draw of lots, held by it (Opposite Party No.1), and that after charging a sum of Rs.6300/-, through his aforesaid Credit Card, he would be supplied gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad. It was stated that when despite charging a sum of Rs.6300/-, no gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, were provided, the complainant filed a Dispute Form, as advised by Opposite Party No.2, on 23.05.2012. Opposite Party No.2, thereafter, sought feedback from the complainant, on certain points, vide e-mail dated 30.05.2013 Annexure C-4, which was duly replied through e-mail dated 04.06.2013 Annexure C-5. However, Opposite Party No.2, blocked the new Credit Card, bearing No. 4377 4869 4512 5647 of the complainant, without assigning any reason. It was further stated that the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, for redressal of his grievance. However, instead of redressing his grievance, they kept on blaming each other. It was further stated that, as per the Credit Card statement, Opposite Party No.2 had been claiming a sum of Rs.31,213/- due, as on 09.07.2013. It was further stated that the demand raised by Opposite Party No.2, was unfair and unreasonable, as the complainant had never utilized the claimed amount/services. It was further stated that even a sum of Rs.6300/-, was not returned by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant, but on the other hand, continuously utilized by it, thereby causing financial loss to him.
3. It was further stated that a lot of mental agony and physical harassment was caused to the complainant, on account of the illegal retention of his money, by Opposite Party No.1, for a long period. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to unblock the Credit Card, in question, and refrain from making any illegal deductions therefrom; waive off the amount of Rs.31,213/-, as shown in the Credit Card statement dated 09.07.2013 aforesaid; pay compensation, to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, for mental agony, physical harassment, deficiency, in rendering service, and adoption of unfair trade practice; and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.10,000/-.
4. Opposite Party No.1, in its written version, stated that the complainant had purchased Dining Plus Kit, on 27.03.2012, through his SBI Credit Card, for an amount of Rs.6300/-, which was dispatched to him, on 03.04.2012, through Blue Dart Courier Airway Bill No. 43850999931. It was further stated that the complainant never made any direct complaint, to Opposite Party No.1, that he had not received gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad. It was further stated that had the complainant approached Opposite Party No.1, when he did not receive the gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, his problem would have been resolved, at an early stage itself. It was further stated that the complainant had filed a Dispute Form, of the above mentioned transaction, with his issuing Bank i.e. State Bank of India (SBI), on 23.05.2012. It was further stated that the SBI had not raised the chargeback on to Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that, as per the banking chargeback procedures, the amount of Rs.6300/-, would have been directly debited from the account of Opposite Party No.1, and credited to the complainants Credit Card account. It was further stated that, in anticipation, that SBI would raise a chargeback, Opposite Party No.1 had not refunded Rs.6300/-, to the complainant, as the same would have resulted into double loss. It was further stated that, however, in order to maintain its credibility, and post discussion with the complainant, on 06.09.2013, Opposite Party No.1 had refunded the amount of Rs.6300/- to the him (Complainant) vide cheque dated 07.09.2013, which was cleared on 11.09.2013. It was further stated that the complainant was satisfied with the resolution, provided by Opposite Party No.1. It was further stated that there was negligence, on the part of Opposite Party No.2, as he did not process the dispute, raised by the complainant, and continued charging interest, on the said transaction, even after he (complainant) filed the Dispute Form, and fulfilled his (Opposite Party No.2), chargeback formalities. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.1, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. Opposite Party No.3, in its written version, stated that the complainant was having a Saving Bank Account with it, and had nothing to do with the issuance of Credit Card, in question, or receiving of payment thereof. It was further stated that Opposite Party No.2, is a subsidiary of State Bank of India, and a separate entity, responsible for the issuance of Credit Cards and collection of payments thereof. It was further stated that the complainant could not point out any discrepancy or negligence, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor attributed any part played by it, in the alleged transaction, carried out through his Credit Card. It was further stated that the complainant had grievance only against Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.3, nor it indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
6. No authorized representative, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, put in appearance, before the District Forum, despite service, as a result whereof, he was proceeded against ex-parte on 09.09.2013. Later on, Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate, put in appearance, on behalf of Opposite Party No.2, and he was allowed to join the proceedings, at the stage, the case was fixed.
7. The complainant filed rejoinder to the written versions, filed by the Opposite Parties No.1 and 3, wherein he reasserted all the averments, contained in the complaint, and repudiated those, contained in the same (written versions of Opposite Parties No.1 and 3)
8. The complainant and Opposite Parties No.1 & 3, led evidence, in support of their case.
9. After hearing the Counsel for the complainant, authorized representative of Opposite Party No.1, and on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order.
10. Feeling aggrieved, First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, was filed by the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, for setting aside the impugned order, being illegal. Whereas, on the other hand, First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, was filed by the appellant/complainant, seeking directions, to Opposite Party No.2, to waive off the amount of Rs.31,213/-, as shown due in his Credit Card Statement dated 09.07.2013.
11. Service of respondents No.2 and 3, was dispensed with, by this Commission, vide order dated 09.05.2014, for the purpose of First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, as complaint against it (respondent No.3), which was Opposite Party No.3, in the District Forum was dismissed, whereas, no relief had been claimed by the appellant, against it (respondent No.2), which was Opposite Party No.1 there (District Forum).
12. Service of respondent No.3 was dispensed with, by this Commission, vide order dated 23.05.2014, for the purpose of First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, as complaint against it (respondent No.3), which was Opposite Party No.3, in the District Forum was dismissed.
13. We have heard the Counsel/concerned parties, who appeared in both the appeals, and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, very carefully.
14. The Counsel for the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, submitted that the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, only issued Credit Card to the complainant. He further submitted that when the transaction was made through Credit Card, in the sum of Rs.6300/-, the same was debited to the account of the complainant, and credited to the account of Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that against a sum of Rs.6300/-, charged by Opposite Party No.1, from the complainant, he was to be supplied gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad. He further submitted that, in case, gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, were not provided by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant, then the former was liable. He further submitted that even upto the filing of the complaint, the amount of Rs.6300/-, had not been refunded by Opposite Party No.1, to the complainant. He further submitted that only after filing of the complaint, the refund of amount of Rs.6300/-, was made to the complainant, by Opposite Party No.1. He further submitted that since the Credit Card was used by the complainant, even after the aforesaid transaction, Opposite Party No.2, could claim the charges and interest. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.2 was not at all deficient, in rendering service, in any manner. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, against the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
15. On the other hand, the Counsel for respondent No.1/complainant, submitted that, no doubt, the amount of Rs.6300/-, was credited to the account of Opposite Party No.1, by the complainant, through Credit Card, yet it did not supply him gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad. He further submitted that it was liable to return the said amount, immediately, alongwith interest, but it failed to do so. He further submitted that a Dispute Form was filed, before Opposite Party No.2, by the complainant, but he did not resolve the dispute, but, on the other hand, put off the complainant, on one pretext or the other. He further submitted that even interest was charged by Opposite Party No.1, in respect of the transactions made on the basis of the Credit Card, by the complainant, which was required to be waived off. He further submitted that the District Forum was right, in ordering Opposite Party No.2, to pay compensation, jointly and severally, with Opposite Party No.1.
16. Sh. Rajat Kapoor, Manager of Opposite Party No.1, in First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, submitted that once the Dispute Form, for resolution of dispute was filed with Opposite Party No.2/Nodal Officer, SBI Card, it was required of him, to refer the matter to Opposite Party No.1, so that the same (dispute) could be settled at an early date. He further submitted that Opposite Party No.2 was, as such, deficient, in rendering service, and was rightly held jointly and severally liable, with Opposite Party No.1.
17. The question arises, as to whether, the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, in First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, was, in any way, deficient, in rendering service or not. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.6300/-, was paid by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.1, through Credit Card, in question, issued by Opposite Party No.2, on the inducement, that he would be provided gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad. There is, no dispute, with regard to the factum, that gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, were never received by the complainant from Opposite Party No.1. It was, thus, the duty of Opposite Party No.1, to immediately return the amount of Rs.6300/-, to the complainant, but it failed to do so. Vide cheque dated 07.09.2013, the amount of Rs.6300/-, was refunded to the complainant, which was cleared on 11.09.2013. In the transaction aforesaid, Opposite Party No.2, had no role, whatsoever, to play. Since the complainant used the Credit Card, even after the transaction of Rs.6300/-, aforesaid, Opposite Party No.2 was entitled to charge the amount. The amount upto 09.07.2013, which was due, came to be Rs.31,213/-, as per the Credit Card statement. However, as per the statement dated 09.06.2013, a sum of Rs.29,312.19Ps., was outstanding. From the Credit Card statements tendered by the complainant, it was proved that he had been using the facility of Credit Card, for making purchases, till it was blocked, for nonpayment of outstanding amount against him. Since, the complainant had been using the Credit Card, for making various purchases, even after the aforesaid transaction of Rs.6300/-, Opposite Party No.2, could charge amount, in respect of those transactions. Under these circumstances, the District Forum was right, in holding that the amount of Rs.31,213/-, which was outstanding against the complainant, as per the Credit Card statement dated 09.07.2013, could not be waived off. Opposite Party No.2, by charging the amount outstanding, in respect of the transactions, made through the Credit Card, by the complainant, even after the aforesaid transaction, was not at all deficient, in rendering service. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was, thus, wrong in coming to the conclusion, that Opposite Party No.2 shall be jointly and severally liable to pay compensation and cost of litigation, alongwith Opposite Party No.1. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being incorrect, are reversed.
18. The mere fact that some sort of Dispute Form was submitted by the complainant, to Opposite Party No.2, and he did not allegedly forward the same, to Opposite Party No.1, in itself, did not mean that there was deficiency, in rendering service, on his (Opposite Party No.2) part. As stated above, the dispute was between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1. It was Opposite Party No.1, which took a sum of Rs.6300/-, from the complainant, on the assurance to supply him gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, but it failed to do so. So, Opposite Party No.1 was liable to return the amount of Rs.6300/-. However, Opposite Party No.1, slept over the matter, and did not refund the amount, even upto the filing of the complaint. Had it been the liability of Opposite Party No.2, to refund the amount of Rs.6300/-, and had it not returned the same, in time, the matter would have been different. In those circumstances, it would have been said that there was certainly deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of Opposite Party No.2. The complainant, instead of settling the dispute, with Opposite Party No.1, to which he paid the money, unnecessarily dragged Opposite Party No.2, into litigation. Under these circumstances, Opposite Party No.2 was wrongly held to be liable, jointly and severally, with Opposite Party No.1.
19. Coming to the liability of Opposite Party No.1, it may be stated here, that it (Opposite Party No.1), took a sum of Rs.6300/-, from the complainant. Opposite Party No.1 assured the complainant, to supply gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, but it failed to do so. Instead of returning the amount, it slept over the matter, for about one year and six months. Even upto the filing of the complaint, the amount was not refunded to the complainant, by Opposite Party No.1. The amount of Rs.6300/-, was returned vide cheque dated 07.09.2013, which was cleared on 11.09.2013. On account of this reason, the complainant not only suffered financial loss, but also underwent a lot of mental agony and physical harassment. The District Forum, in our considered opinion, was, thus, right, in awarding compensation, to the tune of Rs.20,000/-, and cost of litigation, to the tune of Rs.7,000/-, to the complainant, against Opposite Party No.1.
20. Now coming to First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, it may be stated here, that the same is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. According to the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, the Credit Card of the complainant was blocked by Opposite Party No.2, and amount of Rs.31,213/-, as on 09.07.2013, was illegally claimed by him. It was also submitted by the Counsel for the appellant/complainant, that the amount of Rs.31,213/- shown outstanding in the Credit Card statement, as on 09.07.2013, was liable to be waived off. It may be stated here, that it has been held above, that Opposite Party No.2, was not at all deficient, in rendering service. The transaction was only between the complainant and Opposite Party No.1. The amount was paid by the complainant to Opposite Party No.1, and gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons of providing accommodation, in hotels in India and abroad, were to be supplied by it only. The amount of Rs.31,213/- was shown outstanding in the Credit Card statement, by Opposite Party No.2, as the Credit Card was continuously used by the complainant, even after the aforesaid transaction of Rs.6300/-. The District Forum, as stated above, was right, in holding that no direction could be given to Opposite Party No.2, for waiving off the amount of Rs.31,213/-, which fell due against the complainant, as on 09.07.2013. First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, filed by the appellant/complainant, thus, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
21. In paragraph number 15 of the impugned order, due to typographical mistake, instead of mentioning cost of litigation, awarded by the District Forum, to the tune Rs.7000/-, the amount was mentioned as Rs.10,000/-. Such a typographical mistake can be corrected at any time.
22. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel/concerned parties, who appeared, in both the appeals aforesaid.
23. For the reasons recorded above, First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others , is accepted, with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum, qua the appellant/Opposite Party No.2, is set aside.
24. First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others, is, however, dismissed, with no order as to costs. It is, however, clarified that instead of Rs.10,000/-, as litigation costs, mentioned in paragraph number 15 of the impugned order, it be read as Rs.7,000/-, as litigation costs, as typed in paragraph number 14 of the same (impugned order).
25. Certified copy of this order, shall also be placed, in the file of First Appeal No.191 of 2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India and others.
26. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
27. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Pronounced.
16/06/2014 Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Rg STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. :
191 of 2014 Date of Institution :
22.05.2014 Date of Decision :
16/06/2014 Suresh Kumar Yadav son of Late Sh. Rohtash Singh Yadav, aged about 57 years, r/o H.No.2481/A, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.
Appellant/complainant V e r s u s
1.
Dining Plus India through its Chief Managing Director, 909 Raheja Center, Free Press General Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai 400021.
...Respondent No.1/Opposite Party No.1
2. Nodal Officer, SBI Card, DLF Infinity Tower, Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002.
....Respondent No.2/Opposite Party No.2
3. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Sector 17, Bank Square, Chandigarh 160017, through its General Manager.
....Respondent No.3/Opposite Party No.3 Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Argued by: Sh. Balkar Singh, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh. Rajat Kapoor, Manager of respondent No.1 Sh. Sandeep Suri Advocate for respondent No.2 Service of respondent No. 3, dispensed with, vide order dated 23.05.2014 BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT Vide our separate detailed order of the even date, recorded in connected First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, this appeal has been dismissed, with no order as to costs, with the clarification that instead of Rs.10,000/-, as litigation costs, mentioned in paragraph number 15 of the impugned order, it be read as Rs.7,000/-as litigation costs, as typed in paragraph number 14 of the same (impugned order).
2. Certified copy of the main order, passed in First Appeal No.180 of 2014, titled as Nodal Officer, SBI Card Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and others, be placed on this file also.
3. Certified copies of the main order aforesaid, alongwith this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
4. The files be consigned to Record Room, after completion.
Sd/- Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER (JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)) PRESIDENT Rg.