Axis Bank told to pay compensation

Mohali, October 3
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum has penalised Axis Bank for failing to fulfil its promise of issuing return flight vouchers to two account holders under the ‘go East or West’ scheme. One of the complainants had made transactions of Rs 1 lakh and the other of Rs 50,000 through their debit cards.
Holding the bank responsible for deficiency in service, the forum, comprising its president BS Mehandiratta and members SS Dhaliwal and HK Ghuman, directed the bank to pay Rs 1 lakh as compensation for harassment to Raja Abrol and Rs 50,000 to Rohit Guleria.
In their complaint to the forum, Abrol and Guleria of Sector 67 here stated that the bank had floated a promotional scheme through the TLC Agency in November, 2007.
Under the scheme, an account holder spending Rs1 lakh or more through his debit card was entitled to a return flight voucher from London, Paris, Zurich, Milan or Amsterdam.
Abrol had sent his form, also mentioning therein the name of his friend, who was also eligible to travel under an Asian flight voucher.
As per clause 13 of the terms and conditions, the bank was to contact the complainants within 30 days of receiving the vouchers to finalise the booking, but it did not do so.
When the complainants tried to contact the bank through its helpline number to enquire, they were assured that they would receive a phone call regarding the vouchers soon.
They only received repeated assurances for a few months that their request was being processed. During this time, not even once did any bank representative point out non-receipt or the invalidity of vouchers.
Abrol had further stated that he bought a one-year membership of Exotic Time Club for Rs 4,990 to stay at a hotel for four nights and five days worldwide. He had added that the one-year membership remained unused and lapsed on June 30, 2008, causing him financial loss and humiliation.
On being questioned, the bank denied any deficiency in service or negligence on its part. It stated that the offer in question was a promotional offer, made available to specific eligible customers who fulfilled all conditions.
It further said the offer was not a service given in the regular course of business to customers. After hearing the arguments of both parties, the forum held the bank guilty of deficiency in service.