R.Kathirvel, S/o.Rajagopal,
25-Lal Bagathur colony, Peelamedu,
Coimbatore-641 004 --- Complainant
Vs.
1. Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corpn.Ltd.
The Sales Manager, M/s.HSBC,Card Services,
Race Course, Coimbatore – 641 018.
2. The Manager, M/s.HSBC,Card Services,
Ambalhouse,610,Annasalai,Chennai-6. Opposite Parties
---
This case coming on for final hearing before us on 26.3.2009 in the presence of Mr.S.Rajendran, Advocate for complainant and of Mr.A.Sanjaykumar, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments of the complainant's side and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER


Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties 1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay interest at the rate of 35.4% p.a. on the collected amount of Rs.11,695/- from 12.6.07 to 30.11.07, Rs.4 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and to pay costs.


The case of the complaint are as follows:


1.The Complainant has availed the credit card facilities through the 1st opposite party in the month of April 2007 vide Credit Card No.4476929992229614 vide his account No.232-834416-606. Believing the opposite party's representation the complainant had also agreed to avail TATA AIG Maharaksha Family Insurance Policy for his following family members: 2) K.Lalitha, aged 30 years, 3) R.Rajagopal aged 65 yrs, 4) Gajalakshmi aged 60 yrs. Accordingly the opposite parties have started to debit an amount of Rs.974.58 in the name of TATA AIG General Insurance BU Mumbai from 12.6.07 every month periodically till November 2007. But the complainant was not even informed about the details of Maharaksha Family Insurance Policy number, coverage period etc.


2.In the month of December 2007, without the knowledge and consent of the complainant, the opposite parties have unauthorized and illegally again deducted an amount of Rs.5847.52 being the balance 6 instalments for one year coverage of alleged insurance policy in the name of TATA AIG Insurance Co. BU Mumbai. On the same day, the opposite parties have also given credit to the sum of Rs.11,695 to the complainant's credit card as if said TATA AIG Insurance Co. has repaid it. Without having any proper authority and without following any procedure the opposite parties have unauthorisedly and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.11,695 from the complainant's credit card account. The opposite parties have committed deficiency of customer service to the complainant. The complainant has suffered unbearable mental agony because of the opposite parties illegal activities.


3.The complainant sent a legal notice to the opposite parties on 19.4.08,calling upon to pay an amount of Rs.4 lakhs as compensation to the complainant within 7 days. But though the opposite parties received the legal notices, they failed to pay the said amount of compensation but sent a preliminary reply to the complainant to allow them to investigate the matter conclusively and to given final response to the complainant by their letter dt.25.4.07. On 13.5.08 the opposite parties again sent a final letter to the complainant directly admitting the deduction of amount for the TATA AIG policy premiums, and non issuance of policy in favour of the complainant and refund of amount as a result of alleged cancellation towards the TATA AIG Policy premium to the card account of the complainant. They have also informed to the complainant that they had also reversed an amount of Rs.1000 towards finance charges levied to the card account of the complainant. Finally the opposite parties denied the liability to pay the compensation claimed by the complainant. Hence this complaint.


The case of the Opposite parties are as follows:


4. This complaint is barred by limitation. The entire complaint relates to the non-issuance of the insurance policy by TATA AIG General Insurance Co.Ltd. But insurance company is not added as party. The complainant is having a SB account with the opposite party and also a subscriber of credit card from the opposite party from April 2007. The opposite party has not play any role whatsoever in either selling the insurance policy or providing the same. The opposite party's role is only receive payment from the credit card holder and transmit the same to the insurance company. As per the information provided by the insurance company the complainant had opted for the TATA AIG Maharaksha Family Insurance Policy. On the basis of information the opposite party started debiting the account of the complainant with Rs.974 pm. from July 2007 onwards. Similarly every month the opposite party credits the account of the insurance company with a sum of Rs.974.58. From the reading of the complaint is clear that the grievance of the complainant is that the insurance company has not insured him the policy document. Instead the policy has been cancelled. The allegation that the opposite party debiting the premium from the complainant's credit card from 12.6.06 is correct. The allegation that the opposite party has not informed the complainant of the insurance policy details is denied. It is denied that the opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.5847 without the consent and knowledge of the complainant and the insurance company informed the opposite party that they had cancelled the policy the opposite party debited the entire premium amount of Rs.11695 into the account of the complainant and re-credited the same. The allegation that the opposite party is not remitting the amount to the insurance company is false. In fact as a gesture of courtesy to the complainant the opposite party also credited a further sum of Rs.1000to the account of the complainant. The opposite party has not adopted any unfair trade practice for the purpose of credit cards. There is no deficiency or default in providing service as a credit card company.


5. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit on his side and Ex.A1 to A19 were marked and the opposite parties has not filed the proof affidavit and not filed documents even after giving sufficient time.


6. The point for consideration is
1.Whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?


ISSUE 1:


6. The case of the complainant is that believing the 1st opposite party representation the complainant had agreed to avail TATA AIG Maharaksha Family Insurance policy for himself and his family members, the opposite parties have started to debit an amount of Rs.974 from 12.6.07 and without his consent deducted an amount of Rs.11695, but the complainant was not even informed about the details of insurance policy number coverage period etc. inspite of repeated requests.


7 . The case of the opposite parties is that his role is only receive payment from the credit card holder and transmit the same to the insurance company. The grievance of the complainant is against the insurance company only. The policy has been cancelled. In these circumstances the opposite parties debited the entire premium amount of Rs.11695 into the account of the complainant and re-credited the same.

8. The admitted facts are:-


1. The complainant is having a SB account with the opposite
party, and he is a credit card holder.
2. The opposite party started debiting the account of the
complainant with Rs.974 p.m. from July 2007
3. The opposite party deducted an amount of Rs.5847 during
December 2007 being the balance 6 instalments for one year
4. On the same day during December 2007 the opposite party
has given credit to a sum of Rs.11695/-.

9. The contention of the opposite party as per para 16 of the Written version , that the money deducted was remitted along with other customers premium money to the insurance company is not proved by way of documents. The opposite party has not filed any document to prove that the insurance policy has been cancelled. The complainant has written several letters through E.Mail to the opposite parties but there was no proper reply to the complainant about the policy or remittance. The Extract of letter by the complainant and reply from the opposite party is given below:-

Ex.A1,
Date: Fri, 26 Oct.2007 07:32:12-0700(PDT)
From: "rajagopal Kathirvel" vishnukathir@yahooo.com
Subject: Claim regarding – Maharaksha policy
To : helpline@tata-aig.com
CC : info@hsbc.co.in
Dear Sir/Madam,
"As I am holding a HSBC credit card No.4476 9299 9222 9614 where I was advised to take an insurance policy for our family members (4 persons). So far my four monthly EMI was taken from my card on the billing period where I was not in receipt of any policy details/documents from your end.

My complaint No.886680644 dt.10.10.07 for non receipt of policy was given by your Miss.Sweney during my telecom discussions. As per her advise I had faxed my HSBC card statement to your Mumbai office on 11.10.07 which was confirmed receipt at your end by Miss.Sylvia on 16.10.07.

During our discussions, she promised to send the policy documents within 48 hrs. but no reply from your end".
Ex.A2
From: info@hsbc.co.in
To : vishnukathir@yahooo.com
Dear Customer
"This is an acknowledgement for your message received by HSC India. We will reply to your email shortly"

Ex.A10 is the message received from TATA AIG by the complainant stating that they were unable to locate the policy number in their system and requested to furnish full name, premium payment details, credit card number and policy number. From this it is clear without even getting a required formal applicantion the opposite party has unauthorisdely and illegally deducted an amount of Rs.974, from July 2007 to November 2007 and deducted Rs.5847 during December 2007 without the knowledge and consent and on the same day given credit to the sum of Rs.11,695 to the complainant credit card as if that the TATA AIG Insurance company has repaid it. If the money deducted is remitted to the insurance company what prevented the opposite party to file documents for the amount remitted? and why Rs.5847 was deducted and a sum of Rs.11695 was given credit on the same day. In the absence of any documents for remittance mere pleading is not sufficient.


10. As it was rightly pointed out that the opposite party has not stated the amount of premium that was sent to TATA AIG Insurance company for its process to issue the policy. Moreover the TATA Insurance company has not sent any communication to the complainant that the insurance policy for which the premium collected by the opposite party is cancelled. So the opposite parties have misused the name of the TATA AIG Insurance company and failed to remit the amount collected from the complainant to TATA AIG Insurance company. Hence there is no necessity for the complainant to add TATA AIG Insurance company as opposite party in this case. Hence the opposite party has adopted unfair trade practice on the credit card holder. The opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and default in service. Therefore the opposite party is liable to pay compensation to the complainant.




11. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000 as compensation towards mental agony and physical agony caused and to pay a sum of Rs.1000 towards the cost of the complaint within a period of two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

Manwinder Singh son of Sh.Gurmel Singh, resident of H. No.1361, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana.

Vs.

HSBC (The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited) Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Manager/Chairman/Managing Director.


1. Complainant is credit card holder bearing no.4476921202934968. Same carried limit of Rs.15,000/-. At the time of issuance of the card, opposite party had assured that no annual fee for extra expenditure would be charged qua the card. Believing representation, complainant accepted the card. But despite it opposite party charged annual fee of Rs.750/- from the complainant with malafide intention by resorting to unfair trade practice. Next grouse of the complainant is that he had been using the card since 2005 and making payment to the opposite party when was visited by representative of the opposite party. But no details were provided to the complainant nor they submitted statement to him. Subsequently received computer generated statement for the period 3.6.06 to _____2006 showing closing balance of Rs.10,013.53p and thereafter received another statement for the period 3.8.2007 to 1.9.2007 showing the amount of Rs.48,594.32p.

He was shocked to know the demand as he never used the credit card after July 2006. Had also never requested to increase their limit from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/-, which they did of their own. Statement for Sept. 2007 was illegal and arbitrary as amount claimed was not due from him because he had never used the credit card after July,2006. The demand was made on account of late payment fee and interest charges etc. Thereafter immediately wrote letter dated 26.6.2007 through e-mail to the opposite party, which they acknowledged assuring complainant of taking action. Thereafter, no information was given to him. He claimed by filing the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986 that amount of Rs. 48,594.32p claimed from him is illegal, null, void and liable to be set aside. He is also entitled for Rs.25,000/- as compensation on account of deficiency in service by the opposite party.

2. Opposite party in reply claimed that the complaint is not maintainable. This Fora has no jurisdiction to try the complaint as it required detailed enquiry. However, complainant was in arrears of Rs. 70024.91p as per statement for the period 3.7.2008 to 2.7.2008. Issuance of credit card to the complainant is admitted and that card was carrying limit of Rs.15,000/-. This limit was increased to Rs.30,000/- on internal assessment regarding goodwill of the customer and their long relationship with the bank. But denied that the card was ever surrendered by the complainant. He had not been making the payment after using the card. Also denied that representative of the opposite party had been collecting money from the complainant without giving him details of user of the card. Regular statements were sent to the complainant but he did not pay the bills. Amount of Rs.48,594.32p is still due from the complainant, so, was rightly claimed. There was no deficiency in service on their part.

3. In order to prove their respective contentions, both he parties led their evidence by way of affidavits and documents and stood heard through their respective contentions.

4. First grouse of the complainant is that his credit card limit from Rs.15,000/-to Rs.30,000/- was enhanced by the opposite party. But in our view by doing so, no harm, financial or otherwise was suffered by the complainant. Rather they doubled the limited for using card by the complainant. This act on the part of opposite party, in our view, would not be deficiency in service.

5. Second grouse of the complainant is that the card was given to him on assurance that it will carry no charges but they subsequently started charging Rs. 750/- per annum. Qua this allegation also there is no proof in the shape of card statement except filing own affidavit CW1/A of the complainant. Had he been charged Rs.750/- per annum for issuance of the card, would have been reflected in the card statement Ex.C.1 for the period 3.6.06 to 1.7.06 and then from 3.7.07 to 1.9.07. Therefore, this allegation of the complainant is also false and not proved.

6. Next grouse of the complainant is that he had surrendered the card in July 2006 and never used the same and despite it, opposite party has been claiming amount from him. Statement Ex.C.1 shows that a sum of Rs.10,013.53p was due from the complainant for using the card between 3.6.2006 to 1.6.2006. This payment has not at all been made by the complainant nor any proof adduced qua paying the bill. Subsequently, opposite party issued bill Ex.C.2 to 3.8.07 to 1.9.07 for Rs. 45,859.13p. Also mentioned therein that his credit card account has been closed and complainant was required to destroy the card if possessed by him. Though complainant claimed having not used his card after July,2006. It may be true that he never used the card after July 2006 as had it been so, opposite party would have placed on record, card statement to prove the same.

7. On 26.6.2007, complainant wrote letter Ex.C.3 to the opposite party that why they of their own increased his credit limit from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.30,000/- without his request and that was illegally charged annual card fee of rs.750/- and that he sent the card to them in broken condition and would pay Rs.15000/- after receipt of the acknowledgement and requested for NOC.

8. This letter Ex.C.3 was acknowledged by opposite party vide e-mail Ex.C.4 dated 27.6.2007 and intimated him that they will reply him through e-mail thereafter. Thereafter, opposite party issued another e-mail Ex.C.5 dated 2.7.2007 to the complainant regretting delay in response to his message dated 1.7.2007. Requested him that if he has any enquiry to contact their helpline.

9. It appears in this scenario that when the complainant failed to pay the bill Ex.C.1 of Rs.10,013.53p and thereafter never used the card since July 2006, received bill Ex.C.2 for Rs.45,859.12p. Had he made payment of bill Ex.C.1, amount would not have swelled to that extent. Complainant vide communication dated 26.6.07 Ex.C.3 had made clear to opposite party that once his grievance is settled, he is ready to pay Rs.15,000/-. But his claim was not settled and not settling his grouse after receipt of communication dated 26.6.07, would amount to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and subsequently, opposite party vide letter Ex.R.2 dated 26.5.2009 had shown amount to him Rs.99,867.06p due from the complainant. This act on the part of opposite party would also be arbitrary and illegal. Because earlier vide statement Ex.C2 for the period 3.8.2007 to 1.9.2007, they had conveyed closing account of the complainant. So, opposite party have not rendered proper services to the complainant. Rather are guilty of resorting to unfair trade practice by not answering queries of the complainant on letter Ex.C.3 dated 26.6.07. Thereunder, he was ready to pay Rs.15,000/- subject to issuance of NOC which was not issued.

10. In these circumstances, we allow this complaint partially by passing the following order:

Complainant shall have to pay bill Ex.C.1 of Rs.10,013.53p with contractual rate of interest on account of delayed payment upto 26.6.07 and the opposite party would calculate the amount in terms and conditions of the card relating to late payments and assess penalty on amount of Rs.10,013.53p upto 26.6.2007. Then they shall convey amount so assessed to the complainant, who shall be bound to pay the same forthwith or maximum within three days of the receipt of communication from opposite party . Amount shown in the bill Ex.R.2 against the complainant for use of the card is set aside. Opposite party on receipt of the assessed amount from the complainant, would issue the NOC. In peculiar circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs.

Shankar Saran, MIG – 65, Sector -1, D.No.1-50-4/1, MVP Colony, Visakhapatnam – 530 017. … Complainant

And:

Manager, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd., (HSCB), Credit Card Division, D.No.10-1-38/B, Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam – 530 003.

... Opposite Party

: O R D E R :

a) To pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony and

b) To pay Rs.5,000/- towards costs.

In Brief the case of the complainant is:

1. That he is the credit card holder of the opposite party vide Card No.4384 xxxx xxxx 5793, who went to the Big Bazar, Visakhapatnam to buy groceries in the month of May 2008. But to his surprise when he made attempt to pay the same by using the said credit card it was not approved twice for unknown reason inspite of having sufficient credit limit facility.

That complainant left with no other go and paid Rs.830/- cash as part payment and paid the balance through another credit card. The opposite party without assigning any reasons reduced the credit limit facility. The complainant is a senior citizen and retired General Manager from Visakhapatnam Steel Plant. The action of the opposite party caused immense mental agony to him.

2. Opposite party filed counter denying the complainant’s allegations, and admitted that the complainant was issued with Credit Card, under dispute. It further contended that the complainant has not effected payments outstanding since March 2008, which was informed to the complainant by way of statement of accounts by them.

That the Credit Card statement of the complainant discloses that as on 24th March 2008 an amount of Rs.6,683/- is due and further complainant made purchases on 21st March and 30th March and as on 22nd April there is outstanding due of Rs.11,018/- and even till 22nd May complainant has not made any payments. In these circumstances, this opposite party suspended the operation of the complainant’s credit card from 25th April 2008. That the complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands and does not deserve any orders from this Forum and pleaded for dismissal of complaint with exemplary costs.

3. Complainant filed affidavit. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 are marked. Opposite party filed affidavit. Ex.B.1 & Ex.B.2 are marked. Heard complainant. Opposite party filed written arguments and requested to treat it as heard.

4. The point that arise for consideration is:

Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for?

5. The opposite party is supposed to issue notice when there is non-payment of credit bills within the schedule time and it is the bounden duty of the bank to issue notice to the card holder when there is default before taking any penal steps. In this case the bank resorted to unilateral steps for the default by reducing the credit and cash limits drastically and also cancelled the card after two months without notice.

6. On the part of the credit card holder i.e., the complainant, it is bounden duty to make prompt payment of the bills within the schedule due date. After analyzing overall aspects of the above deficiencies of both parties and also taking into account, the mental agony suffered by the complainant due to abrupt dishonour of the credit card it is felt reasonable and just sufficient to award a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant and also as punitive of measure in respect of bank.

7. In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant also with a Cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand only).

Shreehari

S/o Sri.B.R.Padmanabha,

Major, No.11, 10th Main

Lakkasandra Extension,

Bangalore – 560 039.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Manager,

HSBC Bank Limited,

No.7, M.G.Road,

Bangalore

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-



This complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs from the Opposite Party:-

i. Direct the Opposite Party to reschedule and restructure the repayable loan amount of the complainant by extending the repayment period to 12 years in regard to the above said loan.



ii. Direct the Opposite Party to delete all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied by the Opposite Party from the date of issuance of loan



iii. Direct the Opposite Party to reduce the interest,



iv. Direct the Opposite Party to consider the representation dated 24.05.2009 of the complainant.



v. Direct the Opposite Party to pay the complainant compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental harassment, agony, anxiety and fear caused due to the Opposite Party’s attitude and conduct



vi. Pay the costs of the complainant including legal expenses and any other reliefs that this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.





Excluding the paper clippings, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the decisions referred to in the complaint, the case of the complainant is as under:-

2. He had taken a loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.072019680873 and till today he has never defaulted in repayment. On 24/05/2009 he gave representation to the Bank stating that because of recession/slowing economy, there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requesting to reschedule and restructure the repayment of the loan by extending the term of repayment to twelve years. The Bank has charged illegal and unauthorized charges contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s.


The interest charged is more than 30% and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s. He requested for detailed statement by deleting all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied from the date of the issuance of the loan and reduce the rate of interest. Non consideration of his representation to reschedule and restructuring the repayment by extending the repayment term to twelve years amounts to deficiency in service as held in 1991(2) CPR 341 in the case of A.R.NARAYANAN V/S THE MANAGER UCO BANK. Non consideration of his representation is bad in law when the case of similarly situated 50,000 applicants have been considered for rescheduling and restructuring by the respective Banks.


He had sought for a detailed statement to demonstrate all the illegal and unauthorized charges levied by the Bank from the date of the loan. Non giving of the statement from the date of issuance of loan amounts to deficiency of service. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that charging interest in excess of 30% Per Annum for failure to make full payment on the due date is unfair trade practice and that penal interest could be levied only once for the period of default and should not be consolidated.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suspended the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has stated that charging of interest in excess of 30% Per Annum amounts to unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party has to consider his representation for rescheduling and restructuring the repayment of the amount by extending the loan period to twelve years. The RBI has issued certain guidelines to the Banks not to use illegal methods to recover the amounts from the loanees. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant has not made out a case that is required to be adjudicated by this Forum. Under personal loan account No.072019680873, the complainant availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- commencing from 10/01/2006 till 10/12/2010. The complainant executed loan agreement as well as the pro-note agreeing to re-pay the loan amount as stated above. The articles published in the news papers referred to in the complaint have no relevance to the personal loan availed by the complainant.


The global recession is a recent phenomenon having little impact on the economy of our country. By timely measures initiated by the Government of India, the economy of our country is in sound and stable position. Though, the country is experiencing economic slowdown but not recession. The complainant is taking shelter under the guise of recession for default of his dues to the Bank. Rescheduling or restructuring of loan repayment is determined by the Bank on case to case basis having regard to various parameters and also in consonance with the loan policy of the concerned banks.


Such measures cannot be generalized for all categories of credit facilities. The Bank has charged periodical interest on the loan amount as per the banking practice and the directions of the RBI. The interest rate has not exceeded 30% at any point of time. The Bank has not received any complaint from the complainant. The complainant who has signed the terms and conditions in the loan agreement is well aware of the rate of interest on personal loan which is fixed for the entire tenure and there shall be no revision in the same until the loan is paid off.


The charges in case of default are levied as per the loan agreement. The interest charges are inconformity with the guidelines framed by the RBI and are not excessive. If the complainant does not adhere to the repayment schedule, a defined process in accordance with the law will be followed for recovery of dues. The process involves reminding the borrower by sending notice or by making personal visit and repossession of the security if any. The Bank has acted prudently and diligently following the banking norms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank nor there is any cause of action to file the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. When the matter came up for argument, the Opposite Party and their counsel remained absent.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. Admittedly the complainant has availed personal loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.07201968083. However, the complainant has not disclosed as to the loan he has availed and his total liability to the Bank as on the date of complaint. The Opposite Party has stated that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- each. This contention of the Opposite Party finds support from the loan documents produced by Opposite Party such as agreement for personal loan and pro-note. From these documents, it is seen that the complainant availed the loan agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum. Though the complainant claims that because of recession or slowing/economy there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s, he has not disclosed the avocation he is carrying on and how the same is affected by recession so as to reduce the cash flow.


In the absence of such material it cannot be believed that on account of recession, his cash flow is affected and therefore he is unable to repay the loan as agreed. Nothing is also placed on record to show that the Opposite Party has charged or levied illegal and unauthorized charges and it has charged interest at more than 30%. When the loan document disclosed the rate of interest charged by the Bank as 19% Per Annum, in the absence of material, we are unable to uphold the contention of the complainant that the Bank has charged interest at more than 30%.


The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions with regard to the rate of interest charged as per the agreement executed by him at the time of availing the loan. Contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant cannot claim reduction in the rate of interest. It is the discretion of the Bank to consider the restructuring or rescheduling of the repayment period of the loan and the same cannot be claimed as of right. It is contended by the Opposite Party that there is no flexibility for restructuring of repayment schedule in respect of personal loans for unduly long period.


If the prayer of the complainant for restructuring the tenure of the repayment is not permissible as per the banking norms, the same cannot be claimed as of right. Considering the reliefs claimed in the complaint, in our opinion, none of those prayers can be granted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Dispute raised by the complainant itself is not a Consumer dispute. As such we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the complaint. In the result, we pass the following:-





-:ORDER:-



1. The complaint is DISMISSED with costs of Rs.2,000/- (Rs.Two Thousand Only) to the Opposite Party.
2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 10th Day of SEPTEMBER 2009.

A. Nallakumaran

S/o. Arumugam

Ashoka Medicals

D. No. 358, D.B.Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002. --- Complainant

Vs.

1.The Sastha Marketing &

Corporate Services P.Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

D.o. 25-B, East Sambandam Road,

RS. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.

2.The Manager,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

2nd Floor, Intel net Tower, II Plot,

CTS. No. 1406-A/22 Mind space,

New link Road, Goregoan West

Mumbai – 400 064. Opposite Parties



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 28.8.09 in the presence of Mr. C.K. Arull prakash, Advocate for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to collect the balance amount of Rs.69,000/- from the complainant at regular intervals with normal installments and settle the matter amicably , to declare the alleged claim of Rs.1,05,000/- against null and void , to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, pain torture and financial suffocation caused to the complainant and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is a Pharmacist, running a Medical shop in the name of Ashoka Medicals in the above said address for more than 30 years. The 1st opposite party, who introduce himself as the agent, the representative and the branch of the 2nd opposite party and he canvassed and offered the complainant after seeing the profitable business in the above said medical shop to obtain a Credit Card from his bank stating that by using the Credit Card he can purchase any things or any products from any shop to a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which there wont be any interest or any surcharge or any service charge for 40 days from the date of the use of the Credit Card and after the expiry of the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said Credit Card at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The complainant received the Credit Card on August 2007 bearing 16 digit Nos. 4476 9299 9450 3867 which has got the Credit limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and purchased some Medical and other Products through the above said Credit Card gradually for the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the monthly dues at the rate of minimum Rs.5,000/- and odd per month regularly and promptly in date till the date of the filling of this petition in this Honourable Court. The above said 1st opposite party who gave the Credit Card representing himself as the only agent to the 2nd opposite party has came to collect the dues only for three months and afterwards many persons has came one by one stating that they are the representative of the 1st and 2nd opposite party and time to time different persons came to the complainant through the un-lawful men and acts.

3. The complainant notified that the opposite party against their promise at the time of issuing of the above said Credit Card they are collecting 42% of interest per annum and levying service tax at the rate of 12% per annum which put the complainant to a heavy loss and lead the complainant and his family for a poor condition economically and forced them to sale the jewels and other things of movable immovable properties in order to pay the above said dues to the opposite parties. This situation constrained the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum.



4. In the present case the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A3 was marked and the case was posted for orders on 31.8.09

5. This Forum wanted to clarify certain doubts regarding interest rate and posted the case for clarification on 8.09.09, 9.9. 2009 . 16.9.09 and on 23.9.09 along with connected cases CC.No.. 246/09 and CC.No. 247/09. But neither this complainant and nor his counsel present. . Sufficient opportunity given to the complainant . Hence this complaint as dismissed for default. No costs.

A. Nallakumaran

S/o. Arumugam

Ashoka Medicals

D. No. 358, D.B.Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002. --- Complainant

Vs.

1.The Sastha Marketing &

Corporate Services P.Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

D.o. 25-B, East Sambandam Road,

RS. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.

2.The Manager,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

2nd Floor, Intel net Tower, II Plot,

CTS. No. 1406-A/22 Mind space,

New link Road, Goregoan West

Mumbai – 400 064. Opposite Parties





ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to collect the balance amount of Rs.69,000/- from the complainant at regular intervals with normal installments and settle the matter amicably , to declare the alleged claim of Rs.1,05,000/- against null and void , to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, pain torture and financial suffocation caused to the complainant and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is a Pharmacist, running a Medical shop in the name of Ashoka Medicals in the above said address for more than 30 years. The 1st opposite party, who introduce himself as the agent, the representative and the branch of the 2nd opposite party and he canvassed and offered the complainant after seeing the profitable business in the above said medical shop to obtain a Credit Card from his bank stating that by using the Credit Card he can purchase any things or any products from any shop to a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which there wont be any interest or any surcharge or any service charge for 40 days from the date of the use of the Credit Card and after the expiry of the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said Credit Card at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The complainant received the Credit Card on August 2007 bearing 16 digit Nos. 4476 9299 9450 3867 which has got the Credit limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and purchased some Medical and other Products through the above said Credit Card gradually for the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the monthly dues at the rate of minimum Rs.5,000/- and odd per month regularly and promptly in date till the date of the filling of this petition in this Honourable Court.


The above said 1st opposite party who gave the Credit Card representing himself as the only agent to the 2nd opposite party has came to collect the dues only for three months and afterwards many persons has came one by one stating that they are the representative of the 1st and 2nd opposite party and time to time different persons came to the complainant through the un-lawful men and acts.

3. The complainant notified that the opposite party against their promise at the time of issuing of the above said Credit Card they are collecting 42% of interest per annum and levying service tax at the rate of 12% per annum which put the complainant to a heavy loss and lead the complainant and his family for a poor condition economically and forced them to sale the jewels and other things of movable immovable properties in order to pay the above said dues to the opposite parties. This situation constrained the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum.



4. In the present case the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A3 was marked and the case was posted for orders on 31.8.09

5. This Forum wanted to clarify certain doubts regarding interest rate and posted the case for clarification on 8.09.09, 9.9. 2009 . 16.9.09 and on 23.9.09 along with connected cases CC.No.. 246/09 and CC.No. 247/09. But neither this complainant and nor his counsel present. . Sufficient opportunity given to the complainant . Hence this complaint as dismissed for default. No costs.

Shreehari

S/o Sri.B.R.Padmanabha,

Major, No.11, 10th Main

Lakkasandra Extension,

Bangalore – 560 039.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Manager,

HSBC Bank Limited,

No.7, M.G.Road,

Bangalore

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-



This complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs from the Opposite Party:-

i. Direct the Opposite Party to reschedule and restructure the repayable loan amount of the complainant by extending the repayment period to 12 years in regard to the above said loan.



ii. Direct the Opposite Party to delete all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied by the Opposite Party from the date of issuance of loan



iii. Direct the Opposite Party to reduce the interest,



iv. Direct the Opposite Party to consider the representation dated 24.05.2009 of the complainant.



v. Direct the Opposite Party to pay the complainant compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental harassment, agony, anxiety and fear caused due to the Opposite Party’s attitude and conduct



vi. Pay the costs of the complainant including legal expenses and any other reliefs that this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.





Excluding the paper clippings, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the decisions referred to in the complaint, the case of the complainant is as under:-

2. He had taken a loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.072019680873 and till today he has never defaulted in repayment. On 24/05/2009 he gave representation to the Bank stating that because of recession/slowing economy, there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requesting to reschedule and restructure the repayment of the loan by extending the term of repayment to twelve years. The Bank has charged illegal and unauthorized charges contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s.


The interest charged is more than 30% and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s. He requested for detailed statement by deleting all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied from the date of the issuance of the loan and reduce the rate of interest. Non consideration of his representation to reschedule and restructuring the repayment by extending the repayment term to twelve years amounts to deficiency in service as held in 1991(2) CPR 341 in the case of A.R.NARAYANAN V/S THE MANAGER UCO BANK. Non consideration of his representation is bad in law when the case of similarly situated 50,000 applicants have been considered for rescheduling and restructuring by the respective Banks.


He had sought for a detailed statement to demonstrate all the illegal and unauthorized charges levied by the Bank from the date of the loan. Non giving of the statement from the date of issuance of loan amounts to deficiency of service. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that charging interest in excess of 30% Per Annum for failure to make full payment on the due date is unfair trade practice and that penal interest could be levied only once for the period of default and should not be consolidated.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suspended the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has stated that charging of interest in excess of 30% Per Annum amounts to unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party has to consider his representation for rescheduling and restructuring the repayment of the amount by extending the loan period to twelve years. The RBI has issued certain guidelines to the Banks not to use illegal methods to recover the amounts from the loanees. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant has not made out a case that is required to be adjudicated by this Forum. Under personal loan account No.072019680873, the complainant availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- commencing from 10/01/2006 till 10/12/2010. The complainant executed loan agreement as well as the pro-note agreeing to re-pay the loan amount as stated above. The articles published in the news papers referred to in the complaint have no relevance to the personal loan availed by the complainant. The global recession is a recent phenomenon having little impact on the economy of our country.


By timely measures initiated by the Government of India, the economy of our country is in sound and stable position. Though, the country is experiencing economic slowdown but not recession. The complainant is taking shelter under the guise of recession for default of his dues to the Bank. Rescheduling or restructuring of loan repayment is determined by the Bank on case to case basis having regard to various parameters and also in consonance with the loan policy of the concerned banks. Such measures cannot be generalized for all categories of credit facilities.


The Bank has charged periodical interest on the loan amount as per the banking practice and the directions of the RBI. The interest rate has not exceeded 30% at any point of time. The Bank has not received any complaint from the complainant. The complainant who has signed the terms and conditions in the loan agreement is well aware of the rate of interest on personal loan which is fixed for the entire tenure and there shall be no revision in the same until the loan is paid off. The charges in case of default are levied as per the loan agreement. The interest charges are inconformity with the guidelines framed by the RBI and are not excessive.


If the complainant does not adhere to the repayment schedule, a defined process in accordance with the law will be followed for recovery of dues. The process involves reminding the borrower by sending notice or by making personal visit and repossession of the security if any. The Bank has acted prudently and diligently following the banking norms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank nor there is any cause of action to file the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. When the matter came up for argument, the Opposite Party and their counsel remained absent.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. Admittedly the complainant has availed personal loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.07201968083. However, the complainant has not disclosed as to the loan he has availed and his total liability to the Bank as on the date of complaint. The Opposite Party has stated that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- each. This contention of the Opposite Party finds support from the loan documents produced by Opposite Party such as agreement for personal loan and pro-note. From these documents, it is seen that the complainant availed the loan agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum.


Though the complainant claims that because of recession or slowing/economy there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s, he has not disclosed the avocation he is carrying on and how the same is affected by recession so as to reduce the cash flow. In the absence of such material it cannot be believed that on account of recession, his cash flow is affected and therefore he is unable to repay the loan as agreed. Nothing is also placed on record to show that the Opposite Party has charged or levied illegal and unauthorized charges and it has charged interest at more than 30%.



When the loan document disclosed the rate of interest charged by the Bank as 19% Per Annum, in the absence of material, we are unable to uphold the contention of the complainant that the Bank has charged interest at more than 30%. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions with regard to the rate of interest charged as per the agreement executed by him at the time of availing the loan. Contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant cannot claim reduction in the rate of interest. It is the discretion of the Bank to consider the restructuring or rescheduling of the repayment period of the loan and the same cannot be claimed as of right.


It is contended by the Opposite Party that there is no flexibility for restructuring of repayment schedule in respect of personal loans for unduly long period. If the prayer of the complainant for restructuring the tenure of the repayment is not permissible as per the banking norms, the same cannot be claimed as of right. Considering the reliefs claimed in the complaint, in our opinion, none of those prayers can be granted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Dispute raised by the complainant itself is not a Consumer dispute.

Shreehari

S/o Sri.B.R.Padmanabha,

Major, No.11, 10th Main

Lakkasandra Extension,

Bangalore – 560 039.

…. Complainant.

V/s



The Manager,

HSBC Bank Limited,

No.7, M.G.Road,

Bangalore

…. Opposite Party

-: ORDER:-





i. Direct the Opposite Party to reschedule and restructure the repayable loan amount of the complainant by extending the repayment period to 12 years in regard to the above said loan.



ii. Direct the Opposite Party to delete all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied by the Opposite Party from the date of issuance of loan



iii. Direct the Opposite Party to reduce the interest,



iv. Direct the Opposite Party to consider the representation dated 24.05.2009 of the complainant.



v. Direct the Opposite Party to pay the complainant compensation/damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental harassment, agony, anxiety and fear caused due to the Opposite Party’s attitude and conduct



vi. Pay the costs of the complainant including legal expenses and any other reliefs that this Hon’ble Forum deems fit.





Excluding the paper clippings, the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and the decisions referred to in the complaint, the case of the complainant is as under:-

2. He had taken a loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.072019680873 and till today he has never defaulted in repayment. On 24/05/2009 he gave representation to the Bank stating that because of recession/slowing economy, there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s and requesting to reschedule and restructure the repayment of the loan by extending the term of repayment to twelve years. The Bank has charged illegal and unauthorized charges contrary to the provisions of the Indian Contract Act and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s.


The interest charged is more than 30% and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s. He requested for detailed statement by deleting all the illegal, hidden and unauthorized charges levied from the date of the issuance of the loan and reduce the rate of interest. Non consideration of his representation to reschedule and restructuring the repayment by extending the repayment term to twelve years amounts to deficiency in service as held in 1991(2) CPR 341 in the case of A.R.NARAYANAN V/S THE MANAGER UCO BANK. Non consideration of his representation is bad in law when the case of similarly situated 50,000 applicants have been considered for rescheduling and restructuring by the respective Banks.


He had sought for a detailed statement to demonstrate all the illegal and unauthorized charges levied by the Bank from the date of the loan. Non giving of the statement from the date of issuance of loan amounts to deficiency of service. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has ruled that charging interest in excess of 30% Per Annum for failure to make full payment on the due date is unfair trade practice and that penal interest could be levied only once for the period of default and should not be consolidated.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court has suspended the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which has stated that charging of interest in excess of 30% Per Annum amounts to unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party has to consider his representation for rescheduling and restructuring the repayment of the amount by extending the loan period to twelve years. The RBI has issued certain guidelines to the Banks not to use illegal methods to recover the amounts from the loanees. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of the Opposite Party is as under:-

The complainant has not made out a case that is required to be adjudicated by this Forum. Under personal loan account No.072019680873, the complainant availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 equated monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- commencing from 10/01/2006 till 10/12/2010. The complainant executed loan agreement as well as the pro-note agreeing to re-pay the loan amount as stated above. The articles published in the news papers referred to in the complaint have no relevance to the personal loan availed by the complainant.


The global recession is a recent phenomenon having little impact on the economy of our country. By timely measures initiated by the Government of India, the economy of our country is in sound and stable position. Though, the country is experiencing economic slowdown but not recession. The complainant is taking shelter under the guise of recession for default of his dues to the Bank. Rescheduling or restructuring of loan repayment is determined by the Bank on case to case basis having regard to various parameters and also in consonance with the loan policy of the concerned banks. Such measures cannot be generalized for all categories of credit facilities.


The Bank has charged periodical interest on the loan amount as per the banking practice and the directions of the RBI. The interest rate has not exceeded 30% at any point of time. The Bank has not received any complaint from the complainant. The complainant who has signed the terms and conditions in the loan agreement is well aware of the rate of interest on personal loan which is fixed for the entire tenure and there shall be no revision in the same until the loan is paid off. The charges in case of default are levied as per the loan agreement. The interest charges are inconformity with the guidelines framed by the RBI and are not excessive.


If the complainant does not adhere to the repayment schedule, a defined process in accordance with the law will be followed for recovery of dues. The process involves reminding the borrower by sending notice or by making personal visit and repossession of the security if any. The Bank has acted prudently and diligently following the banking norms. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the Bank nor there is any cause of action to file the complaint. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. The learned counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. When the matter came up for argument, the Opposite Party and their counsel remained absent.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our finding to the above points is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-

-:REASONS:-

7. Admittedly the complainant has availed personal loan from the Opposite Party Bank under loan account No.07201968083. However, the complainant has not disclosed as to the loan he has availed and his total liability to the Bank as on the date of complaint. The Opposite Party has stated that the complainant has availed loan of Rs.6,00,000/- on 23/12/2005 agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum in 60 monthly installments of Rs.15,564/- each. This contention of the Opposite Party finds support from the loan documents produced by Opposite Party such as agreement for personal loan and pro-note. From these documents, it is seen that the complainant availed the loan agreeing to repay the same with interest at 19% Per Annum.


Though the complainant claims that because of recession or slowing/economy there is problem in regard to cash flow and therefore he is unable to pay the stipulated EMI’s, he has not disclosed the avocation he is carrying on and how the same is affected by recession so as to reduce the cash flow. In the absence of such material it cannot be believed that on account of recession, his cash flow is affected and therefore he is unable to repay the loan as agreed. Nothing is also placed on record to show that the Opposite Party has charged or levied illegal and unauthorized charges and it has charged interest at more than 30%.


When the loan document disclosed the rate of interest charged by the Bank as 19% Per Annum, in the absence of material, we are unable to uphold the contention of the complainant that the Bank has charged interest at more than 30%. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions with regard to the rate of interest charged as per the agreement executed by him at the time of availing the loan. Contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the complainant cannot claim reduction in the rate of interest. It is the discretion of the Bank to consider the restructuring or rescheduling of the repayment period of the loan and the same cannot be claimed as of right.


It is contended by the Opposite Party that there is no flexibility for restructuring of repayment schedule in respect of personal loans for unduly long period. If the prayer of the complainant for restructuring the tenure of the repayment is not permissible as per the banking norms, the same cannot be claimed as of right. Considering the reliefs claimed in the complaint, in our opinion, none of those prayers can be granted under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Dispute raised by the complainant itself is not a Consumer dispute. As such we are unable to make out any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party.

A. Nallakumaran

S/o. Arumugam

Ashoka Medicals

D. No. 358, D.B.Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002. --- Complainant

Vs.

1.The Sastha Marketing &

Corporate Services P.Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

D.o. 25-B, East Sambandam Road,

RS. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.

2.The Manager,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

2nd Floor, Intel net Tower, II Plot,

CTS. No. 1406-A/22 Mind space,

New link Road, Goregoan West

Mumbai – 400 064. Opposite Parties




ORDER

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to collect the balance amount of Rs.69,000/- from the complainant at regular intervals with normal installments and settle the matter amicably , to declare the alleged claim of Rs.1,05,000/- against null and void , to pay the compensation of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony, pain torture and financial suffocation caused to the complainant and to pay towards cost of the proceedings.

1. The complainant is a Pharmacist, running a Medical shop in the name of Ashoka Medicals in the above said address for more than 30 years. The 1st opposite party, who introduce himself as the agent, the representative and the branch of the 2nd opposite party and he canvassed and offered the complainant after seeing the profitable business in the above said medical shop to obtain a Credit Card from his bank stating that by using the Credit Card he can purchase any things or any products from any shop to a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which there wont be any interest or any surcharge or any service charge for 40 days from the date of the use of the Credit Card and after the expiry of the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said Credit Card at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The complainant received the Credit Card on August 2007 bearing 16 digit Nos. 4476 9299 9450 3867 which has got the Credit limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and purchased some Medical and other Products through the above said Credit Card gradually for the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the monthly dues at the rate of minimum Rs.5,000/- and odd per month regularly and promptly in date till the date of the filling of this petition in this Honourable Court. The above said 1st opposite party who gave the Credit Card representing himself as the only agent to the 2nd opposite party has came to collect the dues only for three months and afterwards many persons has came one by one stating that they are the representative of the 1st and 2nd opposite party and time to time different persons came to the complainant through the un-lawful men and acts.

3. The complainant notified that the opposite party against their promise at the time of issuing of the above said Credit Card they are collecting 42% of interest per annum and levying service tax at the rate of 12% per annum which put the complainant to a heavy loss and lead the complainant and his family for a poor condition economically and forced them to sale the jewels and other things of movable immovable properties in order to pay the above said dues to the opposite parties. This situation constrained the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum.



4. In the present case the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A3 was marked and the case was posted for orders on 31.8.09

5. This Forum wanted to clarify certain doubts regarding interest rate and posted the case for clarification on 8.09.09, 9.9. 2009 . 16.9.09 and on 23.9.09 along with connected cases CC.No.. 246/09 and CC.No. 247/09. But neither this complainant and nor his counsel present. . Sufficient opportunity given to the complainant . Hence this complaint as dismissed for default

A. Nallakumaran

S/o. Arumugam

Ashoka Medicals

D. No. 358, D.B.Road, R.S. Puram,

Coimbatore – 641 002. --- Complainant

Vs.

1.The Sastha Marketing &

Corporate Services P.Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

D.o. 25-B, East Sambandam Road,

RS. Puram, Coimbatore – 641 002.

2.The Manager,

The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Ltd.,

Credit Card Division, HSBC Bank,

2nd Floor, Intel net Tower, II Plot,

CTS. No. 1406-A/22 Mind space,

New link Road, Goregoan West

Mumbai – 400 064. Opposite Parties






ORDER


.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant is a Pharmacist, running a Medical shop in the name of Ashoka Medicals in the above said address for more than 30 years. The 1st opposite party, who introduce himself as the agent, the representative and the branch of the 2nd opposite party and he canvassed and offered the complainant after seeing the profitable business in the above said medical shop to obtain a Credit Card from his bank stating that by using the Credit Card he can purchase any things or any products from any shop to a limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- for which there wont be any interest or any surcharge or any service charge for 40 days from the date of the use of the Credit Card and after the expiry of the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said 40 days, the interest will be charged for the amount utilized by the above said Credit Card at the rate of 18% per annum.

2. The complainant received the Credit Card on August 2007 bearing 16 digit Nos. 4476 9299 9450 3867 which has got the Credit limit of Rs. 1,00,000/- and purchased some Medical and other Products through the above said Credit Card gradually for the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and paid the monthly dues at the rate of minimum Rs.5,000/- and odd per month regularly and promptly in date till the date of the filling of this petition in this Honourable Court.


The above said 1st opposite party who gave the Credit Card representing himself as the only agent to the 2nd opposite party has came to collect the dues only for three months and afterwards many persons has came one by one stating that they are the representative of the 1st and 2nd opposite party and time to time different persons came to the complainant through the un-lawful men and acts.

3. The complainant notified that the opposite party against their promise at the time of issuing of the above said Credit Card they are collecting 42% of interest per annum and levying service tax at the rate of 12% per annum which put the complainant to a heavy loss and lead the complainant and his family for a poor condition economically and forced them to sale the jewels and other things of movable immovable properties in order to pay the above said dues to the opposite parties. This situation constrained the complainant to file the complaint before this Forum.



4. In the present case the complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A3 was marked and the case was posted for orders on 31.8.09

5. This Forum wanted to clarify certain doubts regarding interest rate and posted the case for clarification on 8.09.09, 9.9. 2009 . 16.9.09 and on 23.9.09 along with connected cases CC.No.. 246/09 and CC.No. 247/09. But neither this complainant and nor his counsel present. . Sufficient opportunity given to the complainant . Hence this complaint as dismissed for default.

Ms.Remya Thoranath,

#419, I Floor, I main, 16th Cross,

JP Nagar, 4th Phase,

Bangalore – 560 078.

…. Complainant

V/s



01. The Hongkong and Shangai

Banking Corporation Limited,

No.7, Post Bag No.5267,

M.G.Road, Bangalore-01,

Rep.by its Branch Manager,



02. The Hongkong and Shangai

Banking Corporation Limited,

Mumbai, #52/60 M.G.Road – 400 001,

Rep. by its Managing Director.

…. Opposite Parties





-: ORDER:-



The complainant has prayed for a direction to the Opposite Parties to remove her name from the blacklist of CIBIL, to open her salary account in their Bank, to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental strain and agony, Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the proceedings, on the following grounds:-



2. She is the credit card holder of the Opposite Party HSBC Bank since July-2005. She used to get monthly statements as well SMS alerts on her mobile No.9986071470 whenever she utilized or made any transaction including payment for the utilization of the credit card. She used to get SMS confirmation for the payment made by her and received by the Bank. She was receiving the monthly statements regularly and she was making payment of the amount due as per the statement or SMS alert. The last monthly statement and SMS alert received were on July-2007.

When she did not receive the statement as well as the SMS alert she contacted the Consumer care of the Opposite Parties twice in August-2007 and informed that she is not getting the monthly statements as well as the SMS alert on her mobile. She was informed by the customer care people of the Bank that she will be getting the same as early as possible. In spite of non-receipt of the monthly statement and SMS alert, she paid Rs.2,500/- and thereafter waited for SMS alert regarding the payment made, but even the same was not received by her. Even though she enquired with the customer care of the Opposite Parties, nothing came to her help. When she again contacted the Opposite Parties through the customer care in Augus-2007 she was informed that her credit card had expired. In the year 2008 one of the executives from the customer care of the Opposite Parties called and asked her to make payment of Rs.33,000/- towards balance in her credit card account which includes the principal amount, interest and late payment charges.

She did not agree for the same as the Bank was also equally at fault for not sending the details of the transactions on time even though she contacted the Bank twice. The customer care person informed her that they have only knowledge about the balance due and they have no knowledge with regard to non receipt of the monthly statements and SMS alert. Again the executive called her and asked to pay Rs.33,000/- towards the balance amount of the credit card, but she did not agree for the same. Thereafter by the offer letter dated18/03/2008, the Opposite Parties offered her to pay Rs.15,000/- to clear the entire due. As per the said letter, the Opposite Parties asked her to pay Rs.5,000/- on or before 25/03/2008,Rs.5,000/- on or before 10/04/2008 and Rs.5,000/- on or before 10/05/2008 and also stated that on receipt of the said payment, the statement of the credit card account reflecting zero due outstanding will be forwarded writing off the deficit amount and the credit card relationship shall cease.

Accordingly, in the said offer, she paid Rs.3,800/- through cheque bearing No.0066391 dated 19/03/2008, Rs.5,000/- through cheque bearing No.0066392 dated 11/04/2008 and Rs.6,200/- through cheque bearing No.0066393 dated 07/05/2008 and thus paid a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as per the offer letter dated 18/03/2008. In spite of it, the Bank did not send the statement reflecting zero outstanding. However, in view of the above payment, the credit card relationship had ceased automatically. In February-2009, she moved to a new company and contacted the Opposite Party to open the salary account as per the norms and regulations of the new company. But the Bank rejected her request stating that her name has been blacklisted under CIBIL and that she has to pay the entire outstanding of Rs.26,900/- which is the balance of Rs.18,000/- and interest till April-2009. But in view of the payment made as per the offer letter dated 18/03/2008 she denied her liability to pay the amount. Though there is no liability, the Bank is pressurizing her to pay the said outstanding and not permitting her to open the salary account in the Bank. Hence, the complaint.



3. In the version, the contention of Opposite Parties is as under:-

HSBC Banking Corporation is a reputed Banking Institution and is being managed by the highly qualified personnel in professional and extraordinary functional aspects in the conduct of day to day business and striving to provide excellent and best methods of conduction of business to the public and account holders.

The complainant had availed the Banking service of the Opposite Party through credit card issued to her and the outstanding payable is Rs.31,299-60 paise. The complainant was required to strictly adhere to the terms and conditions of the card and was liable to repay the outstanding amount as per the statement of account issued every month. The SMS alert facility is available to the customer at the sole discretion of the Bank and may be discontinued at any time without notice. To avail that facility the complainant has to intimate the Bank any change in her phone number or ‘e’ mail address or account details. The Bank shall not be liable for non delivery or delay in delivery of alert. The statements of account were sent to the mailing address of the complainant and alerts were being sent regularly. The mobile number provided and maintained by the Bank records is 9448472471. The Bank will not be liable for any loss of information/alert in transmission nor be responsible for security of transmission. The statements of account were dispatched regularly by Postal Department and from April-2009 they were dispatched through courier.

On receipt of the statements, the complainant used to make part payment and she never made full payment for the bill raised. As such late payment charges and financial charges were levied on the account. If the complainant contacts the customer care with regard to the non receipt of the statements, the same will be dispatched immediately. The minimum amount due is informed only on request by the card holder. As per Clause-6 of the credit card service guide, the credit card holder is deemed to have received each statement of account for the preceding month either on actual receipt of the statement of account or 10 days after the dispatch of the statement by the HSBC whichever is earlier. The complainant was offered settlement since she was not ready to effect payment towards the total outstanding. She was requested to pay the entire dues within the stipulated time. The account was written off or owing to non payment of dues for more than 180 days.

The credit card was termed as non performing asset and therefore the Bank had to write off the outstanding on the card account and the same was updated to CIBIL as per the instructions of the RBI. Accordingly the CIBIL had listed the name of the complainant in the defaulter’s list. The complainant has to make payment of the outstanding amount and thereupon the payment details would be sent to the CIBIL and if the account details were shown as nil, CIBIL will remove the name from the defaulter’s list. The Bank acted prudently and diligently and strictly adhered and followed the Banking norms as such there is no deficiency in service on the part of Bank and therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed.



4. In support of the respective contentions both parties have filed affidavits and have produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments on both side.



5. The points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Parties?



2. Whether the complainant entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?

6. Our findings are:-

Point No.(1) : In the Affirmative



Point No.(2) : As per final order,

for the following:-



-:REASONS:-

7. The fact that the complainant is holding the credit card bearing No.4384599997009492 issued by the Opposite Party Bank is not disputed. The contention of the complainant that she did not receive the monthly statements or the SMS alert with regard to the amount due in her credit card account subsequent to July-2007 is not specifically denied by the Opposite Party. Except a general statement that the statements used to be sent through Postal Department till April-2009 and thereafter through courier, the Opposite Parties have not produced any material to show that in-fact the statements were sent to the complainant for the month subsequent to July-2007. The contention of the complainant that in spite of non receipt of the monthly statement and SMS alert, she paid Rs.2,500/- in August-2007 is not denied.

The contention of the complainant that as per the letter dated 18/03/2008, the Opposite Party asked her to make payment of Rs.15,000/- towards the closure of the credit card account asking her to pay Rs.5,000/- on or before 25/03/2008, Rs.5,000/- on or before 10/04/2008 and Rs.5,000/- on or before 10/05/2008 is also not denied by the Opposite Party. The contention of the complainant that as per the offer letter dated 18/03/2008 she made payment of Rs.3,800/- through the cheque dated 19/03/2008, Rs.5,000/- through cheque dated 11/04/2008 and Rs.6,200/- through cheque dated 07/05/2008 is also not denied by the Opposite Party. This contention regarding payment is also evident from the statement of accounts pertaining to the account of the complainant in HDFC Bank. If the complainant paid a total sum of Rs.15,000/- between 19/03/2008 and 07/05/2008 that complies with the offer made by the Bank in the offer letter dated 18/03/2008. As per the offer letter the outer limit for the complainant to make payment of Rs.15,000/- was 10/05/2008.

Though the complainant paid Rs.3,800/- towards the first installment, she paid the entire amount of Rs.15,000/- before 10/05/2008 and thus complied with the offer or demand made by the Opposite Party in the offer letter dated 18/03/2008. In that event, the Opposite Party was required to close the credit card account of the complainant as fully satisfied or settled as promised in the offer letter. Instead of doing so as stated in Para-12 of the version, the Opposite Party treated the account of the complainant as non performing asset and sent the information to CIBIL and thereby got the name of the complainant included in the defaulter’s list of the CIBIL. This act of the Opposite Party in our opinion clearly amounts to deficiency in service. When the complainant accepted the offer made in the offer letter dated 18/03/2008 and paid Rs.15,000/- within the last date fixed for payment, it was incumbent upon the Opposite Parties to treat the credit card account of the complainant as fully settled and to issue the statement reflecting zero dues outstanding as promised in the offer letter.

Instead of doing so, the Opposite Party got the name of the complainant included in the list of defaulter’s in CIBIL and thus deprived the complainant opening the salary account in the Bank. Thus the complainant was subjected to inconvenience and mental agony on account of the act of the Opposite Party Bank and therefore the complainant is entitled to seek compensation. However, no direction can be given to the Opposite Party to open the salary account of the complainant in the Bank. It is always the discretion of the Bank either to permit or not to permit a customer to open the account in the Bank. Therefore, it is left to the Opposite Party Bank to consider the request of the complainant to open her salary account in their Bank. In view of the fact that in spite of payment made by the complainant as per the offer letter, the Bank furnished information to the CIBIL to include the name of the complainant in defaulter’s list, it is necessary to direct the Opposite Parties to take steps to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list in CIBIL. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that it is just and proper to award compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant. In the result, we pass the following;-



-:ORDER:-



1. The complaint is ALLOWED.

2. The Opposite Parties are directed to take steps to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters in CIBIL

3. The Opposite Parties are directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

4. Compliance of this order shall be made within 08 (eight) weeks from the date of communication, failing which the amount of compensation awarded shall carry interest at 19% Per Annum from the date of order till the date of payment.

Hi,

This is an official complaint against HSBC bank.

Pls refer my mail documented below for the historical facts of the case.
Credit Card No. 4384 5999 1154 2057

Well in response to my forced / unrealistic dues I have made a settlement with the
HSBC bank for Rs. 2000 and they have given a no due / clearance letter stating that
I have been cleared from all my dues and there is nothing to recover from me by
HSBC. The collection dept has told me that my subsequent months statement will
clearly show no dues from me. (Refer the copy of letter & reciept of Rs. 2000
attached).

To my surprise I have been getting calls from the collection centre of HSBC and they
are telling me that this is the way to collect money from the customers by issuing
them letters and they are not binded by the no due / clearance letter issued. They
told me that no settlement is possible and I have to pay the entire dues and have
also started threatening me of the dired consequences.

Further, I have recieved the statement for the month of Oct, 09 which has shown the
recovery of Rs. 2,000 from me but is still showing the amount due. i.e. the
collections department has not updated my records intentionally. (refer copy of
latest card statement)

Pls look into the matter to get me out of this mess and also take strickest possible
action against such acts of the bank.

In short I want to make clear that I will be needing an apology from Bank for
creating so many tentions and problems for me and clear my account status else I
have to take the route of legal recourse against the bank.

Taking all the above things into consideration I hope for the best from your end.

Regards
Abhishek Gupta
9811139587

Hi,

I had a HSBC credit card 43840 5999 8072 1129 for last 2 years. I got two cards
they said one card is free and free life time card but in the statement I can
see they added below mentioned fees.

Additional
card annual fee-1000 Rs.Primary
card membership fee-2000 Rs



I called customer
care and told them to change my billing date. No one responded properly every
moth they are charging late fee RS. 750 and Over due Rs.500. I have paid the amount
more than what I have used for my course but still every time customer support people
will call and ask saying your credit card is over limited.

Really fed of this credit card and I cannot pay any more. I
need settlement and just want to close this card.



Please do the needful.



Regards,

Usha

Dear Sir,

I had order a product from HSBC bank in October, who promised to deliver it by 2nd
week Nov. November is almost ending, and every week when I call HSBC team for the
delivery they give false promises of delivery by next 3- 4 days.
Sir, HSBC has already debited the total amount of the product from my credit card
and still continuing to give false promises on delivery.

Looking into the situation, this is an act of THEFT which HSBC is doing to all
credit card holders.
Request your immediate action.

Regards
Sabari

From: Sabari Paul
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 12:04 PM
To: 'order@gift360.in'
Subject: FIRE URGENT

To HSBC team,

I had ordered product code 1623 against order number 76247, which was committed to
be delivered to me by end Oct. It has been past two weeks since the committed date
that I have not yet received the product. The total amount has already been debited
from my HSBC credit card.

Is this the kind of service you offer??????

I have talked to Escalation department today- Ms.Waheeda, and confirmed that if I do
not get the product in next 2- 3 days, I shall complain to CONSUMER COURT.

This is for your information and action.

Regards
Sabari