BEFORE THE TELANGANASTATE CONSUMER DISPUTEs REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

FA.NO.324 OF 2017 AGAINST ORDERSI N CC.NO.234 OF 2016,D ISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION-RANGAR EDDY Between:

M/s.ICICI Bank Limited, Regional Office, Credit Card Division, Rep. by Manager, Flat No. 12, Nanakramguda,Gachibowli-Hyderabas(TS)

Representedby its POA holder and Authorized signatory Mr.HarshwardhanD eshmukh .Appellant/Opposite Party And MohammedAkber, S/o.MohammedH ussain, Aged about 33 years, Occ: Marketing Executive, R/o.H.No.9-1-1/77/1/1, Babunagar, Langer House, Defence Colony, Golconda, Hyderabad (TS).

Respondent/Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/Opp.Party:

Mr.S. Nagesh Reddy Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant:

Party-in-person QUORAM: ^SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL,H ON'BLE PRESIDENT, HON'BLE SMT.MEENA RAMANATHAN...LADY MEMBER FRIDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THoUSAND TwENTY Two *******

Order: (Per Smt.Meena Ramanathan, Hon'ble Lady Member)

1. This is an appeal filed U/s. 15 of Consumer Protection Act,1986 against the order dated 11.08.2017 of the District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, made in CC.No.234/2016 prayingthis Commission to set aside the impugned order and to allow the appeal. The Appellant is the Opposite Party and the Respondenti s the Complainantin CC.No.234/2016.

2 For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint.

3. Briefly stated, the ^facts are that the Complainant was approached by the representative of Opposite Party and offered a credit card wherein several benefits were shown thereof. In view of the persuasion and repeated insistence, the Complainant agreed to purchase the credit card and signed the necessary documents. On 21.04.2015, the Complainant used the credit card for an amount of Rs.20,000/- at Ratan Filling Station. The amount relating to this transaction was neither paid to the merchant establishment nor was the amount reimbursed to the Complainant. The debit entry continued in the credit card account statement. Despite several enquires, the Opposite Party has failed to provide a clarification and he is burdened with a sum of Rs.20,000/- + interest. Hence he has filed the present complaint to address his grievance.

4. The Opposite Party filed their written version resisting the complaint mainly on the ground that the transaction pertaining to 21.04.2015 at Ratan Filling Station for Rs.20,000/- is a commercial transaction and therefore, non-maintainable. It is also their submission that this Opposite Party made a payment of Rs.20,000/- to the acquirer HDFC Bank and necessary debit entries have been made in the Complainant'saccount. It is also their case that this OppositeParty raised several service requests to HDFC Bank through American Express.

5. Soon after receiving the notice and filing of complaint, the Opposite Party made a temporary credit of Rs.20,000/- to the account of the Complainant on 29-4-2015 subject to verification of settlement and entries. Their request to HDFC Bank was rejected and the temporary credit was reversed. The Opposite Party submits that they are not liable to make good the loss or pay compensation to the Complainant and it is necessary to implead the HDFC Bank in the complaint.The complaintis liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party and in the interest of justice.

6.

Before the District Forum, the Complainant filed evidence affidavit and Ex.A1 & A2 are marked on his behalf. Evidence affidavit of Opposite Party filed. Ex.B1 is marked on their behalf.

7. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering the material on record allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Party to pay an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards payment in respect of the transaction dated 21.04.2015 and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment suffered by the Complainantand costs of Rs.3,000/-

Time for compliance is one month, in default the Complainant is entitled for interest@ 12% p.a. on the above amount