Blog

The appellant did not clarify how much he owes on his credit card for the other transactions and did not produce any documents before the District Commission to show that the Opposite Party deducted EMIs even after the transaction was cancelled. Thus, no deficiency on the part of OP could be established. This was observed in the matter of Anwar Ahmed Azmi v. M/s Onemi, AASAAN Retail Pvt. Ltd and M/s HDFC Bank, [A/1484/2019], before Hon’ble Judicial Member, Sri Ravi Shankar and Hon’ble Member, Smt. Sunita C. Bagewadi.

The brief facts of the dispute are as follows; the complainant had a credit card from the opposing party/bank and received advertisements for the purchase of different goods together with his credit card statement promoting online shopping through HDFC Bank’s online shopping services. The appellant used his credit card to purchase a KENT water purifier after trusting the advertisement. However, the water purifier was not delivered after it was ordered. The OP contended that, the appellant was a credit card holder and all the relevant facilities were provided to him and that the bank cannot be made accountable for any kind of promise made by a merchant establishment. It was the appellant who asked for the payment to be in instalments and the OP merely complied to this request. When he informed the OP about not receiving the product the bank called OP 2 to provide for details regarding the delivery of the purchased product. On its failure, the bank reversed the EMIs and the amount was credited to the complainant’s account. The same was intimated to him via e-mail.

The Commission observed, “we noticed that there is no dispute that the alleged transaction was failed due to non-delivery of the KENT water purifier. The complainant knowing fully that the outstanding EMIs were cancelled and amount already paid was credited to his account and the same was informed to the complainant through ‘e’ mail by Opposite Party on 15/11/2014. The District Commission has rightly appreciated the contention taken by the Opposite Party and found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party…. The appellant neither produced any documents before the district commission nor before us to show that the Opposite Party has deducted EMIs even after the cancellation of the said particular transaction. As such we found there is no any merit in the appeal and also no illegality in the order passed by the District Commission. The appellant/complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. As such the appeal is liable to be dismissed.”

Click Here to Read the Judgement

Judgement Reviewed by Vagisha Sagar