Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/17/19

Gurpreet Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Ashish Mahajan Telecom - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Sethi Adv.

29 Nov 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, LUDHIANA.

 

Consumer Complaint No.19 of  06.01.2017

Date of order          :   29.11.2017

Gurpreet Singh son of Sh.G.P.Singh and Harpreet Kaur w/o S.Gurpreet Singh c/o H.No.B-XX-2472, Krishna Nagar, Ludhiana.

 

Complainants

Versus

M/s Ashish Mahajan Telecom Deals in Nokia Mobile Set, etc.B-18, 4019/6, SCF No.1, Shastri Nagar, Ishmeet Chowk, Ludhiana through its Proprietor/Partner/Authorized signatory/authorized representative/General Manager.

Opposite party

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986 

QUORUM:

SH.G.K.DHIR, PRESIDENT

SH.PARAM JIT SINGH BEWLI, MEMBER

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Sandeep Sethi, Advocate

For Op                                    :         Sh.Rishi Jasra, Advocate

 

PER G.K DHIR, PRESIDENT

 

1.             Complainant Mrs.Harpreet Kaur purchased one mobile handset of Lenovo Vibe K4 Note having IMEI No.860933033949596 vide invoice No.1539 dated 20.11.2016 for an amount of Rs.11,000/- from Op. Payment of price amount was made through debit card of complainant on 20.11.2016 having TID No.40961413. An amount       of Rs.11,220/- was paid through debit card of complainant. When the complainant asked reason for charging additional amount of Rs.220/- by claiming that additional amount of Rs.220/- cannot be charged as per specific guidelines of not charging any transaction charges on debit card payments till 31.12.2016, then Op refused to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.220/-. Over charging of Rs.220/- as transaction charges @2% on bill amount is alleged to be completely against the business ethics and guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Complainant was provided deficient services and Op adopted an unfair trade practice by charging excess amount of Rs.220/- and as such, this complaint filed for seeking direction to OP to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.220/- as well as             to tender unconditional apology. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.25,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.30,000/- more claimed.

2.                In written reply filed by Op, it is pleaded interalia as if complaint in the present form is not maintainable, complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the complaint; complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands because he has suppressed the material facts and that complainant has no cause of action available with him for filing the complaint. It is claimed that amount of Rs.220/- were charged, being  transaction charges and said charges had been paid by the Op to the banker. That amount has not been pocketed by Op. Even before deducting the above said amount of Rs.11,220/-, data for such charges was supplied to the machine after showing the same to the complainant and thereafter, complainant consented for such deduction by filling the pin code with the debit card in the machine. It was only thereafter, that amount of Rs.11,220/- was debited from the debit card of complainant. It is claimed that some competitor of Op at the back of complainant may have got this complaint filed for harassing Op. Purchase of mobile phone in question by the complainant through debit card transaction not denied. It is claimed that OP fully justified in charging the said amount of Rs.220/- because the amount of Rs.220/- was charged by the bank from Op. After filing of the complaint, Op scrutinized their account with bank for getting knowledge that bank has given the credit of Rs.11.090.09P in the account of Op, meaning thereby as if bank has charged Rs.129.10P as its commission. Dealing of the Op with the complainant is true, genuine, and bonafide.             There is no deficiency in service on the part of Op. Op claims that it is ready to refund the amount of Rs.90.10P to the complainant.

3.                Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence joint affidavit of complainants as Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and thereafter, closed the evidence. 

4.                On the other hand, OP through its counsel tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RA of Sh.Ashish Mahajan, Proprietor of OP along with documents Ex.R1 and Ex.R2 and then closed the evidence.

5.                Written arguments not submitted by any of the parties. Oral arguments alone addressed by counsel for the parties and those were heard. Records gone through minutely. 

6.                From the pleadings of the parties and contents of submitted affidavits as well as debit card transaction slip of HDFC Bank Ex.C2, it is made out that an amount of Rs.11,220/- was debited from the account of the complainant against the price of Rs.11000/- of mobile purchased through invoice Ex.C1. It is the case of both the parties that Rs.220/- deducted as transaction charges. Counsel for complainant by taking us through Ex.C5 to Ex.C10 vehemently contends that transaction charges on transactions conducted through debit card are not claimable. Certainly this documentary evidence produced on record establishes that transaction charges on the transaction conducted through debit card are not chargeable, but those documents are not copies of notifications of RBI or of any other authorities of Government of India and as such virtually on the basis of these documents Ex.C5 to Ex.C10, it has to be held that a popular notion circulated through media, electronic or otherwise,was that transaction charges not recoverable in respect of transaction conducted through debit cards. The transaction in question conducted somewhere 12 days after the demonetization policy declared by Hon'ble Prime Minister of India on 8.11.2016 in the night. In view of this, it is obvious that the mess virtually was created by non issue of any specific notifications qua charging or non charging of the transaction charges conducted through debit cards. It was on account of this, that Rs.220/- were charged as extra by Op, than that of the price of mobile purchased through invoice Ex.C1. Being so, much fault with OP cannot be found, particularly when the debit card transaction in question witnessed through Ex.C2 came into existence due to filling of pin code number by the complainant himself in the machine through which the debit card was swapped by the complainant. Complainant before filling the pin code number or password should have checked as to for how much amount the transaction through his swapped debit card going to take place. Had that been checked by the complainant before filling the pin code number or password, then certainly Op would not have been able to charge Rs.220/- in excess of the actual price of Rs.11,000/- of the mobile phone in question. So, it is not a case of exclusive negligence on the part of Op.

7.                If complainant has served a legal notice Ex.C3 through postal receipt Ex.C4 before filing of this complaint and reply of same not submitted by Op, then due to that alone, it cannot be held that Op rendered deficient services. Rather, Op through reply has undertaken to refund the amount of Rs.90.10P out of the excess charged amount of Rs.220/- by claiming that the bank has charged Rs.129.10P from them and as such, same shows that Op willing to refund so much of the amount as is found to be excess charged by them from the complainant after getting the balance sheet Ex.R2 from HDFC Bank. After going through Ex.R2, it is made out as if net amount paid is Rs.11,090.97P to Op on account of transaction in question dated 20.11.2016 of amount of Rs.11,220/-. So, virtually Op even has got Rs.11,090.97P in their credit and not the whole amount of Rs.11,220/- in respect of debit card transaction witnessed through Ex.C2. In view of receipt of this excess amount of Rs.90.97P by Op, than that of the actual chargeable price of Rs.11,000/-, Op liable to refund the excess charged amount of Rs.90.97P to the complainant. Remaining amount has been charged by the HDFC bank as commission and as such, said amount can be claimed by the complainant from his banker namely HDFC Bank and not from Op. HDFC Bank has not been made as a party, who has received the transaction charges amount and as such, direction to OP cannot be issued for paying the amount charged as commission by HDFC Bank.

8.                As complainant had to shell out the extra amount and OP retained Rs.90.97P in excess than that of the chargeable amount by  them after transaction of 20.11.2016 and as such, Op must be held liable to pay interest @6% per annum w.e.f.21.11.2016 till payment. Mental harassment and agony of complainant was not exclusive due to fault of OP and as such, reasonable amount of compensation for mental harassment and agony and litigation expenses alone should be allowed by keeping in view the fact that it is a case of contributory negligence resulting in deduction of amount of Rs.11,220/- through debit card transaction entry in question.

9.                Therefore, as a sequel of the above discussion, complaint allowed in terms that OP will refund the excess charged amount of Rs.90.97P along with interest @6% per annum w.e.f.21.11.2016 till payment. Compensation for mental harassment and agony of Rs.1500/- (Rupees One Thousand and five hundred only) and litigation expenses of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) more allowed in favour of complainant and against OP. Compliance qua order of refund of excess charged amount and payment of compensation and litigation expenses be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules.

10.                        File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Param Jit Singh Bewli)                                 (G.K.Dhir)

                        Member                                                       President

Announced in Open Forum

Dated:29.11.2017

Gurpreet Sharma.