BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
BENGALURU – 560 027.
DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JULY, 2022
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.477/2019
PRESENT:
SRI.RAJU K.S,
Rohith Ramesh Kamath,
S/o M.Ramesh Kamath,
401, 16th Cross,
Bengaluru-560056. ……COMPLAINANT
V/s
Corporation Bank,
Branch Office,
National Law School of India University,
Nagarbhavi,
Bengaluru-560 072. …..OPPOSITE PARTY-1
Corporation Bank,
Zonal Office,
Ground Floor,
“Jeevan Sampige”,
No.1/1, 2nd Main, Sampige Road,
Bengaluru-560 003.…..OPPOSITE PARTY-2
(Opposite parties Rep by Sri.K.Vishwanatha Shetty., Adv)
//JUDGEMENT//
BY SRI.SHIVARAMA K, PRESIDENT
The complainant has filed this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act-1986 seeking for a direction to the opposite parties for a refund the entire amount paid towards international debit card services along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency of services and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental trauma, humiliation and cost.
2. It is not in dispute that the complainant had travelled tour to China on 20.10.2018 for a period of 20 days until November 10, 2018. Further, it is not in dispute that while he was in China, he was not able to withdraw money from the visa card given by the opposite parties bank through ATM.
3. To prove the case, the complainant (PW1) has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.P1 to P7 documents. The Senior Manager of opposite party no.1 has filed affidavit in the form of his evidence in chief and got marked EX.R1 document.
4. Counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. The points that would arise for consideration are as under:
i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the
compensation as sought ?
iii) What order ?
7. Our findings on the aforesaid points are as follows:
Point No.1 : In affirmative
Point No.2 : Partly in affirmative
Point No.3 : As per the final order for the following;
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1:- PW1 & RW1 have reiterated the fact stated in their respective pleadings, in the affidavits filed in the form of their evidence in chief. The only contention taken by the opposite party in the written arguments filed that the complainant has failed to follow the terms and conditions governed and applicable to the visa card. As per the terms and conditions of the Corporation Bank for the debit card opposite party is excluded from certain liability. Clause-18 of the terms and conditions of the card excludes bank from certain liability.
9. Clause-18 of the terms and conditions of the card vide EX.R1 reads as under;
Exclusion of liability:-
Without prejudice to the foregoing, bank shall be under no liability whatsoever to the applicant in respect of any loss or damage arising, directly or indirectly out of:
iii. The malfunction of any computer terminal”
10. Further, the bank is excluded from its liability for decline of transaction due to any reason. As per Clause-18(xi) and on this ground, the complaint is not maintainable. Section-18(xi) contemplates that “Decline of transaction due to any reason”. According to RW1, the opposite party no.2 is not the Zonal Office of opposite party no.1 and the Zonal Office of the opposite party no.1 is South Zone Office, 5th Floor, Nitesh Times Square, M.G.Road, Bangalore-560 001. The complainant did not produce any document to substantiate that the opposite party no.2 is a necessary party. We feel since the opposite party no.2 is not a Zonal Office, opposite party no.2 is not a necessary party and opposite party no.2 is not liable for any account of the complainant. According to PW1, from 20.10.2019 to 10.11.2018 he was in China. In support of his contention that he had been to china he has produced EX.P3 document. In EX.P3 mail dt.10.10.2018, it is stated that the complainant was deputed for a 3rd training program. Further according to PW1, he had spent over 500 RMB/Yuan on 28.10.2019 and upon trying to, in vain, withdraw further Foreign Currency, by using the debit card he was not able to draw the amount. Further, even though he had sent several emails to the opposite party-bank, the bank did not provide the facility. On perusal of EX.P5 email dt.29.10.2018, it appears that the complainant had sent an email to the Corporation Bank stating that he has an international debit card and he had requested banking services to be activated as he was travelling to China for a month duration and for this utmost shocking and disdain that his card could not be used in the ATM in China as promised. This has caused great hardship and embarrassment. Further on 30.10.2018 the technical staff of Corporation Bank had sent a mail to the Corporation Bank and copy addressed to the complainant, in which it is stated that the technical field office staff recommendation from the Corporation Bank to allow the transactions in China. Further email has also been sent by Bangalore-NLSIU Branch (Corporation Bank-0814) to the corporation Bank and a copy of the complainant on 31.10.2018 stating that NLSIU Branch have already sent mail to FTS-Technical on 20.10.2018 on receiving request from the customer Mr.Rohit Kamath and they had received confirmation also that the same is already been made available to the customer’s debit card and they regret for the inconvenience caused to the customer. Several emails have been sent by the complainant requesting to activate the debit card while he was in China.
11. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the opposite party that the card holder is required to take prior permission and to inform the Bank regarding the countries, in which he is going to use the VISA Card. The complainant has neither informed the use of VISA Card at China nor he had obtained necessary permission. Hence, we feel since the email dt.31.10.2018 stated above has confirmed the facility given to the complainant’s debit card, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant. Apart from that the email dt.29.10.2018 sent to the bank itself sufficient with regard to the prior information. It is not the case of both the parties that there was malfunctioning of any computer terminal. Hence, Clause-18 as per EX.R1 does not apply to the case of the complainant. Hence, we feel there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party no.1 in not providing the facility of ATM in china as promised. Accordingly, we answer point No.1 in affirmative.
12. POINT No.2:- The complainant claimed the refund of entire amount paid towards international debit card services along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The complainant has produced EX.P4 the account statement of the complainant. It appears that the complainant had sufficient bank balance in his account during his stay at China. Since as to what amount the opposite party had charged for the services has not been said in the complaint, the opposite party cannot be directed to refund of any imaginary amount. Further, the complainant has sought for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for the deficiency of services. According to PW1, even though he had raised concern on the non-working of the debit card, via e-mail, despite which there has been no rectification of deficiency in service by the opposite party. Further, the deficiency of service by the opposite party caused great hardship and financial embarrassment, wherein one of the International Delegates had paid for his food bills, on account of in sufficient funds in his hand for usage. Further, the complainant was an advocate and company Secretary pursuing a Ph.D at National Law School of India University, with sufficient financial independence, despite which he was put to financial embarrassment. Further, he had issued legal notice dt.10.01.2019 to pay the damages but the opposite party did not reply for the notice. It is not stated with regard to the direct monitory loss to the complainant. Therefore, we feel in total for the deficiency of service and mental trauma caused to the complainant, the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.20,000/- and since the complainant has filed this complaint as party in person, he is entitled for a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost. Hence, in total the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, we answer this point partly in affirmative.
13. POINT NO.3:- In view of the discussion made above, we proceed to pass the following;
-
The complaint is allowed in part.
The opposite party No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation, mental agony and litigation cost to the complainant.
The opposite party No.1 shall comply the order within 30 days. In case, the opposite party No.1 fails to comply the order within the said period, the above said amount of Rs.25,000/- carries interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization.
Supply free copy of this order to both the parties and return extra copies of the pleading and evidence to the parties.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, typed by her, the transcript corrected, revised and then pronounced in the open Commission on 25th day of July, 2022)
//ANNEXURE//
Witness examined for the complainants side:
Sri.Rohith Ramesh Kamath, the complainant has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the complainant side:
1. The copy of the opening page of the pass book of complainant’s bank account 520101045180373 maintained at Corporation Bank, National Law school branch, Bangalore.
2. Copy of the debit card issued by the Corporation Bank bearing No.4199810008840360.
3. Copy of the invitation letter along with email dt.10th October 2018 received from China.
4. Copy of the Bank statement of complainant’s account sent.The computer generator statement of the same issued by the bank.
5. Email correspondences between complainant and the opposite party bank.
6. Copy of the legal notice dt.10.01.2018.
7. Notarized copy of the passport.
Witness examined for the opposite party side:
Sri.Shaik Abdul Aleem, Senior Manager of opposite party Bank has filed his affidavit.
Documents marked for the Opposite Party side:
1. Broacher containing the terms and conditions of the corporation debit card.
