COMPLAINT NO.2179/08

DATED THIS THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2009


PRESENT
SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant:
Firoj Khan

C/o M. Gurunath

Venkateshwara Nilaya

1st Main, 5th Cross

Near Ayyappa Garden

Bangalore-76

V/s
Opposite Parties:
1. Axis Bank Ltd.,

Data Centre, Bungalow 15,

Corporate Park

Behind Swastik Chamber

Siontrombay

Chembur

Mumbai-400 071



2. Axis Bank

No.40, K.G.Road

Opposite to State Bank of Mysore

Bangalore-560 009

O R D E R


SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:


The grievance of the complainant against the Op in brief is, that he is having a meal debit card with Op. That he on 25/06/2008 received a mail from the Op informing him to pay Rs.30,164.20 which is incorrect. That the Op further informed him that he has done the transactions of Rs.30,164.20 during offline transactions and stated that was not informed to him earlier. That Op had sent that mail in which the amount spent is shown as more than Rs.300/- per day but such transaction cannot taken place. That he has been informed by the bank that he could have transacted Rs.200/- per day and the maximum amount per year should not be more than Rs.6000/-. No proper control in place with regard to the system if the sufficient balance is not maintained in the account the meal card should not have worked. That he was informed by the Op that transactions were made which was exceeding the limit. Therefore, has sought for relief to him.



Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that the complaint has not maintainable that the complainant is not impleaded his employer M/s. Accenture Services Ltd., as they had entered into a contract with them as an employer of the complainant and there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant to provided meal card. On the authorization of the employer of the complainant, meal allowances of the complainant are allowed on the monthly basis on the meal card as per the request of the employer of the complainant. That all the merchants at Accenture Cafeteria’s were working on offline machines till 05/06/2008. Even in cases where there was insufficient balance in the complaint’s meal card account, successful transactions have been done by the complainant. Those amounts could not be recovered from the meal card account since there was insufficient balance on meal card. The complainant on the meal card has spent Rs.35,165/- which is debited from the complainant’s meal card account after taking Rs.5,999/- from his account and balance of Rs.29,166/- is lying unrecovered. That they on 25/06/2008 addressed a letter to the complainant informing him exact amount yet to be recovered by furnishing the details of the transactions. That the complainant has filed a case before banking ombudsman at Bangalore. It is registered as a complaint and he has also filed his reply and stated that issue raised in this complaint and raised before Ombudsman is the same. That they have not debited the account of the complainant it is complainant’s employer who has debited the amount of the complainant. Therefore, the complainant has to approach his employer, and denying their liability have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.



In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Assistant Vice President who is an Authorized Signatory of Op2 filed affidavit on behalf of both Ops. The complainant along with complaint has produced copy of the letter of his employer addressed to him containing details of expenditure incurred under the meal card besides certain emails. Ops have also produced copies of those documents including a copy of agreement entered into between the employer of the complainant and the Op. Op has also produced a copy of the reply filed before banking Ombudsman in a complaint filed by the complainant. We have heard the complainant who is in person and counsel for Ops and perused the records.



On the above contentions following points for determination arise.



1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in debiting Rs.30,164.20 to his meal account.

2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1 : In the negative

Point No.2: To see the final order.

REASONS:

Answer on point No.1 : The complainant who himself has presented the complaint has not put forth his grievance satisfactorily to prove the deficiency caused by the Ops in providing service to him. Further on perusal of the documents, the version of Ops and affidavit it emerges that the complainant who was an employee of Accenture Services Ltd., and that the employer of the complainant entered into an agreement with the Ops have provide meal cards to its employees with an understanding that meal card expenditure of the employees of that Accenture Pvt. Ltd., would be met by that employer. It is the grievance of the complainant that he is entitled for meal card expenditure at Rs.200/- per day amounting to Rs.6000/- per year. But the Ops sent him a letter stating that he has done transactions of Rs.30,164.20 during offline transactions showing the unrecovered amount is Rs.30,164.20. The bona of contentions of the complainant is that Op could not have extended meal card facilities more than Rs.200/- per day but shown to have permitted the complainant transactions of worth Rs.30,164.20 which was not permissible. As contented by the Ops the employer of the complainant in our view should have also been impleaded as the opponent in this case because of the reason that the transactions are regulated by an agreement between the employer of the complainant and the Op. As the employer of the complainant in the agreement taken the responsibility of paying the meal card expenditure and that the complainant would be only a beneficiary of the contract entered into between the employer and the OP.



The Op has produced a copy of the letter sent to the complainant by his employer dated 25/06/2008 in which the employer of the complainant has informed the complainant that till 31/05/2008 merchants at Accenture Cafeterias were working in offline machine that even in cases when there was insufficient balance in the meal card of the complainant successful transactions have been done by him. These transactions money was not recovered from the meal card account of the complainant since there was insufficient balance. The employer of the complainant even further stated that they will recover from his meal allowances for July 2008 and August 2008 by stating the amounts pending are more than the meal allowances due and further stated that those balances will be recovered from the salary of the complainant. The complainant has not disputed the letter of his employer as such as contended by the Ops it is true that payment of meal card dues are to be made by the employer to the complainant. It is evident that the employer of the Op has not disputed the expenditure that incurred under the meal card of the complainant. The employer has also not disputed the transaction recorded by the Ops. It is because of this contract between the Op and the employer of the complainant, Op allowed the complainant to have transactions even though he did not have sufficient balance in his account. Ops have produced a copy of the document showing number of transactions the complainant made with exact figures depicting the amounts of expenditure incurred by the complainant. The complainant has not disputed or challenged the details of the expenditure he has incurred under the meal card but has filed this complaint with an allegation that Op should not have allowed transactions more than what could have been per month and year. We therefore, under these circumstances find no merit in the complaint filed by the complainant and he is not proved the deficiency of the Ops.



The other contentions of the Ops is that the complainant had filed a complaint before the banking ombudsman which has been registered and they have also filed a reply and stated that complaint before the ombudsman is pending. The complainant has not denied any where regarding the pendency of enquiry initiated on the basis of the complaint of the complainant. Therefore, it is found that the complainant has filed two complaints with same grievances and for the same relief before two authorities or organization which is not permissible. Because a consumer who is aggrieved of the act or omission of a party cannot approach more than one organization for redressal of grievances at the same time. It is not in dispute that the complainant has a complaint filed before banking ombudsman which is prior to the filing of this complaint and that the complaint is still pending for inquiry. Similar complaint with same cause of action should not have been filed before this forum as it would result in conflicting decision. Therefore, by observing that presentation of this complaint before this forum when a complaint in this regard has already been filed before the banking ombudsman is not maintainable on this ground also the complaint is to be dismissed with this we by answering the above point in the negative pass the following order.

O R D E R

Complaint is dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.

Hi ,

My name is Priyadarshi Mishra(09819160946 / 09004650946) HDFC bank has done fraud with me


Let me tell you a full case

In Year 2008 HDFC bank given me credit card -5289456000471198. I used this card for few months and paid accordingly.
then i informed to customer support dept for EMI.(Due to some reason i was not able to pay back the money)( though i have paid Rs 26000 ) on time
,therefore bank offered a full and final settlement of the payment( As per discusssion wth Mr.AJAY Kamble and Miss Pratibha).
Then i told for I will pay what ever amount bank has decided.
Then i Paid every month what ever Miss pratibha and Mr. Ajay Kamble has told me like Nov 09-Rs5100,DEC 09- 4800,JAN 2010- 4000) LIKE in seven installment)
,now HDFC Bank put my account (00011050144964 Tulsiani chamber,nariman point,mumbai-400021)
on hold on 3/feb/2010 for None payment of credit card , that is exactly not correct thing then also as account on hold HDFC agent
called me in and said pay 3400 rs and all of your dues will be cleared .I informed to miss pratibha i will pay by 3rd feb2010.
when i went to hdfc atm to tranfer money to my credit card ,then i saw my account has gone for onhold. again as i`m in urgent need of money ,But now bank is saying your first
installment is late full and final settlement is over "now collection dept Mr. Nikhi is saying they will deduct complete money from my saving account (Rs36,560.00) .
Now i am helpless . idon't HAVE SINGLE MONEY to survive in mumbai.I have spent complete money on calling to hdfc customer care ,miss pratibha,mr. ajay kamble .
nobody is helping out.atlast mr. nikhil told me your money will go to hdfc credit card dept completely after 15 days. i don't have single money to survive.
please look in this matter and resolve it as soon as possible .


These are the payments I have paid Monthly (As discussed with Mr. Ajay Kamble and Miss Pratibha,

03 Jan 2010 ATM BILLPAY-HDFCCC-52894560004711980000 000000002988 03 Jan 2010 4000.00

03 Dec 2009 ATM BILLPAY-HDFCCC-52894560004711980000 000000005969 03 Dec 2009 4800.00

06 Nov 2009 ATM BILLPAY-HDFCCC-52894560004711980000 000000006662 06 Nov 2009 5100.00

waiting for your kind reply

With Regards

priyadarshi

9819160946
9004650946
mumbai

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/26

Soma Biswas
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Axis Bank Ltd.
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

In the Court of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 26 / 2009



1) Smt. Soma Biswas,

122, Vivekananda Sarani,

Kolkata-700078. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) Axis Bank Ltd.,

20, Gariahat Road, Golpark,

Kolkata-700019, P.S. Gariahat. ---------- Opposite Party



Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.



Order No. 9 Dated 0 4 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 .



1. The instant case arises out of the petition of complaint filed on 21.1.09 by Smt. Soma Biswas against Axis Bank Ltd. (through Branch manager), Golpark Branch, 20, Gariahat Road, Golpark, Kolkata-19 having its Eastern Zonal Office at 5, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-71 with a prayer to (a) direct the o.p. to refund Rs.3089.90 only along with 24% interest, (b) direct the o.p. to pay a compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- only to the complainant on account of delay, inconvenience, mental agony and harassment and (c) any other relief which the ld. Forum deems fit.

2. Specific case is that the complainant opened a Savings Bank A/C with Axis Bank Ltd., Golpark Branch, Kolkata on 27.2.06 having S.B. A/C no.011010100278430 on compliance of official formalities (reply by o.p. para-1).

3. The complainant had the knowledge of the fact that it is necessary to maintain an Average Quarterly Balance of Rs.5000/- and the bank will levy a charge of Rs.750/- per quarter for non-maintenance of such minimum average quarterly balance (MAQB).

4. The complainant joined the Greenwave Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. as a billing associate in the month of May, 2008.

5. The complainant though requested to open a salary account with Axis Bank in which her salary would be credited but the complainant did not agree with the request as she had an account with the Axis Bank and informed her existing Axis Bank A/C number to the employer for the purpose of crediting her salary.

6. The complainant came to know that generally in all salary account of the o.p’s bank, there is no need to maintain minimum average quarterly balance.

7. The complainant being realised that she might not get the benefit of the salary account as the S.B. A/C was opened by her a long time back she with an intention to convert her savings account into a salary account and to get all the benefits of the salary accounts sent a letter dt.7.8.08 via e-mail to easy access @ axisbank.com requesting the o.p. to close the existing S.B. A/C and open a new salary account through her employer (page 20 of the petition of complaint with annexures).

8. The complainant after waiting for a long time got no reply from the o.p.

9. The complainant during her visit to the branch of the o.p’s bank, the bank official assured her that the bank would not levy any charge for non-maintenance of minimum average quarterly balance (MAQB). The officer also assured that there was no need to maintain MAQB in an account where salary was credited regularly.

10. The complainant believed on such assurance of the bank officer in good faith.

11. The complainant suddenly on 31.12.08 discovered that on 30.12.08 a sum of Rs.3089.90 only had been debited from her account (annex-consecutive page 14 of petition of complaint).

12. Immediately, the complainant generated one mini statement from ATM using her debit card and visited the Axis Bank at Golpark for getting the details of such debit. But the complainant was told that they could not provide any information due to system’s fault and had requested her to come after two hours.

13. The complainant again visited at the same bank at around 2-00 p.m. in the afternoon and got the same reply from the bank officials and she was requested to come next day.

14. The complainant on returning home tried to trace the transaction by log in to Internet Banking and discovered that the said debit was for “consolidated charges for account” made by the o.p. itself.

15. Since the complainant had knowledge of the meaning of “consolidated charges for account”, she visited the Axis Bank Branch at Golpark on 1.1.09 and asked for the details of such transaction and the reason for deduction of such a big amount.

16. The Axis Bank, Golpark Branch failed to give any explanation and only informed the complainant that it was a service charge but for what service.

17. The complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied wrote an e-mail to the Bank’s Grievance Redressal Dept. through ezh@axisbank.com and requested the o.ps. to give explanation of the sudden deduction of such a big account of money as soon as possible (annex- page 21 of the petition of complaint).

18. Accordingly to the rules of the Axis Bank Website such an e-mail is supposed to be reported within eight days. But the complainant did not get the reply.

19. The complainant during this period visited the Golpark Branch of the

Axis Bank several times but no branch officials could give any cogent explanation of “consolidated charges for account”. They only said that the consolidate charges for account meant an aggregate of various kinds of charges, but they failed to answer what were those charges.

20. The complainant further adds that there is no such charge, viz. “consolidated charges for account” in the list of charges laid down and displayed in o.p’s website (annex-page 12 & 13 of petition of complaint).

21. Hence the case is lodged by the complainant on the alleged arbitrary action of the o.ps.

22. Decision with reasons :-

(a) Perused the petition of complaint, written objection (reply) by o.p., affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant, BNA of the complainant and documents on record. It is evident from the w/v of the o.ps. that they received request of the complainant via e-mail dt.7.8.08 to convert her existing savings bank a/c into the S.B. A/C under Salary Power Scheme (vide page 20 of the petition of complaint and para-7 of the w/v of the o.ps.).

(b) It is a fact that the complainant was asked by her employer Greenwave Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. to open a salary account with Axis Bank in which her salary would be credited, but since the complainant has got a savings a/c with the Axis Bank, she did not agree to open a new account and informed her existing Axis Bank A/C number to her employer for the purpose of crediting her salary (vide para 7 of petition of complaint).

(c) Since then, the salary of the complainant has been credited in the aforesaid account regularly which is evident from the annexures of the petition of complaint (page 14 to 17 of the petition of complaint).

(d) Thus, it is not a fact that without the consent of her employer, the complainant has been getting her salary from her existing S.B. A/C 0110101000278430, though the o.ps. in their w/v state in para 8 that the savings a/c can be converted into savings A/c under salary power scheme only after submission of a consent letter from the employer. If that be so, how the o.ps. accept the salary of the complainant sent by her employer in the aforesaid savings a/c of the complainant. This indicates nothing but a tacit acceptance of the conversion of the existing savings a/c into savings a/c under salary power scheme. In that case, the charging of Rs.3089.90 (service tax Rs.339.90 + consolidated charges for a/c. Rs.2750.00) in the statement of account from 1.12.08 to 31.12.08 is totally unwarranted (annex-page 14 of petition of complaint), though in para 10 of w/v, the o.ps. have erroneously mentioned the amount as Rs.2339.90 instead of 3089.90 and they did not explain what was meant by consolidated charges for account (annex-page 20 & 21 of petition of complaint).

(e) It is also evident that inspite of receiving the e-mail dt.7.8.08 and 31.12.08 from the complainant, the o.ps. did not care to respond indicating that they had nothing to defend.

(f) Thus, the complainant by his oral submission as well as producing documentary evidence has been able to establish her case successfully against the o.ps.



23. Hence, ordered,

that the o.ps. are directed to (i) refund Rs.3089.90 (Rupees three thousand eighty nine and paise ninety) only to the complainant within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the above amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery, (ii) pay a compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to the complainant for causing her inconvenience, mental agony and harassment within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the above amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery and (iii) pay a litigation cost to the complainant amounting to Rs.3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the above amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till full recovery.



Fees paid are correct.

Thus the case is disposed of from this Forum.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.

consumer case(CC) No. CC/07/372

Madan Mohan Saraf
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Branch Head, Axis Bank Ltd. and 3 others
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




ORDER

In the Court of the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.



CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 372 / 2007



1) Madan Mohan Saraf,

11/1, Sunny Park, Kolkata-19. ---------- Complainant

---Verses---

1) Branch Head, Axis Bank Ltd.,

2/1A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20.

2) Axis Bank Ltd.,

Trishul, 3rd Floor, Ellisbridge,

Ahmedabad-380006.

3) Mng. Director, Axis Bank Ltd.,

13, Maker Tower, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai-400005.

4) Mr. P.J. Nayak, Chairman & CEO,

Axis Bank Ltd., Cuffe Parade,

Coloba, Mumbai-400005. ---------- Opposite Party



Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President.

Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member.



Order No. 1 2 Dated 0 4 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 .



1. The instant case arises out of the complaint filed by Sri Madan Mohan Saraff of 11/1, Sunny Park, Kolkata-19 filed on 19.11.07 u/s 12 of C.P. Act, 1986 against (1) Branch Head, Axis Bank Ltd., Priority Banking, 2/1A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-20, (2) Axis Bank Ltd., Trishul, 3rd floor, near Law Garden, Ellisebridge, Ahmedabad-380006, (3) Managing Director, Axis Bank Ltd., 13, Maker Tower ‘F’, Cuffe Parada, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 and (4) Mr. P.J. Nayak, Chairman & CEO, Axis Bank ltd., Cuffe Parade, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 with a prayer (a) to issue show cause notice upon the o.ps. for appearance, (b) to pay compensation a sum of Rs.1,900,000/- being the cost of the lost of reputation and harassment and negligence of service, (c) to pay litigation cost and (d) to pass such order as the Forum may deem fit and proper.

2. Specific case of the complainant is that the complainant had opened a savings account bearing no.411010100001496 with the o.ps. bank upon being assured of impeccable and good service. It is pertinent to note that the o.ps. have informed the complainant that even in case of temporary sufficient funds, no cheque issued by the complainant would be dishonoured and opportunity would be given to the complainant to make up the short fall. It might be noted that the complainant never issued or issues any payment instrument without providing for sufficient cover (annex-A1).

3. The complainant after opening of the savings account with the o.ps., oirders were issued by the o.ps. that the said account would be linked with any and all the moneys deposited in the bank whether by way of deposit or otherwise (annex-A1, B1, 2,3 & 4).

4. The o.ps. refused to honour a cheque no.002866 dt.10.8.07 for Rs.124850/- issued by the complainant in payment of payees invoice nos. MP1038 and MP1039 in favour of M/s. NPR Finance Ltd., 19, R.N. Mukherjee Road, Kolkata-1 (photocopies of returned cheque/notice annexed as C1 &C2).

5. The complainant alleged that though there was sufficient fund to cover the amount of cheque but the same was dishonoured. The complainant also stated that he has got Rs.247366.34 in his S/B account no.411010400001496 with the bank as on 13.8.07.

6. In spite of the complainant’s letter dt.14.8.07 and 20.8.07 to the o.ps., no letter of reply came from the o.ps.

Hence, the case is filed by the complainant against the O.Ps.

7. Decision with reasons :

Before coming to the decision, let us see whether the complainant is a consumer u/s 2(d)(ii) of C.P. Act, 1986. The petitioner in his petition of complaint along with the annexures and BNA (para 5) admitted that he opened a Priority (Savings) Account with the o.p. bank being the S/B account no.411010100001496. He also admitted that he has been dealing with business for his livelihood which is his only source of income and he carries on his business at 11/1, Sunny Park, Kolkata-19. But neither in his petition of complaint nor in his BNA, the complainant disclosed his status in the business as well as his nature of business. The complainant always used his status a self employed.

8. But nowhere the complainant mentioned his status in his business, though he mentions that he has accountant (annex-E 10 of the petition of complaint). If the complainant has an accountant, then he must have other employees to run his business, since his business involves transactions of lakhs of rupees in relation to various business organizations (annex-1 of w/v and petition of complaint). The complainant’s bank account and transactions details as mentioned buy him indicates that he is dealing with lakhs of money and he also maintains a priority S/B account with the o.p. which requires the maintenance of Average Quarterly Balance (AQB) of Rs.1 lakh in the Savings Bank Account (annex-A1 to E 13 of petition of complaint and w/v of o.ps.).

9. This apart, the nature of business is not disclosed by the complainant. He always states that he is self employed without mentioning the name of the organization and his status in that organization as well all along which indicates that he has hidden some material information to hoodwink the Forum in order to establish his locus standi as a consumer under C.P. Act, 1986.

10. From the annexures of the petition of complaint, w/v of the o.ps. as well as from the prayer of the complainant, it appears reasonably that the complainant deals with the transactions of lakhs of rupees with other business organizations for commercial gain and not for his mere livelihood.

11. This apart, the complainant in order to establish his credibility has never adduced any material evidence to prove that he runs his business for his livelihood by way of self employment. Rather, his prayer for Rs.19,00,000/- only being the compensation is indicative of the vastness of his business. In fact, no annual balance sheet is presented before the Forum in support of complainant’s averment that he runs his business for his livelihood by way of self employment.

In view of the fact, discussed above it is well established that the petitioner is not a consumer u/s 2(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Hence, ordered,

that the case is dismissed in limine being devoid of merit under C.P. Act, 1986. However, the complainant is at liberty to address the proper Forum/Court for redress.

Fees paid are correct.

Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees.

Complaint Case No : 1197 of 2009

Date of Institution : 21.08.2009

Date of Decision : 07.12.2009



Kaptan Singh son of Sh.Hari Kishan, Resident of H.No.450/F, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Axis Bank, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.



..…Opposite Party



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Adv. for OP



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

The complainant in Feb., 2008 found one envelope lying in the letter box of his house which was containing one Visa Gold Plus card and letter (Ann.C-1) wherein two addresses were mentioned, the one was of complainant whereas the second address was of some Medical Store, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Complainant on 28.2.2008 approached the OP and informed that he never applied for any such credit card and on the asking of the official of OP Bank, he dropped the said card in their Drop Box. However, he was surprised to receive the statement (Ann.C-5) dated 10.5.2009 showing the balance amount of Rs.44,308/- and the debit interest as Rs.2,897/- along with Rs.298.48 as service tax. It is averred that the credit card was never used by the complainant. The matter was taken up with the OP but nothing positive was done. A letter was also sent to OP but to no avail. Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot.

2] OP filed reply stating therein that the complainant had applied for the credit card vide application dated 20.9.2007 along with documents i.e. copies of income tax return, identity card of Election Commission of India, PAN Number duly self attested. It is also stated that the complainant did not disclose that he is employed as Constable in Chandigarh Police and rather informed that he is self employed and proprietor of Kaptan Medicos. It is also stated that the card in question was delivered to him on 14.1.2008 and the same was returned after misusing on 27.2.2008 and 28.2.2009. However, the card was blocked on 28.2.2008 at 12.17 PM when complainant approached the OP Bank. The statements have been sent regularly to the complainant to return/pay the amount of the bank but he instead filed the present complaint. Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions

4] We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5] The contention of the complainant is that he never applied for and never approached the OP bank for the credit card, which was received by him in the month of Feb, 08. This contention is factually incorrect. The OPs have placed on file annexure O-1, which shows that the complainant had applied for the credit card and had given his home address as well the address of the company where he was self employed. Alongwith the application the complainant has given annexure O-2 which is the copy of his PAN card , annexure O-3 which is the photocopy of his Photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and annexure O-4 which is the copy of his income tax return. These documents suggest that it was a conscious decision on the part of the complainant in view of which he applied for obtaining the credit card from the OPs. However in the present complaint he has falsely alleged that he had never applied for and never approached the OP bank for issuing of a credit card.

6] The next contention of the complaint as mentioned in para 3 is that there were two addresses mentioned on the letter through which the credit card was received by him, one was that of the complainant whereas the second address pertained to Kaptan Medicos, a medical store in sector 34, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has nothing to do with the second address and therefore the credit card appears to be applied by the owner of the said medical store and not by the complainant. This fact also is falsified from annexure O-1 which is the application moved by the complainant for obtaining the credit card. There is a specific column in the application annexure O-1 for furnishing occupation details. The complainant mentioned himself to be self employed and the name of the company was mentioned as Kaptan Medicos of which he claimed to be the proprietor. He even mentioned having put in four years in the current job and the total work experience mentioned by him was 16 years. The office address was mentioned by him as Shop No. 22, 3rd Floor, Thakur Dwara, Manimajra, Chandigarh. The complainant has attached annexure C-2 which is the photocopy of the letter through which the card was delivered to him in which same address of Kaptan Medicos has been mentioned and the same is given by the complainant in his application annexure O-1. The complainant has therefore told a lie in this respect also, not only to the OP bank while applying for the credit card but to this Forum also. He concealed this information form this Forum that he had applied for the credit card by giving wrong information to the OP bank in which he mentioned himself to be self employed as the proprietor of Kaptan Medicos, whereas in the present complaint in para 3 the complainant has mentioned that he is working with the government department. In response to a query put by the bench the complainant told that he is employed in the police department of U.T Chandigarh. However this information was not given by the complainant in the application annexure O-1 in which he mentioned himself to be the proprietor of Kaptan Medicos, as self employed for the last 4 years. This fact shows that the complainant is a crook, he is apt to tell lies and does not deserve any relief because the entire complaint moved by him is based on falsehood.

7] The complainant has also mentioned in para 5 of the complaint that the credit card was never used by him and the account statement annexure C-5 received by him is wrong. This fact also is proved to be false. The OPs have attached with the reply Annexure O-11, the statement dated 10.02.08, showing that the complainant purchased petrol worth Rs.411.2P on 3.02.08, the service tax was levied on him and he was liable to pay annual fee and joining fee. Annexure O-13 is the statement dated 10.03.08 of the credit card showing that the complainant had purchased petrol, he purchased goods worth Rs.,13,600/- from National Watch House, Chandigarh, on 27.02.08, he purchased goods worth Rs. 12,180/- from Electro Pacific, Chandigarh on 27.02.08, he purchased goods worth Rs.820/- on said date from Chandigarh Industrial and T, Chandigarh, he purchased petrol worth Rs.1,025/- on 28.02.08 from IBP petrol pump, PAN and was given credit in petrol in the shape of surcharge waiver on the total amount paid by him . Thereafter, the statement annexure O-12 dated 10.05.08, was issued showing that a sum of Rs.44,308.8P was the previous balance due from the complainant and the closing balance was Rs.47,504.40P. It is clear that after making the purchases the complainant did not make any payment to the OP bank and being in police department he mischievously thought to dodge the bank and also to dodge this Forum by asserting through this complaint, that he had never applied for the credit card and never used the same. The conduct of the complainant shows that the present complaint was filed by him to avoid the payment of the amount due from him.

8] The complainant has coined the story that when he received the credit card by post for which he had never applied and never approached the bank for any credit card he came to the OP bank and met Shri Rajesh Mittal and explained to him everything. According to him the Manager of the bank told the complainant to drop the credit card in the drop box. The complainant also claim to have written a letter annexure C-3 and handed over the same to the OP. In support of his contention the complainant has attached his affidavit which however cannot be relied upon because the complainant has not produced Shri Rajesh Mittal(D.M.) , or his affidavit in support of his assertion that he had contacted the said Shri Rajesh Mittal with any letter, or Shri Rajesh Mittal advised him to drop the credit card in the drop box. Annexure C-3 appears to have been manufactured by the complainant in support of his contention but it does not prove to have been delivered to the OP bank. There is no acknowledgment of this letter to have been delivered to the OP. It is also not believable that when the complainant who is employed in police department and who had applied for the credit card and had used the same for making purchases upon which a sum of Rs. 47,504/- was due from him would drop the credit card in the drop box without obtaining any signatures from any officials of the bank. It therefore shows that the complainant has manufactured this story wrongly which cannot be believed. In any case the OPs have denied if the contention of the complainant is correct.

9] The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that when an enquiry was conducted in this respect the complainant had told that his credit card was stolen by the son of his friend who may be using the same. This fact finds mention in annexure O-7 submitted by the OP. The complainant however did not produce any evidence in support of his contention, if his credit card was stolen. Infact, now it is not his case. According to him he had received the credit card and he had gone to the bank and put the credit card in the drop box of the bank. The story subsequently coined by him that his credit card was stolen by the son of his friend is therefore a white lie. Otherwise also in order to prove his allegation, it was necessary for him to mention as to what is the name of his friend and his son who had stolen his credit card and was misusing it. It was also necessary for him to lodge a repot with the police itself about the theft and the use of the card by his friends son. Nothing was done which shows that the complainant had first tried to feed this wrong information to the OPs that his credit card was stolen and was being misused by his friends son but when he found that this story would not be believed , he changed the story to the present one which is also equally none believable.

10] In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is false and is misuse of the process of law. The complainant has intentionally coined a false story to harass the OPs. The entire complaint is based on falsehood and the complaint is liable to be thrown out of Court.

11] We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the complaint merits dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the OPs for filing this false complaint as provided under section 26 of the CPA.

12] A copy of this order be sent to the SSP, Chandigarh for taking an appropriate action in the matter, so that the police officials do not misuse their authority to harass others.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Dear Sir/Madam,


With due regards i hereby inform that i had opened an account(saving)
in Axis Bank, Nehru Nagar Branch Ambedkar Road on 10th Oct.09 & had
deposited a cheque(25727) of amounting 5,000/-(Five thousand only) but
it was not credited in my account.I contact many times to the bank
officer(s) but no body respond me, every times they simply said it was
miss-placed somewhere & no action took Place further by bank.I am very
disappointed mentally & physically to this kind of lazy &
irresponsible services.

And Now my account is in Negative balance,Bank are saying negative
balance is deducted in your account when you deposit amount. That is
bank fault they have loss the cheque . So that why i am paying for
that. i am totally disappointed from bank side.
And till date i am not getting any feedback from bank .

Therefore I am requesting you to lodge a complain against the bank for
their irresponsible services & management & to claiming that amount
with losses in my account.

Kindly provide me proper details regarding this matter . so that i
will register a complaint in consumer forum against Bank.

Thanks & Regards
Prem Nath Goswami
a/c no.-909010034970527
Contact No. 9911666822
Add.-KM -45 1st floor ,Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad,UP.