STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD Vs. JOGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The opposite parties in O.P. No. 951 of 1999 on the file of the District Forum, Chennai (South) are the appellants herein.

(2.) The facts leading to the appeal are as under : The complainant was the holder of Standard Chartered Bank Gold Card with a credit limit of Rs. 1 lakh. When he swiped his credit card at Khazana Jewellery (Merchant Establishment) on 30.9.1999, the machine at the said jewellery refused to accept the card. The complainant requested the merchant establishment to check up if there was any fault in the machine. He was informed that there was no fault. He was asked to pay cash. He felt humiliated and embarrassed. He had another credit card and was able to pay the bill. The complainant sent a letter seeking explanation from O.P. 1. O.P. 1 sent a reply admitting the inconvenience caused to the complainant and apologizing for the same. The information as to inbuilt system parameters was informed by O.P. 1, for the first time to the complainant. The procedure adopted by the opposite parties was not made known to the complainant at the time of applying for the card. The complainant was a person with a high standing and reputation in society and the incident that took place at Khazana Jewellery was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and had defamed the complainant. The complainant was entitled to be paid Rs. 1 lakh for damages, Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony and Rs. 1 lakh for the loss of reputation.

(3.) The opposite parties resisted the complaint in the following manner : The Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction as the parties were bound by the jurisdiction of Courts at Bangalore only. There were certain security measures for jewellery transaction. The card had not been honoured at the first attempt due to security measures. The security imposed by the opposite parties was not informed to the complainant for security reasons. The dishonouring of transaction was not made with a view to humiliate or embarrass the complainant in any manner and this was explained to the complainant/card holder. The security measures were for the benefit of the card holder. There was no deficiency in service. The opposite party did not admit that the complainant was a leading businessman though he was in export business. The rules provided that the bank reserved unto itself the absolute discretion and liberty to decline or honour the authorisation requests on the card without assigning any reason whatsoever. The claim for Rs. 3 lakh was fanciful and frivolous.