BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH
Consumer Complaint No : 528 of 2013
Date of Institution : 20.09.2013
Date of Decision : 08.01.2014
M.K.Malhotra son of late Sh.T.R.Malhotra, resident of House No.2308, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh…..…..Complainant
V E R S U S
1] M/s. Suksh Technology Private Limited, Salarpuria Hallmark, 15/3@16, 4th Floor, Kadubeesanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Banglore 560087, through its Managing Director.
2] Shreyans Chopra, Chief Executive Officer, M/s suksh Technology Private Limited, Salarpuria Hallmark, 15/3@16, 4th Floor, Kadubeesanahalli, Outer Ring Road, Banglore 560087
3] ICICI Bank Ltd., SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.
CORAM: P.L. AHUJA PRESIDENT
RAJINDER SINGH GILL MEMBER
MRS.SURJEET KAUR MEMBER
Argued by:- Complainant in person.
OPs No.1 & 2 exparte.
Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP-3.
PER SURJEET KAUR, MEMBER
1] Sh.M.K.Malhotra, Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against M/s. Suksh Technology Pvt. Ltd. & others/Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the “OPs”). The case of the complainant is that the OPs No.1 & 2 are the owners of the website 100bestbuy.com and on 18.1.2013, while using the internet, the complaint got a flash message/advertisement from the OPs No.1 & 2 through their website to the effect “Win a Samsung Galaxy S-3 Mobile for Rs.599/- only – Pay & get a chance to win – You either win or we refund 100% of your money”. The complainant being allured by the said advertisement, submitted the particulars of the visa card of ICICI Bank bearing Savings Bank Account No.001301585883 in the name of his son Mr.Apoorva Malhotra for making the online payment of Rs.599/-. The complainant immediately received the message from the OPs No.1 & 2 that the payment transaction has failed and he was asked to reinitiate the payment. As such, the complainant again reinitiated the payment for making online payment of Rs.599/- through the said visa card about four times but every time a message was received from the OPs No.1 & 2 that the transaction has failed.
It is averred that during the intervening period, the complainant got another similar message flashed by the OPs No.1 & 2 for another contest to Win a Samsung Mobile by making a payment of Rs.99/- only or the Company will refund 100% of your money. The complainant filled up the form giving his particulars as well as the particulars of Visa Card for making online payment of Rs.99/-, but he did not receive any response. The copies of the emails received from the OPs No.1 & 2 showing all the payment transactions having been failed on 18.1.2013 are annexed as Ann.C-1. However, the complainant was shocked to know that inspite of all the said payments transactions having been failed, still the OPs deducted an amount of Rs.1896/- from the bank account of his son Mr.Apoorva Malhotra (Annexure C-2). The complainant brought the matter to the notice of the OPs by sending e-mails (Ann.C-3) and also tried to contact the Officers of the OPs at their helpline and customer care numbers, but no response or refund was received from the OPs even though a scanned copy of the bank statement dated 15.3.2013 was also sent to them (Ann.C-4). It is pleaded that the OPs have illegally withheld the amount of Rs.1896/- of the complainant and not refunded the same inspite of several requests. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging the said act of the OPs as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2] The OPs No.1 & 2 did not turn up despite service, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 25.11.2013.
The OP No.3 has filed the reply and denied that the OP Bank is in any manner concerned or is the owner of the alleged website. It is admitted that the card has been used for the purpose of making the online payment. It is denied that the transaction had failed as alleged. It is stated that the transaction had been completed on three different occasions and the amount was accordingly deducted from the account maintained with the bank. It is also stated that the deficiency in service, if any, is on the part of OPs No.1 & 2 and not of the OP bank. It is further stated that the complainant had authorized the deduction of the amounts from the account maintained with the OP bank. It is pleaded that the complainant never raised any dispute with the OP Bank at any stage about the alleged wrongful deduction. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint.
However, later on, the OP No.3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 11.12.2013 as none had appeared on its behalf.
3] Parties led evidence.
4] We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for OP No.3 and have also perused the record as well as written arguments filed by the complainant.
5] A perusal of the file reveals that the complainant had used the Savings Bank account in the name of his son Mr.Apoorva Malhotra with ICICI Bank (OP-3) for the purposes of making online payment and he had authorized the debit of money from the said account through internet transaction. The debit made from the said account has been successfully done. The transaction has been cleared on 3 different occasions and the amount was accordingly deducted from the account maintained with the OP NO.3 Bank. This deduction from the account maintained with the Bank (OP-3) is proved on record. So, the OP NO.3 is not responsible for any wrongful action against the complainant.
6] However, the refusal on the part of the OPs No.1 & 2, inspite of getting the payment by giving the message that “The payment for a transaction booked on your site has failed. Click on the below link to reinitiate the payment.”, [Ann.C-1] is certainly an unfair trade practice. Also the non-appearance of OPs No.1 & 2 despite notices through registered post proves their malafide intention.
7] During the pendency of the present complaint, the complainant has received a cheque No.002549, dated 15.11.2013 for Rs.1896/- drawn on HDFC Bank, Banglore, Karnataka, copy of which is annexed as Annexure C-6. Therefore, sending of cheque by OPs No.1 & 2 proves deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on their part. Even if, the OPs No.1 & 2 have sent a cheque of Rs.1896/- to the complainant, during pendency of the complaint, still they caused a lot of physical harassment and mental agony to the complainant.
8] For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that the complaint deserves to be partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2. Therefore, the complaint stands partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are jointly & severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.3500/- to the complainant towards compensation and litigation cost, within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which they shall be liable to pay awarded amount of Rs.3500/- along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing of this complaint i.e. 20.9.2013 till realization.
9] However, the complaint qua OP No.3 stands dismissed.
Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.