Complainant failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party: Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN BANGALORE First Appeal No. A 1484 2019 Date of Filing : 30 Oct 2019 Arisen out of Order Dated 24 07 2017 in Case No. CC 1289 2015 of District Bangalore 3rd 1. Anwar Ahmed Azmi Major S o Akhlaque Ahmed(Late) No.1 1st floor 7th cross K.K.Lane Behind Shantala Silks Cottonpet 1. M s Onemi AASAAN Retail Pvt. Ltd The Rain Tree Plac 2B New No.7 Mc Nicholas road Chetpet Chennai 600031 Regd. office at: Alsa Residency 165 Eldams road Alwartpet 2. M s HDFC Bank Rep. by its Manager Credit Cards Division No.8 Lattice Brigade road Thiruvanmayur Chennai 600018 Also at M s HDFC Bank Rep. by the Manager Credit Cards Division No.7 & 7 1 3rd floor Essel Chambers Lalbagh road Richmond circle Bangalore 560027 HON BLE MR. Ravishankar PRESIDING MEMBER HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi MEMBER Dated : 09 Nov 2021 Final Order Judgement THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BANGALORE.No.1 1 Floor 7 Cross K.K.Lane Behind Shantala Silks By Shri H.S.Poornima Adv. Versus 1. M s Onemi Aasaan Retail Pvt. Ltd. The Rain Tree Place 2B. New No.7 MC Nicholas Road Chetpet Chennai 600 031 2 Regd Office at:Alsa Regency 165 Eldams Road Alwarpet Chennai 600 018 2. M s HDFC Bank Rep. by its Manager Credit Cards Division No.8 Lattice Brigade Road Thiruvanmayur Chennai 600 041 Also at : M s HDFC Bank Rep. by its Manager Credit Cards Division No.7 & 7 1 3 Floor Essel Chambers Lalbagh road Richmond Circle Bangalore 560 027 ORDERS ON ADMISSION BY SRI.RAVI SHANKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER The complainant before the District Commission in C.C.No.1289 2015 has preferred this appeal against the order passed by the Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. The brief facts of the complaint are as under: The complainant had a credit card facility from Opposite Party Bank and he used to receive advertisement for purchase of various commodities along with his credit card statement promoting online shopping through HDFC Bank’s online shopping services. Believing the said advertisement the complainant purchased KENT water purifier through his credit card. The said order was placed in the name of his son Khasim and was to be delivered to Azamgarh Uttar 3 Pradesh. But after the placement of the said water purifier it was not delivered. In spite of that the Opposite Party bank has started deducting EMIs from 12.03.2014. The complainant made so many efforts and visited card division on 12.07.2014 13.07.2014 and again on 15.07.2014 but he received a reply from Opposite Party Bank apologized for the delay caused and assured to inform the product dispatch details immediately. Again the complainant registered a complaint as SR00034469 but after that the complainant had not received any details with respect to non delivery of the product. In spite of that the Opposite Parties have deducted Rs.15 450 as EMIs towards purchase of the said KENT R.O. Purifier. Hence alleged deficiency in service and prays for compensation and refund of the deducted amount. After service of notice the Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel and filed the version contenting that the complainant is a credit card holder and they have provided all facilities as per the terms and conditions and he is a credit card holder bearing No.5242160001614725. The complainant availed card agreeing to pay over dues of his card account promptly and also impliedly agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement. This card holder bank is not responsible for the promises made by any of the services assured by merchant establishment. In this complaint the complainant requested this Opposite Party to convert the price sum of purchased of his KENT water purifier of Rs.14 750 into installments for which this Opposite Party agreed and accordingly proceeded the request and allowed the complainant to make payment on EMI basis. The complainant informed that he had not received the purchased item and requested the Opposite Party bank to stop processing EMI payments towards the said purchase. Immediately the Opposite Party Bank called the Opposite Party No.1 to produce material proof and documents towards delivery of purchased item to the complainant. As the Opposite Party No.1 failed to furnish the material proof supported by documents the Opposite Party bank immediately reversed such EMIs sum paid by the complainant to the card account of the complainant which is reflected in statement of accounts dated:15.11.2014. They also informed about the reversal of the credit permanently to the card account through ‘e’ mail dated:23.10.2014. Further the respondent has taken a contention in the complaint that the complainant was due of Rs.20 049.49 which was reflected in statement of accounts therein. Pursuant to credit reversal of Rs.7 463.45 and complainant is liable to pay outstanding due. Instead of paying the said dues the complainant approached the District Commission without any basis and filed the false complaint in order to gain wrongfully. Hence submits no deficiency in service and prays for dismissal of the complaint. After trial the District Commission dismissed the complaint and noticed that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party in recovering the outstanding due of the credit card issued to the complainant. Being aggrieved by the said order the complainant is in appeal on various grounds We have heard the arguments on admission On going through the memorandum of appeal certified copy of the order passed by the District Commission we noticed that there is no dispute that the alleged transaction was failed due to non delivery of the KENT water purifier. The complainant knowing fully that the outstanding EMIs were cancelled and amount already paid was credited to his account and the same was informed to the complainant through ‘e’ mail by Opposite Party on 15 11 2014. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the contention taken by the Opposite Party and found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. 4 The learned counsel for appellant had not clarified before this Commission that how much he is due towards credit card with respect to the other transactions. The appellant neither produced any documents before the District commission nor before us to show that the Opposite Party has deducted EMIs even after the cancellation of the said particular transaction. As such we found there is no any merit in the appeal and also no illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. The appellant complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following: The appeal is dismissed at the state of admission. No costs The impugned order dated:24.07.2017 passed by III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in C.C.No.1289 2015 is hereby confirmed. Send a copy of this order to both parties as well as Concerned District Commission Sd Sd Member. Judicial Member HON BLE MR. Ravishankar HON BLE MRS. Smt.Sunita Channabasappa Bagewadi 5 

Summary: The appellant did not clarify how much he owes on his credit card for the other transactions and did not produce any documents before the District Commission to show that the Opposite Party deducted EMIs even after the transaction was cancelled. Thus, no deficiency on the part of OP could be established. This was observed in the matter of Anwar Ahmed Azmi v. M/s Onemi, AASAAN Retail Pvt. Ltd and M/s HDFC Bank, [A/1484/2019], before Hon’ble Judicial Member, Sri Ravi Shankar and Hon’ble Member, Smt. Sunita C. Bagewadi. The brief facts of the dispute are as follows; the complainant had a credit card from the opposing party/bank and received advertisements for the purchase of different goods together with his credit card statement promoting online shopping through HDFC Bank’s online shopping services. The appellant used his credit card to purchase a KENT water purifier after trusting the advertisement. However, the water purifier was not delivered after it was ordered. The OP contended that, the appellant was a credit card holder and all the relevant facilities were provided to him and that the bank cannot be made accountable for any kind of promise made by a merchant establishment. It was the appellant who asked for the payment to be in instalments and the OP merely complied to this request. When he informed the OP about not receiving the product the bank called OP 2 to provide for details regarding the delivery of the purchased product. On its failure, the bank reversed the EMIs and the amount was credited to the complainant’s account. The same was intimated to him via e-mail. The Commission observed, “we noticed that there is no dispute that the alleged transaction was failed due to non-delivery of the KENT water purifier. The complainant knowing fully that the outstanding EMIs were cancelled and amount already paid was credited to his account and the same was informed to the complainant through ‘e’ mail by Opposite Party on 15/11/2014. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the contention taken by the Opposite Party and found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party…. The appellant neither produced any documents before the district commission nor before us to show that the Opposite Party has deducted EMIs even after the cancellation of the said particular transaction. As such we found there is no any merit in the appeal and also no illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. The appellant/complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”