IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Monday, the 31st day of October, 2016
Filed on 24..01..2014
Present
1) Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
2) Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
3) Smt. Jasmine D (Member) in
CC/No.30/2014
Between
Complainant: Opposite party:
M/s Prasanthy Holidays ICICI Bank Ltd
Karukayil Ward Alappuzha Branch
Mamoodu Junction Rep. by its Manager
Avalookunnu. P.O (Adv. Priyadarashan Thampi)
Alappuzha
Rep. by its Propriter Santhilal
(Adv. P.V. Satheesh)
O R D E R
SMT.ELIZABETH GEORGE (PRESIDENT)
The case of the Complainant is as follows:-
The complainant was a current account holder of the opposite party and was operating his account for the purpose the his transactions with the costumers for the purpose of his livelihood and then he was advised by the opposite party that for dealing with the credit card holders it is very convenient to install a Swiping Machine and that can be installed free of cost through the Bank. So he had enquired about the details from the counter. Though he had enquired about it, he was not interested to install such a machine due to the deficiency of transaction per day and hence and had not placed the said required documents and request. But from his account an amount of Rs. 551.50 was debited on 9-3-2012 under the head MID 50327711 BLARE and thereafter Rs. 556.18 every month and debited Rs. 6,767.17 on 2-12-2013 and Rs. 1659.83 on 4-12-2013 under the same head. The complaint could not understand the purpose of the said debit entry every month but when that was increased to such a huge amount of Rs. 8,427/- during December 2013, he enquired at the opposite party Bank and was shocked to understand that the opposite party was debiting his account from March 2012 onwards under the head MID 50327711 BLARE, as charges of Swiping Machine, which is not at all installed. Therefore the complainant approached the opposite party and informed his grievance, but they humiliated him as if he is lying. Which has caused him great mental agony and distress alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party the complaint is filed.
2. Version of the opposite party as follows:- Complaint is not maintainable since the complainant is not a consumer. The complainant had approached the opposite party bank and applied for the installation of a swiping machine. After considering the application, the Swiping Machine was installed on 18/02/2012 at the Premises of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the complainant, an installation charge of Rs .551.50 was charged in the month of March 2012 which was paid by the complainant. It is surprising that the complainant had maintained silence for almost two years from date of such payment, Further , as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the customer is also liable to pay a monthly rental of Rs. 495/- along with applicable tax for the installed machine which was honored. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party
4. The complainant was examined as PW1. The documents produced were marked as Ext.A1 series and Ext. A2. The opposite party was examined as RW1, the documents produced were marked as Ext.B1 to Ext.B3, ExtB2 and Ext. B3 marked subject to objection.
5. The points for considerations are:-
(1) Whether the complainant is a consumer?
(2) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
(3) If so the reliefs prayed for?
6. Points no. According to the opposite party the complaint is not a consumer since he is running House boat business which is commercial in nature. But according to the complainant he is running the business for earning his livelihood only in the instant case dispute is with regard to the installation of a Swiping Machine. Complaint is filed alleging efficiency in service and unfair practice on the part of the opposite party in debiting an amount from the account of the complaint without installing Swiping Machine in his premises. On that point we are of opinion that the complainant is a consumer and hence complaint is maintainable.
7. Point 2-3:- According to the complaint during January 2012 when he visited the opposite party and he was advised by them that for dealing with credit card holders it is very convenient to install a Swiping Machine and that can be installed free of cost through the bank. He had enquired about the details from the counter, but since he was not interested to install such a machine he had not placed the required documents ad request. But an amount of Rs. 551.50 was debited on 9/3/2013 and thereafter as 556.18 on every month and debited Rs. 6,767.17 on 2/12/2013 and Rs 1,659.83 on 4/12/2013 under the head MID 50327711 BLARE. When he enquired about it he understood that opposite party debited from his account as charges of Swiping Machine. According to the complainant the opposite party debited such amount from account without installing the Swiping Machine in his premises. In order to substantiate the allegation 2 documents were produced by the complainant. The Ext A1 series are the statement of account for the period from 1/1/2012 to 7/12/2013 on verifying Ext.A1 series we came to see that Rs. 551.50 was debited on 9/3/2012 under the head MID 50327711 BLARE and Rs.556.18 was debited every month from April to Nov 2012 and Rs 6767.17 on 2/12/2013 and Rs.1659.83 on 4/12/2013 under the same head. The contention of the opposite party is that Swiping Machine was installed on 18/02/2012 at the premises of the complainant and as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the complainant installation charge of Rs. 551.50 was charged in the month of March 2012 and the customer is also liable to pay monthly charge and pay monthly rent for the installed machine. The question to be answered is whether the opposite party debited an amount from the account of the complainant without installing Swiping Machine at the premises of the complainant. According to the opposite party this debit amount as per the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the complainant. If so the opposite parties is bound to produce the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the complainant. While cross examining RW1 he answered the question put by the learned counsel of the complainant. “A§s\ install sNbvXn-«p-s-¦n Bb-Xnsâ tcJ lmP-cm-¡m-asÃm ? Install sNbvX-Xn\v MIDNO:50327711BLARE AÃmsX {]tXy-In¨v tcJ-I-fnÃ. To the another question he deposed before the Forum that Hcp sskz¸n§v sajo³ ta¸Sn ]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ D]-tbm-Kn-¨-Xm-bn«v \n§Ä¡v Fs´-¦nepw sXfnhv lmP-cm-¡mtam? At±lw D]-tbm-Kn-¨n-«nÃ.”
So it is clear from the deposition of the RW1 that there is no documents to prove the installation of the Swiping Machine in the premises of complainant and also that complainant was not using the Swiping Machine. More over opposite party failed to produce any installation report acknowledged by the complainant. Apart from that opposite party have not produce any evidence or the periodic inspection conducted by the opposite party with regard to the working of his Swiping Machine. In the absence such records we are unable to relay the contention of the opposite party that they have installed the Swiping Machine in the premises of complainant. Without installing the Swiping Machine the opposite party is not entitled to debit any amount from the account of the complainant towards installation charge and rental monthly charge. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. The opposite party is bounded to refund the amount that they debited from the account of the complainant.
In the result complaint is allowed the opposite party is directed refund an amount of Rs. 20,102.10(551.50+11123.60+8427.00) with 8% interest from the date of filing the complainant till realization. The opposite party is further directed to pay Rs.2000 (Two Thousand Rupees only) towards cost of proceedings. No further amounts as to compensation. The order shall be complied within one month from the receipt of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me and pronounced in open Forum on this the day 31st day of October, 2016
Sd/- Smt. Elizabeth George (President)
Sd/- Sri. Antony Xavier (Member)
Sd/- Smt. Jasmine D (Member)
Appendix:
Evidence of the complainant:
PW1 - Santhilal.S (witness)
Ext.A1- Statement of the Account submitted by the complainant
Ext.A2- Copy of Payment Advances
Evidence of the opposite party:-
RW1 - Dileep.K.Nair (witness)
Ext.B1- Copy of Merchant Processing Application Form
Ext.B2- Copy of License (Muncipal)
Ext.B3- Copy of receipt
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent.
To
Complainant/opposite party/SF
Typed by:- Br/-
Comrd by:-
