Bangalore Urban


D Y Venkataramanna - Complainant(s)


Cheif Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Chandrajeet yadav

20 Aug 2008


Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1422/08

D Y Venkataramanna


Cheif Manager






Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!


Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number


Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.


COMPLAINT FILED: 26.06.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 20th SEPTEMBER 2008 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.1422/2008 COMPLAINANT Sri.D.Y.Venkataramana,S/o Surya Prakasa Rao,Aged 28 years,Occupation – ServiceServing at i-gate Global Solutions,No.158/162/-P, 165-P 170-P,EP IP Phase –2,Whitefield, NR SAP labs,Bangalore – 560066.Advocate – Sri.Chandrajeet Yadav.V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY Chief Manager,ICICI Bank,Main Branch,Near Bangalore Central,Bangalore – 560 001.Advocate – Sri.Mahabaleshwar G.L O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.8,50,600/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the master credit card holder of OP bearing No.5176 5335 6246 3007. Complainant has made transaction to the tune of Rs.29,899-44 and he is regular in making the repayment of the same including that of late payment charges, interest etc. With all that on 20.04.2007 complainant received the credit card statement from OP which shows the transaction through add-on card No.5176 XXXX XXXX 3106 which stands in the name of Surya Prakash Rao. Who is that add-on card holder is not known to the complainant. It does not pertains to his father also. Complainant went to USA on employment from 07.09.2007 to 12.02.2008. Neither himself nor his father had ever operated the said credit card leave apart add-on credit card. So complainant was surprised to receive the said statement. Immediately he contacted the OP to rectify the said mistake but all his efforts went in vain. OP went on raising the bill at one stage for Rs.52,604/- and then it claimed Rs.71,360/- for the month of May 2008. Without the consent of the complainant OP has withdrawn Rs.25,000/- from the complainant salary account on 17.10.2007. When complainant demanded the OP to refund Rs.25,000/- and Rs.2,630/- collected illegally it went in vain. As a counter blast OP issued the notice to the complainant on 10.04.2008 with the untenable demand. Complainant suitably replied the said notice but still OP failed to sort out the dispute raised by the complainant. Due to the hostile attitude of the OP complainant for no fault of his is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the add-on card belongs to Surya Prakash Rao. At the request of the complainant only it is issued and the said card was duly dispatched to the complainant on 08.11.2005 through EXPRESSIT Courier service, which was acknowledged on 09.11.2005. It is the complainant and the beneficiary under the add-on card who have transacted through their cards. Hence they are liable to pay the out standing dues as claimed by the OP. When complainant became the defaulter naturally OP caused the legal notice demanding the payment of dues. As a counter blast complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the relief’s now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Affirmative Point No.2:- Affirmative in part Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of OP with respect to master credit card bearing No.5176 5335 6246 3007. It is the case of the complainant that he never applied for the add-on card nor Surya Prakash Rao who alleged to have transacted through the alleged add-on card was ever applied for the same. During the absence of the complainant between 07.09.2007 to 12.02.2008 some transactions have taken place on the basis of the add-on card. Complainant has nothing to do with the add-on card transactions. Hence complainant felt the demand made by the OP to pay the out standing due to the tune of Rs.52,604/- and later on Rs.71,360/- are illegal. When his requests and demands went in futile he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that the complainant himself has applied for the add-on card in the name of Surya Prakash Rao and OP issued the said add-on card bearing No.5176 5335 6246 3106 and it was dispatched on 08.11.2005 through EXPRESSIT Courier service and it is delivered to the complainant on 09.11.2005. For this defence basically there is no proof. Under such circumstances the said defence appears to be a defence for defence sake. OP has utterly failed to prove the dispatch of the add-on card to the complainant. The affidavit of the courier service who alleged to have delivered it to complainant on 09.11.2005 is not filed. 8. Of course on going through the several transactions complainant must have been in due of the certain amount to OP. That is the reason why OP caused notice to the complainant to pay the said amount in due on 10.04.2008. We have gone through the said notice copy. In the said notice also there is no mention about the issuance of the add-on card in favour of Surya Prakash Rao and that Surya Prakash Rao having transacted through the said add-on card. Under such circumstances the contention of the OP that complainant is in due of certain amount on the basis of the transactions through the add-on card appears to be baseless. 9. The acts and deeds of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Of course if OP establishes that complainant is legally in due of certain amount to them in pursuance of the transactions made on master credit card they have got a right to recover the same. But as for as claiming certain amount in due on the basis of add-on card transaction which is not at all issued to the complainant or the so called beneficiary the claim of OP appears to be unjust and improper. Here we find deficiency in service. 10. Of course complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.8,50,000/- and odd. What is the basis for the said claim we don’t know. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view justice will be met by directing the OP to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant along with litigation cost of Rs.1,000/-. With these reasons we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant. This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 20th day of September 2008.) MEMBER PRESIDENT Vln*