THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. (ADDL. BENCH)

DATED THIS THE 9^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2021

PRESENT

SRI RAVI SHANKAR – JUDICIAL MEMBER

SMT. SUNITA C.BAGEWADI - MEMBER

APPEAL NO. 1484/2019

Anwar Ahmed Azmi

Aged about 45 years,

S/o Akhlaque Ahamed(late),

No.1, 1^st Floor, 7^th Cross,

K.K.Lane, Behind Shantala Silks,

….Appellant/s.

(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

          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^rd Floor,

          Essel Chambers, Lalbagh road,

          Richmond Circle,

          Bangalore-560 027.

……….. Respondent/s

: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. 

2.       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 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.  

3.       After service of notice, the Opposite Parties appeared through t