MADEMOISELLE BOUTIQUE Vs. AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD
LAWS(DELCDRC)-2006-9-2
DELHI STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on September 14,2006

Mademoiselle Boutique Appellant
VERSUS
AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE complaint of the appellant seeking compensation for the termination of service establishment agreement without assigning any reason was dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.5.2001 passed by the District Forum.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal.
(3.) THE case of the appellant before the District Forum in brief was that the appellant was running a shop for sale of garments in Defence Colony and had an agreement for honouring the credit cards issued by the American Express Bank. In May, 1998 a card member of the respondent came to the shop of the appellant and purchased garments worth Rs. 2 lakh on 28.5.1998 and wanted to make payment through credit card. The appellant got authorisation from the bank. The customer requested the appellant not to deposit the vouchers immediately because of her financial difficulties. The appellant had also talked to Mr. Hanumant at customer service of the respondent -bank on phone and explained to him the aforesaid situation. He assured the appellant that he had already taken authorisation from the respondent and it was entered into the computers and, there will be no problem if the appellant deposited the credit card vouchers after 2 or 3 months. It was further the case of the appellant that the vouchers were misplaced but he informed the respondent -bank who assured him that the vouchers would be honoured as soon as they were located. Even the purchaser informed the appellant in August 1998 that a sum of Rs. 2 lakh had been debited to her account by the bank. In April, 1999 the appellant sought fresh authorisation from the bank and the respondent informed that since authorisation had already been taken, no fresh authorisation was necessary. On 16.4.1999 the appellant deposited the vouchers but no payment was received inspite of lapse of more than one year. Consequently instant complaint was filed before the District Forum. According to the respondent the agreement between the parties was as principal to principal where the respondent does not provide any service or goods to the appellant in return for consideration. The respondent charges 3.9% commission in accordance with the agreement between the parties and if any dispute does exist, it is triable by the Civil Court. It was further stated by the respondent that the appellant had to claim the payment within 10 days from the date of incurrence of charge as per the Clause 5 of agreement between the parties and even otherwise, it was mandatory for the appellant to send summary of charge form every week failing which respondent was not liable for any lapse on the part of the cardholder. It was also contended that the card holder had played fraud upon the bank and, therefore, liable qua the appellant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.