Ambala Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Due To Lack Of Evidence, Recommends Need Of Regular Court

Ambala Consumer Commission Dismisses Complaint Due To Lack Of Evidence, Recommends Need Of Regular Court

A consumer complaint filed against IDFC First Bank and Ebix Travels in Ambala, Haryana was dismissed by a panel led by President Neetu Sandhu and Members Ruby Sharma and Vinod Kumar Sharma of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The commission said the case involved intricate details that needed more evidence and witness testimonies than what the consumer panel could handle. The complainant is free to take the case to a higher court.

The complaint stemmed from a credit card offered by IDFC First Bank at the time of opening a bank account. The credit card had a limit of ₹1,85,000. The consumer used this credit card to book two round-trip tickets from Dublin Airport to Delhi through Ebix Travels for a total of ₹1,07,112.95. However, despite the payment being made, the transaction was cancelled because Ebix failed to capture the amount. IDFC First Bank, however, deducted the ₹1,07,112.95 along with interest from the consumer's credit card balance, leading to further deductions from his bank account. The consumer contested these deductions, claiming they were illegal and continued despite repeated requests and legal notices to the bank. After receiving no satisfactory response from either IDFC First Bank or Ebix Travels, the consumer filed a consumer complaint with the District Commission.

IDFC First Bank fought the complaint on several fronts. Firstly, they challenged the authority of the District Commission in Ambala to hear the case. They also argued that the consumer was not actually a consumer in the legal sense applicable to such complaints. Additionally, the Bank claimed the complaint itself was flawed due to how the parties were included (joinder and misjoinder). They further argued the complaint was filed too late (time-barred) and that the credit card transaction fell under a contractual agreement, not consumer protection regulations. Finally, the Bank claimed the complainant used a "flex money facility" for the Ebix booking, not a credit card, and that the outstanding balance remained unpaid at ₹1,50,041.96.

Ebix defended itself by pointing to the terms and conditions of its agreement with the consumer. They argued that they acted as a facilitator for the travel booking, not the provider of the travel service itself. To support this, they referenced specific clauses in the agreement that exempted them from liability for situations beyond their control, such as delays, cancellations, or problems with the airline or service provider. Ebix also claimed they never received payment for the cancelled tickets and that the consumer never informed them about the issue.

Despite both IDFC First Bank and Ebix submitting arguments and defences, the District Commission found their evidence lacking. The Commission pointed out the intricate nature of the case, requiring significant evidence and witness testimonies to determine if there were any service shortcomings. Due to this complexity, they concluded the case was not suited for the streamlined procedures of a consumer forum.

The Commission emphasised that consumer forums are designed to handle cases where claims are clear-cut and evidence is readily available. This allows for quicker resolutions compared to the often lengthy processes of civil courts.

While the District Commission dismissed the complaint due to the complexities of the case, it offered the consumer an alternative path to seek resolution. The Commission informed the consumer of his right to pursue the case in a regular court of law. Additionally, it mentioned the possibility of requesting "condensation of delay" under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This legal provision allows courts to waive time limitations if the delay in filing the lawsuit can be justified by the time spent pursuing the case before the District Commission.