The Manager M/S Icici Bank Ltd vs M/S. Salecha International
2021 Latest Caselaw 5475 Kant

                               1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                          BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

     CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.252 OF 2013 (SC)

BETWEEN:

1.     THE MANAGER
       M/S. ICICI BANK LTD.,
       G.P.O. BOX NO.10899
       MUMBAI-400 001

2.     THE MANAGER
       M/S. ICICI BANK LTD.,
       "PRESTIGE OBELISK", 10TH FLOOR,
       KASTURBA ROAD,
       BANGALORE-560 001.

3.     THE MANAGER
       M/S. ICICI BANK LTD.,
       O.T.C ROAD BRANCH,
       BANGALORE-560 053.
                                         ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. SRIDEVI. K.B., ADVOCATE FOR
    JAI M. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     M/S. SALECHA INTERNATIONAL
       A PROPRIETORSHIP BUSINESS CONCERN HAVING
       ITS PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT
       NO.183/5, I FLOOR, NANDI EXPORT HOUSE
       NAGARTHPET, BANGALORE 560 002
       REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
       SRI NEMICHAND JAIN.

2.     SRI. SUNIL KUMAR PINPOLU
                              2




     AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
     SON OF RAJAGOPAL PINPOLU
     RESIDING AT NO.1261,
     RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE NAGAR
     BANGALORE-560042.
                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SHIVAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.1;
VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2019, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT
NO.2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

     THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 18 OF SMALL
CAUSES COURTS ACT, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE
DATED 31.10.2012 PASSED IN S.C.NO.1436/2009 ON THE FILE
OF THE XIX ADDL. JUDGE, COURT OF SMALL CAUSES,
BANGALORE, DECREEING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF MONEY.

      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL DISPOSAL THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                          ORDER

This revision petition under Section 18 of the Small

Causes Courts Act is filed by defendants No.1, 2 and 3 in

S.C. No.1436/2009, challenging the judgment and decree

dated 31.10.2012 passed by XIX Additional Judge, Court of

Small Causes, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as 'Trial

Court' for short) by which the suit for recovery of a sum of

`36,000/- was decreed along with interest at 24% per

annum from 02.07.2008, till the date of realisation.

2. A suit in S.C.No.1436/2009 was filed to

recover a sum of `36,000/- along with interest at 24% per

annum from 02.07.2008 till its realisation. The plaintiff

claimed that it had used a EDC machine supplied by

defendants No.1 to 3 to enable the customers to make

purchases on their credit cards. The plaintiff claimed that

the defendant - Bank had provided rolling paper to

preserve a carbon copy as an additional document in proof

of the transactions brought about by customers using their

credit cards. The plaintiff forwarded the statement of

accounts to the defendant - Bank to enable it to debit the

account of credit card holders in respect of the credit

purchases made and to credit the same into the account of

the plaintiff. In the course of such engagement, the

defendant No.4 purchased kitchen articles and electronic

items using his Citi Bank credit card on two occasions. On

both the occasions he was allowed to purchase using the

credit card which was swiped on the EDC machine. The

plaintiff raised a credit invoice and also got the slip

generated from the EDC machine. It also obtained a copy

of the driving licence of defendant No.4 for identification.

However, the plaintiff was surprised to note that the

defendants No.1 to 3 Bank had refused to credit the

amount concerning this transaction. The defendant

claimed that the slip generated from the EDC machine was

not visible and that therefore, it was not liable to credit the

purchase value to the account of the plaintiff. Hence, a

suit was filed to recover a sum of `36,000/- along with

interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 02.07.2008 till

the date of realisation.

3. The defendants No.1 to 3 contested the suit

and claimed that the plaintiff was a Merchant

Establishment registered with it and was therefore,

expected to accept payment by credit card. It claimed

that the defendant No.4 had denied the usage of the credit

card to make purchases with the plaintiff. Consequently, it

contended that when a customer denied the transaction, it

was its duty to verify the signature and if the customer

satisfied that he was defrauded in the usage of credit card,

it was its duty to withdraw the payment. Therefore, it

denied the payment to plaintiff.

4. Based on these contentions, the case was set

down for trial. The Proprietor of the plaintiff was examined

as PW1, who marked documents as Exs.P1 to P11, while

an authorised representative of defendants 1 to 3 was

examined as D.W.1 and he marked a power of attorney as

Ex.D1.

5. Based on the oral and documentary evidence,

the Trial Court held that the plaintiff had proved the

transaction effected by defendant No.4 on his credit card

and hence decreed the suit and directed the defendants

No.1 to 3 to pay a sum of `36,000/- along with interest at

24% per annum from 02.07.2008 till the date of its

realisation.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment

and Decree, the defendants No.1 to 3 have filed this

appeal.

7. The learned counsel for the defendants No.1 to

3 submitted that the defendant No.4 had lodged a

complaint that the transaction in question was not done by

him and therefore, he was not bound to pay the invoice

value of such transaction. She also contended that the

Trial Court granted interest at the rate of 24% per annum

even though there was no agreement to pay interest and

there was no justification for claiming interest @ 24% p.a.

She contended that the Trial Court ought to have granted

pendente lite interest not exceeding 6% p.a., which is

prescribed under Section 34 of CPC.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff,

on the other hand, contended that the defendants did not

dispute the fact that the credit card of defendant No.4 was

swiped on the EDC machine provided by defendants No.1

to 3. The plaintiff exercised due diligence by obtaining

copy of Driving Licence of defendant No.4 and therefore, it

was just enough to establish that the transaction was

genuine. He submitted that if the transaction was not

genuine, either the defendant No.4 must have lodged a

complaint with police or the defendants No.1 to 3 must

have done so. He submitted that though DW1 deposed

that defendant No.4 had lodged a complaint with Citibank

and that the Citibank had complained to defendants No.1

to 3, they did not produce the said complaint. Therefore,

he contended that the defendants No.1 to 3 were not

justified in denying the payment to the plaintiff. He

submitted that the plaintiff had raised a loan to do

business and was paying interest at more than 21% p.a.

and therefore, he was entitled to claim interest at 24%

p.a. from defendants No.1 to 3.

9. I have considered the submissions of learned

counsel for the parties.

10. I have also perused the records of the Trial

Court as well as its judgment and the grounds urged by

defendants in this appeal.

11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff was a

Merchant Establishment registered with defendants No.1 to

3. It is also not in dispute that defendants No.1 to 3 had

provided an EDC machine so as to enable the customers of

the plaintiff to purchase using their credit cards. In the

case on hand, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant No.4

had purchased kitchen articles worth `36,000/- by using

the credit card. The documents marked by the plaintiff,

namely, the original cash invoice , original bank charge

slip, statement of transaction between 01.11.2008 to

30.11.2008, clearly indicate that the defendant No.4 had

used his credit card at the business Establishment of the

plaintiff to make purchases. Though DW1 claimed that the

credit card was issued by Citibank and that defendant No.4

had lodged a complaint with Citibank about the fraudulent

usage of his card and that Citibank had complained to

defendants No.1 to 3, no document was marked in

evidence to support such a claim. If the transaction was

fraudulent, then it was for the defendants No.1 to 3 to

establish it by producing acceptable evidence, which in the

present case, they have miserably failed. Thus, the Trial

Court was thoroughly justified in decreeing the suit.

12. However, insofar as the rate of interest is

concerned, the invoice at Ex.P1 showed that interest at the

rate of 12% p.a. would be charged if the payment is not

received within 30 days. This can be construed as the

contractual rate of interest agreed between the parties.

Therefore, the plaintiff was not justified in claiming interest

at the rate of 24% p.a. Even otherwise, under Section 34

of CPC, interest cannot exceed the contractual rate of

interest.

13. In that view of the matter, the Revision

Petition is allowed in part and the Judgment and Decree

passed by the Trial Court in S.C. No.1436/2009 in so far as

it relates to decreeing the suit for a sum of `36,000/- is

upheld, but the rate of interest is reduced from 24% p.a.

to 12% p.a. from 02.07.2008 till the date of realisation.

Parties shall bear their own costs.

14. Any amount in deposit shall be released to the

plaintiff/respondent, which shall be adjusted against the

suit claim and the plaintiff/respondent shall be entitled to

pursue the defendants for the balance.

Sd/-

JUDGE

hnm