Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/19/511

Paramjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Secant Technologies - Opp.Party(s)

Varun Sood Adv.

25 Jul 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No: 511 dated 01.11.2019.                                                        Date of decision: 25.07.2022.

 

Paramjit Singh S/o. S. Swarn Singh, R/o/ House No.# 3284, Gurdev Nagar, City Ludhiana, Mob. No.81467-00009.                                                                                                                                                ..…Complainant 

•  

Secant Technologies, A Unit of Litratim MicroSpecialities Pvt. Ltd., through its Managing Director R/o. Regd. Office # 2652/1, Aarti Chowk, Ferozepur Road, Gurdev Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                                    …..Opposite party 

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant             :         None.

For OP                           :         Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate.

 

ORDER

PER K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

1.                In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 14.09.2019, the complainant got repaired a laptop from the OP and also got installed an antivirus software in the same laptop from the OP who charged a sum of Rs.1180/- as service charges vide invoice No.GSL/0160/19-20 dated 14.09.2019. The OP further charged a sum of Rs.670/- vide invoice No.GSL/0629/19-20  dated 14.09.2019. The complainant paid the whole amount through his debit card of State Bank of India but the amount was paid under protest. The OP charged 2% extra as merchant discount rate on debit card. The complainant told the OP about the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India which clearly stated that on account of Rs.2000/- or less no merchant discount rate was chargeable but despite that 2% extra was charged on account of merchant discount rate (MDR). The OP charged Rs.1887/- instead of Rs.1850/- This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.09.2019 but despite that the amount extra charged along with demanded compensation was not paid. Hence the complaint whereby it has been requested that the OP be directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-  for deficiency of service and Rs.1,00,000/- on account of unfair trade practice and Rs.10,000/- for legal charges and the amount of Rs.37/- charged extra be also refunded with interest @12% per annum.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of the OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that the complaint is false and frivolous as has been filed without any locus standi to extract money from the OP. The OP has further pleaded that the complainant has claimed to have made the payment of Rs.1887/- through is credit card whereas it is a false statement as the payment has been made through the debit card which belongs to one Hartaj Singh. Thus, the complainant has made a false statement on oath in the complaint as well as supporting affidavit. In fact, the complainant never made the payment and the payment was made by one Hartaj Singh under protest. It is, thus, clear that on 14.09.2019 the complainant had not gone to the place of the OP and instead Hartaj Singh was present. Thus, a case of perjury has been made out against the OP. As regards the alleged charge of R.37/- on account of merchant discount rate, the OP had never compelled the complainant to pay the invoice amount through debit card. The payment could have been made in cash or through any other mode. Therefore, the complainant could not have compelled the OP to accept the payment through swapping mode only. As regards the communication dated 26.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, New Delhi, the same cannot be said to be binding on the OP as the same was never addressed to the OP or the banks concerned. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                The complainants filed replication to the written statement reiterating the allegations made in the complaint and controverting those mentioned in the written statement.

4                 The complainant filed his affidavit in support of the claim along with documents Ex. C1 to Ex. C6.

5.                The OP also filed affidavit in support of the written statement along with documents Ex. OP1 and Ex. OP2.

6.                The complainant in this case has not been appearing since 08.02.2022. We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the OP and gone through the record. We proceed to decide the case on merits.

7.                During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OP has argued that the complaint is false and frivolous and is based upon the mis-statement. The counsel for the OP has further argued that the payment was not made by the complainant Paramjit Singh and as a matter of fact the payment of Rs.1187/- was made using the credit card of one Hartaj Singh as is evident from the swipe slip of the debit card Ex. C3. The counsel for the OP has further pointed out that the complainant was not even present at the time of charging the amount as the invoice Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 is said to have been signed by Hartaj Singh. The counsel for the OP has further contended that the complainant has made a false claim for which he is liable to be prosecuted and in this regard, a separate application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. has also been filed.

8.                We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the OP and gone through the record.

9.                It is evident from the record that against the repair of the laptop, the OP issued invoice Ex. C1 of Rs.1180/- which includes CGST and SGST of Rs.180/-. Similarly, regarding the installation of antivirus software the OP issued a separate invoice Ex. C2 of Rs.670/-. However, as against this, the OP charged Rs.1887/- as is evident from the slip Ex. C3 generated by the debit card swapping machine through which the payment was made. In this regard, admittedly a sum of Rs.37/- has been charged extra on account of merchant discount rate. However, the Government of India through its notification dated 26.04.2018, copy of which is Ex. C4 on the file had waived of merchant discount rate (MDR) applicable on debit card//BHIM UPI/Aadhar-Pay in respect of the transactions less than or equal to Rs.2000/- in value for a period of two years from Ist January 2018 Thus, as per the notification Ex. C4, the OP was not competent to charge the extra amount of Rs.37/-. This falsely amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

10.              During the course of arguments, the counsel for the OP has argued that an extra amount of Rs.37/- was not charged by the OP but it was charged by HDFC Bank. However, to prove this allegation, the OP has not placed on record any document whereby the amount of Rs.37/- might have been charged by the HDFC Bank. Rather it is evident from the slip Ex. C3 that the OP swiped the card for an amount of Rs.1887/- instead of Rs.1850/-. The argument raised by the counsel for the OP is otherwise not tenable considering the fact that neither the OP nor its banker could charge any extra amount on account of merchant discount rate in view of the notification Ex. C4.

11.              It has further been contended by the counsel for the OP that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as some false allegations have been made in the complaint. The counsel for the OP has further contend that in the complaint, it has been claimed that the payment has been  made by the complainant Paramjit Singh whereas the debit card through which the payment was made belongs to one Hartaj Singh who is said to have been signed invoice Ex. C1 and Ex. C2. The counsel for the OP has relied upon 1994 AIR (SCW) 243 in S.P. Chengalwaraya Naidu (dead) by L.RS. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.RS and others whereby it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India that it is the duty of every litigant to come to the Court with true case and to prove it with true evidence, withholding of vital documents in order to gain advantage over the other parties by fraud and such decree obtained by fraud is liable to be held as nullity.

12.              We have thoughtfully considered the above contentions raised by the counsel for the OP but have found the same to be devoid of any force or substance. No doubt the invoice Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 are in the name of the complainant and the payment of Rs.1887/- is shown to have been made through the debit card of Hartaj Singh who is also said to have signed the invoice ex. C1 and Ex. C2. However, in our considered view, on this ground no adverse inference can be drawn against the complainant nor can it be held that he is guilty of perjury or fraud. Interestingly, the invoices Ex. C1 and Ex. C2 are not signed only by Hartaj Singh but also by the complainant. Apart from this, in the replication filed by the complainant, it has been clarified that the complainant made the payment of Rs.1887/- using debit card of his son Hartaj Singh. It would be pertinent to mention that the OP was concerned with payment and it hardly made a difference if the payment was made by the complainant using his own debit card or that of his son. Even otherwise, the issue in this case is as to whether or not the OP was entitled to charge the extra amount of Rs.37/- on account of merchant discount rate (MDR). Therefore, it cannot be said that sum perjury or fraud has been committed by the complainant or that the complainant is liable to be non-suited on these ground or the law laid down in S.P. Chengalwaraya Naidu (dead) by L.RS. Vs Jagannath (dead) by L.RS and others (Supra) which cannot be applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The OP is trying to obfuscate the issue to wriggle out of its liability by resorting to such pleas which are nothing but trivial.

13.              As a result of above discussion, it is held that the OP was not entitled to charge the extra amount of Rs.37/- on account of merchant discount rate (MDR) and in our considered view, it would be just and proper if the OP is made to refund the amount of Rs.37/-  charged extra from the complainant along with a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). It is ordered accordingly. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.   Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

 

14.              Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.

Paramjit Singh Vs Secant Technologies                           CC/19/511

Present:       None for complainant.

                   Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate for OP.

                  

                   None turned up for the complainant today also. None has been appearing on behalf of the complainant in this case since 08.02.2022.

                   Arguments on behalf of the counsel for the OP heard. Vide separate detailed order of today, the complaint is allowed with an order that the OP shall refund the amount of Rs.37/- charged from the complainant on account of merchant discount rate (MDR) along with a composite compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only). Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order.   Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:25.07.2022.

Gobind Ram.