CITI BANK Vs. J RAMSAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant case is thus: the complainant is a Citi Bank card holder bearing No.5425 5960 3825 7002 with validity till July, 1998. On 21.8.1997, he went to buy a wall clock from M/s. Saraspathy and Co. , a shop situated at Usman Road, Chennai. The shopkeeper refused to accept the card declaring that the same was invalid. He was not given reason by the shopkeeper. The complainant contacted the Citi Bank over phone from the same shop to check on the status of his card. He was informed by the bank that he had sufficient drawing power and also well within the fund limits. Still, the shopkeeper refused to accept the card without proper reason. Because of this complainant was put to shame amidst other customers in the shop and thus suffered loss of reputation. After the incident, the complainant did not receive any letter nor phone call or any other mode of communication from the Citi Bank stating that the card has been invalidated. When the complainant visited Delhi on 27.8.1997, he went to the shop known as "personality" where he was humiliated. On contacting the Citi Bank Branch at New Delhi, he was told that the card has been invalidated by the Citi Bank, Chennai. No proper reason was given. The complainant sent a registered letter to the opposite party for explanation for invalidation. They stated that the validity was misread by the Master Card Member Bank as 7/99 whereas it should be 7/97 instead of 7/98. It just shows that there was negligence on the part of the opposite party. During to the negligence and the deficiency in service, the complainant suffered loss of reputation. The allegation that the complainant left his card at the merchant establishment is false. He has his Bank card with him during his trip to Delhi. The card was withheld by "vitan" at Chennai on 2.9.1997. The opposite party failed to render proper, and due service to its consumer. Hence, the complainant prays for compensation of Rs.1.50 lakhs along with a sum of Rs.1,500/- towards costs.

(2.) In the version filed by the opposite party, the opposite party has stated as follows: it may be true that the complainant held a credit card issued by the Bank. As regards the incident dated 21.8.1997, the opposite party denies it. The member establishment is assigned a floor limit and any card member attempts to charge over the floor limit, then the member establishment contacts the opposite party for an authorization and only then this opposite party will be aware of the transaction. Otherwise any transaction within the floor limit need not be brought to knowledge of the opposite party. Therefore, any refusal or decline of the card of any card member by any member establishment cannot be known to this opposite party unless such merchant establishment specifically informs the Bank of the same. This opposite party cannot be held liable for any act done by any third party without their knowledge. Therefore, the allegations made in the paragraph 4 of the complaint are not true. The Bank had informed him about his sufficient drawing power and if at all the shopkeeper had refused for reasons best known to him, the opposite party cannot be taken for a task. The allegations made in the paragraph 5 of the complaint are denied as false. The complainant had himself informed in the earlier occasion about his intentions to surrender the credit card. The complainant allegations that there is deficiency in service cannot be accepted at all. There is no tangible evidence or proof. The opposite party prays that the complaint may be dismissed.

(3.) The lower Forum by its order dated 12.4.2000 directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and cost of Rs.500/-.