CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

MAHARASHTRA STATE, MUMBAI



FIRST APPEAL NO.243 OF 2009 Date of filing: 27/02/2009

IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.58/2007 Date of order : 20/06/2009

ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM, THANE

@ MISC.APPLICATION NOS.382 & 383/2009



SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd.

Mahalaxmi Engg.Estate, Plot no.571

Lady Jamshedji 1st X Road, Mahim(W)

Mumbai 400 016 ………..Appellant/org.O.P.no.1

v/s.

1. Shri Jugal Kishore Furia &

Kajal Kishore Furia

M-Q, APMC Market

Phase II, Dana market

Sector 19/A, Vashi

Navi Mumbai ………Respondents/org.complainants

2. SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd.

Central Processing Centre

Kapas Bhavan, Plot no.3/A

Sector 10, CBD Belapur

Navi Mumbai 400 614 ………Respondent/org.O.P.no.2



Corum: Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

Smt.S.P.Lale, Hon’ble Member

Present : Mr.Vikas Salvi-Advocate for the appellant

Mr.D.V.Bajaj-Advocate @ Mr.J.P.Gadiya-Advocate

for respondents/org.complainants

Ms.Neelam Seth/A.R. for Respondent no.2.

O R D E R



Per Shri S.R.Khanzode, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member

1. This appeal arises out of order/award dated 29/2/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.58/2007 Shri Jugal Kishore Furia & Kajal Kishore Furia v/s. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd. and another passed by Additional District Consumer Forum, Thane (‘Forum below’ in short). Late Kishore Furia had taken SBI credit card issued by appellant/O.P.no.1-SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd. on 7/4/2006. As per the facility made available, according to respondents/original complainants, late Kishore Furia was covered under the said insurance cover issued by respondent no.2/org.O.P.no.2-SBI Life Insurance Co.Ltd. Unfortunately, soon after issue of the card, on 23/4/2006 late Kishore Furia died in an accident. Invoking the insurance cover, a claim was made, which stood repudiated on the ground that since in the case of late Kishore Furia commencement of coverage did not take place. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this consumer complaint was filed, which stood partly allowed as per the impugned order/award and whereby, O.P.no.1-SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd. was directed to make the payment of Rs.6 lakhs towards the insurance claim along with cost of Rs.2000/-. Feeling aggrieved thereby, original O.P.no.1 preferred this appeal. There is delay in filing the appeal and therefore misc.application no.382/2009 is filed.

2. Heard Mr.Vikas Salvi-Advocate for the appellant, Mr.D.V.Bajaj-Advocate @ Mr.J.P.Gadiya-Advocate for respondents/org.complainants and Ms.Neelam Seth / A.R. for Respondent no.2.

3. Perused the record. Impugned order/award was passed on 29/2/2008. Said award was passed ex-parte against O.P.no.1- SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd.

(Hereinafter referred as “SBI Card”). According to appellant, they came to know about the impugned order/award only after they were informed about it after filing of the execution proceedings by original complainants from O.P.no.2-SBI Life Insurance Co. (‘SBI Life Insurance’ in short). Soon thereafter they took steps to obtain the copy, processed it and filed this appeal. Delay is calculated from the date of order and not from the date of knowledge. Application is supported by an affidavit of Mr.Nitin Shivram Sonawane, Authorized officer of the appellant. This application is opposed by respondents/original complainants as per their say filed on record. As per this, respondents’ statement made about delay is an incorrect. It is mere denial and not making out any positive case in respect of cause shown by the appellant. Delay factor is more elaborately further explained in the appeal memo. At the time of arguments on this application, respondents/original complainants tried to submit that even during the course of hearing of the consumer complaint, appellant-O.P.no.1 was informed but preferred to remain absent. There is no statement either in the reply filed to this condonation of delay application or elsewhere. Furthermore, these events refers to pending consumer complaint and not a scenario after settling the dispute as per impugned order/award. Therefore, accepting the appellant’s statement made giving reasons for condonation of delay, and since, particularly, we find that on consideration the merit of the case, substantial question of law is involved, we hold that sufficient cause is shown to allow the application for condonation of delay. Misc.application no.382/2009 is, thus, deserves to be allowed subject to payment of cost as per final order.

4. Coming to the merits of the appeal, we find a substantial question about interpretation of the clauses of the contract, whereby insurance cover is made available free of cost to the SBI Card holders is needed. To avail insurance cover to a particular card holder, ‘commencement and termination of coverage’ clause is relevant and it stipulates two conditions for commencement of the coverage viz (i) Card becoming active and (ii) Credit of the premium in respect of member. In the instant case, it is alleged that premium in respect of the member i.e.late Kishore Furia was not credited since he died before the issue of first bill wherein the premium was to be charged on him. These facts needs to be assessed properly and since it is a claim relating to the contract of insurance, clauses thereof need to be construed strictly. In this background, it is necessary that both the parties shall be given just and reasonable opportunity to raise proper pleadings and to lead evidence and then Forum below can settle the dispute according to law. We hold accordingly and pass following order:-

ORDER

1. Misc.application no.382/2009 for condonation of delay stands allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- to respondents/org.complainants. This cost shall be adjusted from the amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing this appeal by the appellant. Balance of the amount be paid to the appellant.

2. Appeal is allowed. Costs shall be the costs in the cause.

3. Impugned order/award dated 29/2/2008 is set aside.

4. Matter is remitted back to the Forum below in the light of the observations made in the body of the order.

5. All the parties shall appear before Forum below on 30/7/2009 and thereafter, Forum below shall decide and settle the dispute within three months thereof.

6. Misc. application for stay stands disposed of.

7. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.





(S.P.Lale) (S.R.Khanzode)

Member Presiding Judicial Member

O.P. No. 440/2003 Filed on 31.10.2003

Dated : 16.03.2009

Complainant:
N. Rajeev, T.C 43/358(3), Somanandanam, Manacaud P.O, 42-A, Santhi Grden II Street, Kamaleswaram,
Thiruvananthapuram – 9.


Opposite party:

SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., P.O Bag No. 28, G.P.O, New Delhi-110 001.


This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 18.06.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008. This O.P having been taken as heard on 24.02.2009, the Forum on 16.03.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
The allegations in the complaint are as follows: The complainant who is a Govt. servant is the holder of SBI Visa card. The grievance of the complainant is that the credit card companies like the opposite party are collecting 33% to 36% interest and for the late payment 18% to 20% interest as late fee is collected amounting to a total of 51% to 55%. The complainant has further pleaded that instead of claiming reasonable interest, the opposite party has claimed unreasonable interest under the head late fee which has to be interfered by the Forum. Hence this complaint for an order making applicable the approved rate of interest of the SBI to the opposite party also, among such other reliefs.


The opposite party remains exparte.


The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. 
   
   1. 
      
      1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
      2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
      3. Whether the complainant is entitled for any of the reliefs claimed for?

Points (i) to (iii):- The main allegation in the complaint is that the opposite party is collecting exorbitant amount as interest. The complainant has deposed that the interest rate and the late fee which are being collected by the opposite party is without any basis and he has prayed for an order directing the opposite party to claim nominal interest. The complainant has further deposed that the opposite party should be directed to stop collecting late fee. What is to be looked into is whether the opposite party has collected excess amount as interest and whether the late fee has been collected unauthorizedly. We have perused the documents produced by the complainant. Exts. P1 to P8, produced on behalf of complainant, are the monthly statement of accounts. In the above documents, the opposite party has demanded late fee from the complainant and as per these documents, the payment due date is seen mentioned as 'immediate'. At this juncture, we have to consider the aspect of collection of late fee. Nowhere in the complaint or in the deposition of PW1, the complainant has averred that he had remitted the amount in time. The complainant does not have a case that in spite of remittance of the amount due in time, the opposite party has collected late fee. In the above circumstance, the said allegation of the complainant with regard to collection of late fee fails to be proved.


The next aspect for consideration is whether the opposite party has collected exorbitant amount as interest. The complainant has not produced any document proving the agreed rate of interest by the opposite party. The agreement between the complainant and the opposite party has not been produced in the absence of which the agreed rate of interest of the opposite party could not be ascertained. This Forum can consider the issue of claiming high interest by the opposite party only if the agreed rate of interest has been furnished. Moreover, the Forum constituted under the Consumer Protection Act cannot go into the harshness of any clauses in the agreement. This Forum has jurisdiction to entertain only the matters which come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. If there was any violation of the agreed rate of interest, we could entertain the complaint, but in the absence of any document for the same we cannot entertain this complaint.


The complainant's reliefs with regard to the interest and direction to the opposite party to curtail the interest at 2% among such other reliefs are outside the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is dismissed as not maintainable before this Forum with liberty to the complainant to seek his remedy if any before the appropriate authority.

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER


The case of the complainant is as follows: The complainant was issued with a primary SBI card No. 4317 5751 6408 1318 and the complainant has neither signed on it nor has used it. Another card No. 4317 5751 6907 4250 was issued to the complainant without his request and the complainant returned it in pieces, without using it, on 17.10.2007. The opposite party made several demands and finally they said the matter could be settled on payment of Rs. 300/- which was paid accordingly by the complainant. But they have not settled the matter and instead the opposite party has demanded a sum of Rs. 14,000/-. The complainant further pleads that several threatening calls from Chennai and the filthy words over phone by the SBI personnel from the number 914430240274 caused great mental stress and strain. Hence this complaint has been filed.


In spite of acceptance of notice from the Forum, the opposite party never turned up to contest the case or file any version. Hence opposite party remains exparte.
The complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his deposition stands unchallenged.

We have perused the records produced by the complainant. An amount of Rs. 300/- is seen paid by the complainant to the opposite party as per Ext. P1 and the card number mentioned is 4317 5751 6907 4250. The complainant has pleaded that he has never used the card and he had returned it on 17.10.2007 and that he has been asked to pay an amount of Rs. 14000/-. The opposite party has never appeared before the Forum to contest the case nor has filed any version. In the above circumstance, how the opposite party has arrived at the above figure has not been clarified by the opposite party. Moreover, no explanation has been given by the opposite party for the same. Taking the above facts and circumstances into consideration we are left with no other option than to accept the pleadings in the complaint. On the basis of documents and depositions, we find that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.


In the result, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is found not liable to remit any further amount to the opposite party. The opposite party is further directed to stop such unfair trade practice and the opposite party is hereby directed to close the account of the complainant with immediate effect. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 3000/- as compensation and Rs. 2000/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the above mentioned amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.

BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

Dated this the 13th March 2009

COMPLAINT NO.209/2008

(Admitted on 25.07.2008)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Mr.Antony M.Fernandes,
S/o. Late Peter Fernandes,
Aged about 62 years,
R/A. Door No.17-8-500,
Silva Road, Kankanady Post,
Mangalore, Karnataka – 575 002. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri. K.S. Sharma).

VERSUS

M/s. SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.,
11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001,
Represented by its
Manager/Principal Officer. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY

(Advocate: Sri.B. Nanda Kishore).


***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:
This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant is the holder of two credit cards the 1st card bearing No.4317575028377613 and one more credit card bearing No.4006661058088019. The Complainant contended that he had used the 1st credit card only for 4 times for buying the diesel for his car in the petrol bunk and he had paid a total sum of Rs.19,969.91 to the Opposite Party over the period of several months towards the said credit card though he was supposed to pay Rs.17,059/-. The last payment he has made on 16.9.2006 through a cheque to the tune of Rs.2,000/- and contended that he had never used the 2nd credit card. And further alleged that the Opposite Party without consent and knowledge had debited a sum of Rs.3,059/- to the account of the credit card towards the Mediclaim Insurance Policy. And further the Opposite Party used to send the monthly statement very regularly to the Complainant even after clearing the entire dues, claiming huge outstanding in respect of credit card No.4317575028377613 and another credit card No.4006661059153168 which is not related to the Complainant. And further stated that, the Complainant did not respond to the monthly statement, as a result of which on 2.2.2007 one Mr.Deva, Manager of SBI Credit card asked the Complainant to pay monthly statements and the Complainant had explained the real facts and in response to the said stand of the Complainant, he had suggested to pay Rs.5,000/- as against the total claim of the Opposite Party. The Complainant in turn paid Rs.5,000/- on 9.2.2007 and on 2.2.2007 Complainant had returned both the credit cards to the Opposite Party and contended that the Opposite Party has sending false monthly statements even though the Opposite Party not stopped and hence the Complainant filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from the Forum to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs and also to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of the litigation expenses.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Party by RPAD. Opposite Party appeared through their counsel and filed version and submitted that the Complainant obtained the credit card from the Opposite Party and the Complainant is liable to pay as per the terms and conditions of the credit card issued by the Opposite Party. It is further submitted that the Complainant has signed the insurance application and has given his consent for the Mediclaim Insurance Policy dated 2.2.2003 and also consented for the 2nd additional card in the name of spouse Muriel Fernandes and obtained the signature of the Complainant for the same. And also submitted that Rs.6.00 lakhs has been insured and the same statement is depicted in the statement dated 27.9.2006 debited to the account on his card No.4006661059153168. And further submitted that the Complainant had made a request for a demand draft for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and the Opposite Party had issued a demand draft which has been encashed by the Complainant and he has used the credit card for various sale/purchase in day-to-day transactions. And further submitted that he has made payment of Rs.2,000/- on 16.9.2006 and the same is reflected in the statement and the balance shown as 19,625.22, the payment is not made from 19.6.2006 to 17.10.2006 which includes charges, the statement dated 17.12.2006 in which the payment of Rs.570/- is made and the balance is of Rs.21,124.90 and in the month of February 2007 Rs.5,000/- received and the balance of Rs.17,146.40 and the statements from 17th March 2007 to 17.9.2008 show only delay in payments, the Complainant has not made any payments and the payment till September 2008 is Rs.29,003/- is due and contended that there is no deficiency and Complainant is liable to pay the above said amount and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?

(ii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?






(iii)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Antony M. Fernandes (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C14 (C4 which includes 42 in numbers) as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party not filed counter affidavit. The Complainant produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes of arguments submitted by the learned counsel and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows:

Reasons


5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
From the documents produced by the Complainant i.e., Ex C4(1) to C4(42) i.e., the monthly statements from 17.10.2005 to 25.9.2008 reveals that the Complainant is a holder of two credit cards i.e., 4317575028377613 and 4006661059153168. The contention taken by the Complainant that the credit card No. 4006661059153168 is not related to the Complainant is falsified.
The Opposite Party i.e., SBI card sending regular monthly statement pertaining to two credit cards as referred above separately. On careful scrutiny of the credit card statement pertaining to the credit card No. 4317575028377613 reveals that 17.10.2005 the total outstanding amount due was 275.50. And further the statement dated 17.11.2005 reflects that the Complainant paid Rs.275.50 on 12.11.2005 and the same has been credited and at the same time he has purchased petrol in Mangalore and also taken easy money of Rs.12,000/- from the Opposite Party. The 17.12.2005 statement pertaining to the above said credit card shows that the Complainant never paid the previous amount due and also he had purchased petrol in Prabhu Service Station Mangalore. And further 17.1.2006 the statement reveals that the Complainant paid only Rs.1,556/- and Rs.275.50 by way of cheque and even that statement reflects that he had purchased petrol from Prabhu Service Station. And further the statement dated 17.2.2006, 17.3.2006, 17.4.2006, 17.6.2006, 17.7.2006, 17.8.2006, 17.9.2006, 17.10.2006, 17.11.2006, 17.12.2006, 17.1.2007 , 17.4.2007, 17.6.2007, 17.10.2007, 17.6.2008, 17.9.2008 statements clearly reveals that the Complainant had made several transactions by using the above said credit card and also not paid the amount due under the above statement. There is no documentary proof that the Complainant had paid the entire dues under the credit card No. 4317575028377613 and also the statement dated 27.1.2006, 27.2.2006, 27.3.2006, 27.4.2006, 27.6.2006, 27.7.2006, 27.8.2006, 27.9.2006, 27.10.2006, 27.11.2006, 27.10.2007, 27.11.2007, 25.01.2008, 25.2.2008, 25.3.2008, 25.4.2008, 25.5.2008, 25.6.2008, 25.7.2008, 25.8.2008 and 25.9.2008 pertaining to the credit card No. 4006661059153168 further reveals that the Complainant had made several transactions even under the above credit card, the Complainant not paid the entire amount due and hence we are of the opinion that since the Complainant was not made the payment within the stipulated time available under the credit card the Opposite Parties sending the above statements appears to be justifiable.
As far as the insurance premium of Rs.3,059/- debited towards the Mediclaim Insurance Policy is concerned, the Opposite Party failed to produce any documentary evidence to show that the Complainant had consented to obtain Mediclaim Insurance Policy. In the absence of the same, the Opposite Party has no right to debit the premium in his credit card. Only to that extent, we are of the opinion that the premium amount debited under the credit cards and interest and connected charges imposed on the above said amount is not correct and the Complainant is not liable to pay the above said amount and interest and other connected charges.
In view of the above discussions, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Party is hereby directed to issue an up-to-date revised credit card statement showing total outstanding amount after deducting the Insurance premium of Rs.3,059/- debited towards the mediclaim insurance policy and the interest and other connected charges imposed on the said amount to the Complainant immediately. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

The complaint is partly allowed. Opposite Party namely, SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Limited, New Delhi is hereby directed to issue revised up-to-date credit card statement pertaining to the credit card No. 4317575028377613 and 4006661059153168 to the Complainant immediately showing total outstanding balance after deducting the Mediclaim Insurance premium of Rs.3,059/- and interest and other connected charges imposed thereon. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)



PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)



MEMBER MEMBER

(SMT.SULOCHANA V.RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHANDRA)







APPENDIX


Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 – Mr.Antony M. Fernandes – Complainant.

Documents marked on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 12.01.2008: Letter written by the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex C2 – 12.07.2008: Notice issued by the Opposite Party through its Lawyer to the Complainant.
Ex C3 – 11.10.2008: Notice issued by the Opposite Party through its Lawyer to the Complainant.
Ex C4(1) to (42) : Monthly statement in relation to the credit card No. 4317575028377613 and 4006661059153168 issued to the Complainant (42 in nos.)
Ex C5 – 05.12.2006: Legal notice to the Opposite Party.
Ex C6 to C9 – 31.1.2007, 3.2.2007, 7.2.2007 : Letter of the Complainant to the Opposite Party along with acknowledgement.
Ex C10 – 24.09.2007: Copy of the legal notice to Mr.Deva, SBI Cards & Payments, Chennai.
Ex C11 – : Postal acknowledgement.
Ex C12 – 28.02.2008: Leal notice sent on behalf of the Opposite Party to the Complainant.
Ex C13 – 11.03.2008: Reply to the above said legal notice.
Ex C14 - : Postal acknowledgement.

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil -

Documents marked on behalf of the Opposite Party:

- Nil -



Dated:13.03.2009

BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MANGALORE

Dated this the 13th March 2009

COMPLAINT NO.241/2008

(Admitted on 28.08.2008)

PRESENT: 1. Smt. Asha Shetty, B.A. L.L.B., President
2.Smt. Sulochana V. Rao, Member
3.Sri. K. Ramachandra, Member
BETWEEN:
Satish,
S/o I.S.Somaiah,
Aged about 43 years,
Residing at No.1/49,
NISARGA NILAYA,Kadambodi,
Madarbettu Road Surathkal,
Mangalore 575 030. …. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri.D.Sanjay)
VERSUS
1. M/s. SBI Cards & payments
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
No.11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110 001.
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.1: Exparte)
2. State Bank of India,
Main Branch, Mangalore.
(Represented by its Branch Manager)
….OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2: B.Nanda Kishore.)
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.

It is submitted that, the Complainant obtained Credit Card bearing No.00043175755012868916 during the month of December 2003 from the Opposite Parties. It is alleged that after obtaining the above said credit card he had made only a single retail transaction of Rs.640/- and the payment towards the same has been made by Cheque drawn against Canara Bank.

It is further submitted that, during November 2004 the Complainant cancelled the credit card. Even after canceling the credit card the 1st Opposite Party started writing letters by demanding amount which is not pending from his side. That is on 19.10.2005 Opposite Party informed that the Complainant account had been deactivated but in the same letter demanded Rs.4,481.26 which amounts to illegal demand and not justifiable. The Complainant contended that he has no due towards the Opposite Party and hence the above complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- plus interest at 18% p.a. towards the mental agony and torture suffered by the Complainant.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice, neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Party No.1 in this case.
That the Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter by post stating that they do not have any role in issuing, managing, recovery or reconciliation of S.B.I. Credit Card in question issued to the Complainant. The Opposite Party No.2 branch is authorized by RBI to conduct only banking business, which has issued license for the same and the issue of Credit card is outside the purview of their business operations. A separate subsidiary has been created by the Opposite Party Bank whose corporate office is located in New Delhi and contended that they are not party to the proceedings and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

(ii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Sathish (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 and C28 were submitted by the Complainant as listed in the annexure.Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice, neither appeared nor contested the case till this date proceed exparte and Opposite Party No.2 sent a letter by post by way of version and not submitted any counter affidavit.
We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINTs NO.(i) to (iii):

In the present case, the Ex.C1 to C28 i.e. monthly statements issued by the SBI Card and also the correspondences between the parties proved that, the Complainant is the holder of Credit card number 00043175755012868916.
The main allegation of the Complainant is that, being a Credit card holder he did only a single retail transaction of Rs.640/-. The payment towards the same has been made by cheque. Thereafter, during November 2004, cancelled the credit card. Evenafter canceling the credit card the Opposite Party used to sent monthly statements and demanded Rs.4,481.26 which is not justifiable.

The Opposite Party No.1 despite of serving notice not appeared nor contraverted the entire evidence and documents produced by the Complainant. In the instant case, no doubt the Opposite Party No.1 demanded Rs.4,481.26 as the total outstanding amount on the Complainant’s credit card account. But there is no explanation is forthcoming before the Fora in order to substantiate their claim. However, to claim Rs.4,481.26 from the Complainant, the Opposite Party should explain the clear position/transaction of the out standing amount on his account by producing relevant documents. But in the present case, the Opposite Party No.1 not submitted any documentary explanation as to the out standing amount due from the Complainant credit card account. In the absence of any material/cogent evidence, we have to presume that the demand made by the Opposite Party No.1 is not justifiable. But on the other hand, the Complainant by producing a pass book before the Fora shown that he had made only one transaction i.e. Rs.640/- and also documents produced by the Complainant reveals that in the month of November 2004, he has cancelled the credit card, despite of that he has been receiving the statements as per Ex.C2 to C4, C6, C7, C9, C10, C12, C14, C16, C19, C23, C24, C27. But the correspondence made between the parties clearly reveals that, the Opposite Party No.1 failed to give proper explanation with regard to the amount due. In the absence of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the Opposite Party and the demand notice issued by the Opposite Party No.1 amounts to deficiency and unfair trade practice.

In view of the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that there is no basis to claim Rs.4,481.26 from the Complainant. Therefore, the Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to stop sending monthly statements henceforth to the Complainant and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

As far as credit card is concerned there is no contractual relationship between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.2 and further there is no deficiency proved as against the Opposite Party No.2. Hence, Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The Complaint is allowed. The Opposite Party No.1 is here by directed to stop sending monthly statements to the Complainant hence forth and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
Complaint against Opposite Party No.2 is hereby dismissed.
Copy of this order azs per statutory requirements be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, the transcript revised, signed and pronounced by us in the open court on this the 13th day of March 2009.)





PRESIDENT
(SMT. ASHA SHETTY)


MEMBER MEMBER
(SMT. SULOCHANA V. RAO) (SRI. K.RAMACHNADRA)

APPENDIX

WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE COMPLAINANT :
CW1- Sri Sathish.

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:
Ex C1:4.10.2005: Letter written by the Complainant .

Ex C2: 19.8.2005: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C3: 19.10.2005: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C4: 19.11.2005: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C5: 19.10.2005: Letter written by the Complainant.
Ex C6: 19.1.2006: Letter of -Complainant monthly statement
given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C7: 19.2.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C8: 11.3.2006: Letter written by the Complainant to O.P.NO.1.
Ex C9: 19.3.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C10:19.4.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C11:2.5.2006: Letter written by the O.P.No.1 to the
Complainant.
Ex C12: 19.5.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C13:12.4.2006: Letter written by the Complainant to O.P.No.1.
Ex C14:19.6.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C15:15.9.2006: Letter written by the OP.No.1 to Complainant.
Ex C16:19.8.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C17:26.10.2006: Letter written by the OP.No.1 to Complainant.
Ex.C18:11.10.2006:Letter written by the Complainant to OP.No.1.
Ex C19:19.11.2006: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C20:16.12.2006: Letter written by the Consumer Forum,
Surathkal to the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C21:2.1.2007: Letter written by O.P.No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex C22:23.1.2007: Letter written by O.P.No.1 to the Complainant.
Ex C23:19.2.2007: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C24:19.5.2007: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C25:28.2.2008:Lawyer’s Reg. Notice by O.P.No.1 to the
Complainant.
Ex C26:19.3.2008: Reply given to the Complainant to Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C27: 19.6.2008: Monthly statement given by the Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C28: 12.7.2008: Lawyer’s Notice by O.P.No.1 to the
Complainant.

WITNESSESS EXAMINED FOR THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
-Nil-

DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
-Nil-



Dated:13.3.2009 PRESIDENT

Consumer Case No. 550/2008

Between:-
Vivekananda Yadavalli
Flat # 102. lorven Residency,
6-3-609/82,83,83/1, Anandnagar,
Khairathabad,
Hyderabad – 500004. ……Complainant
And
1. SBI Cards, #103, Ashoka Bhoopal Chamber, 1st Floor,
S.P. Road, Secunderabad,
Andhra Pradesh 500003.

• Mr.Ajay Bharti, Asst.Vice President

Customer Services,
SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,
PO. Bag 28-GPO, New Delhi-110001,
Head.sbicards@ge.com ... Opposite Parties


This case coming on this day for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Party in person, and Sri Hari & Associates, advocate for the opposite parties and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum pronounced the following:-

O R D E R

(per Hon’ble President, SRI M.Vijaya Bhaskara reddy, on behalf of the Bench)

1. This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction against opposite parties to stop calls demanding payment of over due amount, to de-link his relationship with opposite party, to clean up his credit history, for compensation under various heads and for costs.


2. The case of the complainant as set out in the complaint in brief is that he was issued with credit card bearing No.4006676015986584 by the opposite parties in January, 2006. However, he could not activate his card nor used the same. While so, on 24-01-2008 a fake person changed the complainant’s address without his knowledge. On 25-01-2008 the opposite parties renewed the card which was not solicited by the complainant. However, the renewed card was delivered to a person who was staying in the new address. Subsequently, the said person used the card and made purchases worth Rs.2,56,000/-. On 25-03-2008 the opposite parties reminded the complainant about the out standing amount of his credit card. Then he called the customer care number and asked them to verify the dues. He came to know that the renewed credit card was misused. On the next day he lodged a complaint to the opposite parties. He requested the opposite parties not to harass him for any amount due. The opposite party acknowledged the complaint but persisted for payment of the amount. The complainant got issued another notice dated 25-04-2008. They defamed his reputation. Hence the complaint.


3. Opposite parties No.1 & 2 filed a common counter denying the allegations levelled against them. They denied that the credit issued to the complainant remained in active or that he never acknowledged the terms and conditions. The complainant activated and used the card.


4. It is further pleaded that as per the request of the complainant with regard to change of address to 11-11-82/1, Road No.3, Telephone Colony, Dilshuknagar, Hyderabad, they issued a renewed card to him in the month of January, 2008 to his new address, which he received. In the month of January, 2008 itself he used the card to a tune of Rs.2,56,000/-.


5. It is further pleaded that they never indulged in harassing its customers. Just to evade the over due amount and to escape from his legal dues, the complainant levelled false allegations. They adopted legal procedure to recover the money due. The complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs claimed.


6. To substantiate his case, the complainant has chosen to file his evidence affidavit and relied on Exs.A1 to A5. On the other hand the opposite parties have not relied on any evidence. However, both sides filed the written arguments.


7. Points for Consideration are:-
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties? and, if so, whether the complainant is entitled for any compensation? and, if so, to what amount?
2. To what relief ?


8. Point No.1:- It is significant to note that the complainant no where in his complaint alleged that there was deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Similarly, he did not whisper the same in his evidence affidavit also. So, the complaint as framed is bad.


9. Admittedly, the complainant was issued with the SBI Gold Card as seen in Ex.A2. He never destroyed the same by cutting it into pieces to avoid misuse of the same. It is also admitted that the said card was issued to him on his application, upon submitting all necessary documents and upon proper verification. According to the complainant he did not activate his card. If it is so, this Forum wonders as to why he could not surrender it to the opposite party. He could as well have destroyed the same and intimated it to the opposite parties at once. It is not the case of the complainant that he cancelled the credit card issued to him.


10. It is contended by the complainant that some one got the address changed and managed to receive a renewed card at the new address. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that unless the card holder gives a written application the address would not be changed. Further, such change would be made only after verification of the genuineness of the application. There is definite force in the contention of the opposite parties. Unless the institutions such as the opposite parties are satisfied with the genuineness of the application, they would not resort to acknowledge the change of address. As rightly contended by the opposite parties, they would not accept the change of address unless, the applicant answers certain confidential questions which he alone would know as a card holder.


11. Practically, the burden is on the complainant to prove that a stranger received the credit card at his new address and misused the same. It is not the case of the complainant that the newly given address is not that of him. So, he has to prove that he did not receive the credit card and that some one else has received the same. At one stage the complainant alleged that the courier boy without verifying or checking the identity proof, handed over the card at the address. However, the complainant failed to substantiate the same.


12. It is contended on behalf of the opposite parties that the complainant, having used the card to a tune of Rs.2,56,000/- in one month, filed this petition with ulterior motive so as to evade the payment. We see definite force in the contention of the opposite parties. The complainant, in whose custody the credit card remains, failed to surrender the same to the opposite parties or to intimate them for cancellation of it. The complainant should have been careful and he alone shall be held should hold responsible and liable if his card is abused. The documents relied on by him in no way help his case. They are all self serving documents, which did not indicate that he has not used the card issued to him. There are absolutely no merits in this case. It cannot be ruled out that to avoid the payment of amount due, the complainant has come up with this case with ulterior motive. After all, the opposite parties are public institution and no individual would gain if a demand is issued to the complainant for making payment of the sum due to the institution. So it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or that they resorted to unfair trade practice. Thus the complainant is not entitled for any of the reliefs asked.


13. Point No.2:- In the result the complaint is dismissed with costs of Rs.2,000/-(Rupees two thousands only).

Manoharan, Manu Bhavan, Aduppukuttampara, Vazhayila, Peroorkada P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. Kulathoor S.V. Premakumaran Nair)

Opposite party:

Authorized Signatory, SBI Cards, Uthradam Building, Top Floor, Rohini Tyres, Panavila Junction, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. A. Abdul Kharim & R. Ranjit)

This O.P having been heard on 01.04.2009, the Forum on 15.04.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party alleging as follows: The complainant was forced to take SBI Credit card bearing No. 43175751643224181 of the opposite party. On 24.01.2007 the complainant had withdrawn Rs. 6000/- by using the card through ATM and the said amount with interest was remitted using the said card. Since the complainant wanted to cancel the said card, he had to remit Rs. 103/- for the cancellation of the SBI card and a receipt for the same was also issued. But after that the complainant has been issued with a bill for Rs. 8458.50. The complainant had already settled the amount due towards the SBI card with interest and hence this complaint.


The opposite party accepted the notice issued from the Forum and never turned up and hence they remain exparte.


The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P4, he has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.


The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. 
   
   1. 
      
      1. Whether the complainant is entitled to pay the amount claimed by the opposite party?
      2. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
      3. Reliefs and costs.
      4. 
         

Points (i) to (iii):- The statement of accounts which has been marked as Ext. P3 reveals that the complainant is the holder of the credit card bearing No. 43175751643224181. From Ext. P2 it is seen that an amount of Rs. 6,150/- has been debited from the account of the complainant on 22.02.2007 towards SBI card. The allegation of the complainant is that, inspite of remittance of the entire amount with interest he was again asked to remit Rs. 103/- towards cancellation of the said card and accordingly he had paid Rs. 103/-. Ext. P1 is the document produced in support of the same. The payment of Rs. 103/- by the complainant on 23.06.2007 in the said card No. is seen accepted by the opposite party as per the P1 receipt. The complainant has further pleaded that the opposite party's staff had endorsed and signed in the receipt that “card settle ചെയ്തു,അതിന്* പ്രകാരം 103/- രൂപ balanceവാങ്ങിച്ചു. ഇനി അടയ്ക്കാന്* ഇല്ല." It is true that there is an endorsement with regard to the same in Ext. P1 which according to the complainant has been written by the opposite party's staff. But the opposite party has never turned up to deny the same or contest the matter and they have not filed their version either denying the allegations levelled against them. In such a circumstance, this Forum is left with no other option than to accept the pleadings in the complaint. The records produced by the complainant prove that the complainant has been asked to remit further amounts even after the clearance of the entire dues. When the opposite party has accepted Rs. 103/- and issued Ext. P1, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to have ensured that it was duly credited to the complainant's account. Now the opposite party has claimed Rs. 8,458.50 as per Ext. P3 and as per Ext. P4, the amount has been enhanced to Rs. 9,729.40 from the complainant, the details of which have not been provided by the opposite party. As a financial institution, duty upon the opposite party was of a higher degree of care and caution which they have failed. Having received the entire amount from the complainant, the opposite party is bound to account the same.


On the basis of the documents and affidavit, we find that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.


In the result, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is found not liable to remit any further amount to the opposite party. The opposite party shall stop such unfair trade practice and shall cancel the card and close the account of the complainant with immediate effect. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER
The complainant who is a homoeo doctor has filed this complaint against the opposite party alleging as follows: Because of the pressure and tactics played by the opposite party against complaint, complainant was forced to purchase one SBI Credit Card No. 4317575074091571. Complainant never used the credit card nor he purchased anything by using this credit card. Demand was made by the opposite party to the complainant for paying an amount of Rs. 9456/-.

Complainant tried to convince the opposite party and informed that the complainant never used the credit card issued by the opposite party. On 30.01.2007 he contacted the opposite party and expressed his willingness to cancel the credit card. The complainant cancelled the said credit card by paying an amount of Rs. 100/-. Even after the cancellation of the said credit card opposite party forwarded statements every month directing the complainant for paying an amount towards debit flexi pay amount and delayed payment amount.

Complainant contacted opposite party through e-mail and explained complainant's grievances. In the reply to e-mail opposite party stated that, charges were levied towards Super Suraksha Policy an insurance claim policy towards complainant. Complainant never authorised anyone to issue Super Suraksha Policy or to debit complainants card for Super Suraksha. Opposite party is now demanding to pay an amount of Rs. 9,456/-. This act happened because of the wilful negligence and deficiency in service from the part of the opposite party. Hence this complaint for redressal of his grievances.


The opposite party accepted the notice issued from the Forum and never turned up and hence they remain exparte.


The complainant has filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and marked Exts. P1 to P5, he has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged.


The issues that would arise for consideration are:-

1. 
   
   1. 
      
      1. Whether the complainant is entitled to pay the amount claimed by the opposite party?
      2. Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?
      3. Reliefs and costs.

Points (i) to (iii):- The statement of accounts which has been marked as Ext. P1 reveals that the complainant is the holder of the credit card bearing No. 4317575074091571. The complainant has pleaded that he has never used the credit card nor has he purchased anything using this credit card inspite of that he had paid Rs. 100/- for cancelling the credit card. Payment of Rs. 100/- is proved by Ext. P2, wherein there is an endorsement on the overleaf with regard to the payment towards cancellation. But the opposite party has never turned up to deny the same or contest the matter and they have not filed their version either denying the allegations levelled against them. In such a circumstance, this Forum is left with no other option than to accept the pleadings in the complaint. The records produced by the complainant proves that the complainant has been asked to remit further amounts even after the clearance of the entire dues. When the opposite party has accepted Rs. 100/- and issued Ext. P2, it was incumbent upon the opposite party to have ensured that it was duly credited to the complainant's account. Now the opposite party has claimed Rs. 8059.39 as per Ext. P1 and as per Ext. P5, the amount has been enhanced to Rs. 9,456/- from the complainant, the details of which have not been provided by the opposite party. As a financial institution, duty upon the opposite party was of a higher degree of care and caution which they have failed. Having received the amount for cancellation from the complainant, the opposite party is bound to account the same and cancel the card accordingly.


On the basis of the documents and affidavit, we find that the opposite party is guilty of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.


In the result, the complaint is allowed and the complainant is found not liable to remit any further amount to the opposite party. The opposite party shall stop such unfair trade practice and shall cancel the card and close the account of the complainant with immediate effect. The opposite party shall also pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) as costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12%.

Sri. Harish Kumar,
S/o. P. Babu Rao,
Tank View, Karangalpady,
KRR Road, Kodialbail,
Mangalore – 575 003. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Appeared in person).

VERSUS

1. The Managing Director,
SBI Credit Cards, SBI Local Office,
Registered Office,
II Parliament Street,
New Delhi – 110 001.

2. The Manager,
SBI Credits & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,
PO Bag No.28, GPO,
New Delhi – 110 001.

3. The Manager,
SBI Credit Cards (P) Ltd.,
2nd Floor, Above Amanath Co-operative Bank,
Nellikai Road, West Coast Complex,
Mangalore – 575 001.
……. OPPOSITE PARTIES

(Opposite Parties: Exparte).


***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY SMT. ASHA SHETTY, PRESIDENT;

1. The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:

This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties claiming certain reliefs.
The Complainant is a credit card holder of the Opposite Party bearing No.4317 5750 1725 0805, he was sanctioned a credit facility with a limit of Rs.21,000/-. It is submitted that the Opposite Party used to send the information like monthly schedule of charges, demand for payment, details of debits disclosing the due date for payment. The Complainant was not satisfied with the schedule of charges and the demand made therein. It is submitted that the schedule of charges sent by the Opposite Party did not disclosed the interest charged for number of days and even after calculation as per the accounting principles the interest levied is not correct. On 2.8.2006 the Complainant gave a representation to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 seeking information and documents. In the said representation, Complainant demanded for statement of accounts from the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the Complainant used to make the payment towards the account by taking demand draft and by issuing the cheque. The Opposite Party even after repeated calls and receiving payment, kept quiet without providing the documents as demanded by the Complainant. It is submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 kept quiet without considering the representation of the Complainant. As a result of which the Complainant was put to difficulty and financial hardship and unable to find out the interest calculations debits made to the account and also the correctness of the levy of interest on the credit facility enjoyed by him and submits that the service rendered by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 suffers from deficiency and hence filed the above complaint before this Hon'ble Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to consider the representation dated 2.8.2006 and also to pay compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs and further prayed for waive the interest that is debited for the period from 2.8.2006 to 29.11.2008 and litigation expenses.

2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Parties despite of serving notice, neither appeared nor contested the case till this date and proceeded exparte as against Opposite Party No.1 to 3 and the acknowledgement placed before the FORA marked as court document No.1 to 3.

3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
(i)Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties have committed deficiency in service?

(ii)If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?






(iii)What order?

4. In support of the complaint, Sri.Harish Kumar (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and got marked Ex C1 to C4 as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party neither appeared nor contested the case.
We have considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum by the Complainant and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i): Affirmative.
Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
Reasons


5. Point No. (i) to (iii):
In the present case, the Ex C1 to C4 i.e., the monthly statement issued by SBI Card, the letters written by the Complainant to the SBI Cards, New Delhi and Mangalore proved that the Complainant is a holder of credit card bearing No.4317 5750 1725 0805. The Complainant filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and produced Ex C1 to C4 and submitted that he has been sanctioned a credit facility with a limit of Rs.21,000/- and the Opposite Party used to send the information by way of monthly statement. The said statement contains charges, demand for payment, details of debits, disclosing the due date for payment. Since the Complainant was not satisfied with the schedule of charges and the demand made therein, the Complainant gave a representation to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2 seeking information and documents with regard to the levy of interest and the calculations arrived by them but the Opposite Party failed to comply the same.
In order to prove the grievances of the Complainant, produced Ex C2 dated 02.08.2006 i.e., a correspondences made by the Complainant to the Opposite Party No.1 and 2, wherein he has demanded statement of account from the date of sanction of the credit card till date and breakup of interest and other charges levied as per demand notice/statement of account from the date of sanction till date. And further the Ex C3 is the one more correspondence dated 11.11.2006 also reveals that the Complainant once again demanded the statement of account, interest breakup as on date. The above said correspondences were served to the Opposite Parties by registered post. The postal receipts also produced before the FORA.
Further we find that after registering the above complaint this FORA has issued the version notice to the Opposite Parties and the notices were served by RPAD despite of that the Opposite Parties were not appeared nor represented the case till this date and the entire evidence and the documents produced by the Complainant is not corroborated/rebutted by the Opposite Party, despite of taking opportunity to cross-examine the Complainant, it shows their gross negligence. That the entire evidence and the documents produced by the Complainant requires no further proof. By considering the above aspect, we are of the considered opinion that the service rendered by the Opposite Parties amounts to deficiency.
Further we find that the Opposite Parties ought to have submitted the statement of account and interest breakup as demanded by the Complainant after receipt of the registered notice or atleast the receipt of the version notice but the Opposite Parties failed to do the same which amounts to deficiency in service.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to furnish the statement of accounts and breakup of interest and other charges levied as per statement of account/demand notice from the date of sanction till date. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as compensation for the harassment and inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
There is no deficiency proved against Opposite Party No.3 and hence the complaint against Opposite Party No.3 is hereby dismissed.

6. In the result, we pass the following:

ORDER

The complaint is allowed. Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are hereby directed to furnish the statement of accounts and breakup of interest and other charges levied as per statement of account/demand notice from the date of sanction till date. And further Rs.1,000/- awarded as compensation and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

K.Rangasamy, S/o.Krishnasamy,

Teacher at Lisiux Matric and Higher

SecondarySchool, Saibaba colony,

Coimbatore. --- Complainant

Vs.

1. The Manager, State Bank of India CPSL,

P.B.No.28, GPO, New Delhi -110 011.

2. M/s.SBI CardS and Payments Ltd.

36,37, Ashirwah Building, R.S.Puram,

Coimbatore -2. --- Opposite Parties.



This case coming on for final hearing before us on 17.4.2009 and 11.5.09 in the presence of Mr.S.Mani, Advocates for complainant and of Thiru A.M.Martin, Advocate for opposite parties 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 pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh as compensation for mental agony, to terminate the account and cancel the credit card bearing No.4006 6610 1879 7006 and to pay cost of the proceedings.

The case of the complaint are as follows:

1. The Complainant availed credit card facility from the 1st opposite party under the credit card bearing No.4006 6610 1879 7006. The complainant intended to cancel the above said card as the complainant was not interested in continuing due to the deficit service provided to him. This was duly informed and the first opposite party agreed to terminate the above said card. On 9.10.06 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating that a sum of Rs.5305.39p is due and requested the complainant to remit the said outstanding amount so as to enable them to execute the complainant’s request. Accordingly the complainant settled the entire amount of Rs.3503 by way of cheque.

2. On 14.11.06 he received a letter from 1st opposite party stating that the complainant request with respect to termination of the account is under consideration. The 1st opposite party issued a letter dated 27.11.06 demanding the complainant to maintain a minimum balance in the account. Inspite of subsequent letter dated 13.3.2007, requesting the opposite party to terminate the account, the opposite party sent a statement dated 27.3.07 demanding an amount. The complainant is not willing to continue the account and issued a legal notice dated 7.4.2007 to the opposite party calling upon them to terminate the account and to pay compensation. But the opposite parties did not come forward to settle the issue. The opposite parties have committed deficiency of service. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by them. Hence this complaint.



…….2…….



The case of the opposite parties are as follows:

3. This complaint is not maintainable since this Forum is not having jurisdiction to take this complaint. This complaint should fail for non-joinder of parties also. The credit cards issued by this bank are accepted globally depending upon the credit facility accorded to the particular cardholder. The complainant was issued card SBI card bearing No.4006 6610 1879 7006. The card member is expected to ensure that his liabilities do not exceed the credit limit. Since the accounts pertains to 2004, all the data’s in the server has been shifted to records and the same has to be retrieved, with due approvals. The said records are expected to be received within a week time. So the opposite parties reserve its right to file an additional written statement on receipt of the same.

4. The allegations in the complaint are all false. The amount payable on the said card account that continues to attract further debits each day till the entire arrears are cleared. When the balance outstanding is increasing day by day, naturally the follow up for payment shall be there. Default has been committed by the complainant and the chain of events has started from there, and it is only the complainant who has to make the payment to this opposite party. Therefore there has no deficiency of service on the part of this opposite parties. Hence the complaint ought to be dismissed.

5. The complainant and opposite parties have filed Proof Affidavits along with Exhibits A1 to A12 was marked on the side of the complainant and no documents was marked on the side of the opposite parties.

The point for consideration is

1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?

If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

ISSUE 1:

6. The case of the complainant is that after availing the credit card facility from the 1st opposite party, he intended to cancel the above said card since the complainant was not interested in continuing due to deficiency of service provided by the opposite parties, but even after settling the outstanding amount, the opposite parties failed to terminate the account and cancel the credit card bearing No. 4006 6610 1879 7006.

7. The complainant is a credit card holder is admitted by the opposite parties. Ex.A5 is the letter dated 9.10.06 written by the opposite parties to the complainant regarding cancellation of credit card account. As per this letter, the opposite parties requested the complainant to pay Rs.5305 favouring SBI card number for FCR along with a written communication for cancellation. The extract of relevant portion is given below:

…….

…….

“Encash Related: We would like to share with you that we would be able to execute your request regarding cancellation of encash on your card account post receipt of the payment towards outstanding balance on your personal loan account. Taking into account the payments already received on your card account, the current outstanding balance on the personal loan account is Rs.5305.59. Thus, we would request you to forward the payment of Rs.5305.59 favouring SBI card number for FCR along with a written communication for cancellation to enable us to execute your request”



8. Ex.A6 is the Xerox copy of statement of account for the month of October. As per the statement, the opposite parties on 26.10.06 received a cheque No.641832 for Rs.5306. Ex.A5 and A6 will prove that the outstanding

…3…



amount of Rs.5306 was paid by the complainant informing the opposite parties to cancel the credit card issued in favour of the complainant. This was also confirmed by letter dt.14.11.06 which is marked as Ex.A7. In this letter the opposite parties have stated that the complainant request with respect to termination of account is under active consideration. Inspite of this the opposite party sent a statement dated 27.11.06 to the complainant. Even after receiving legal notice dated 7.4.07 the opposite parties sending statements to the complainant. Ex.A11 is the statement dated 27.7.07.

The main allegation of the complainant are not specifically denied by the opposite parties both in the counter as well as in the Proof Affidavit. The opposite parties have admitted the issuance of the credit card to the complainant and the branch office is added as a second opposite party hence the complainant is a consumer and the complaint is maintainable before this Forum. The opposite parties failed to provide utmost service to the complainant. The opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in not canceling the card despite the entire amount was paid. Hence the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the deficiency of service committed by them.

9. In the result, we direct the opposite parties to terminate the account and cancel the credit card bearing No. 4006 6610 1879 7006 and to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of Rs.1000 within 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.

Mr. Surendra Ugamraj Sancheti,
R/at : 203, Hill View,
85, Lullnagar, Pune – 411 040. … COMPLAINANT
: VERSUS :

1. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd.,
Head Office : DLF Infinity Tower, C,12th Floor,
Block 2, Building 3 DLF Cybercity,
Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana)


2. Branch Office : SBI Cards, Mutha Chambers,
Senapati Bapat Road, Pune – 411 016.
3. Reserve Bank Of India,
Central Office,
Mumbai -400 001. …OPPOSITE PARTIES


[2] The Complainant is a Credit Card Holder of the Opposite Party No.1 Bank. The same is the Credit Card Division of the SBI. The Opposite Party No.2 is its branch office situated at Senapati Bapat Road, Pune. The Opposite Party No.3 is the RBI.



[3] The Opposite Party No.1 had offered cash advance loan of Rs.40,000/- for a period of two years. The rate of interest @ 16% reducing p.a.. The same was confirmed by the Complainant by contacting the staff of the Opposite Party for verification. The Complainant was appraised that the rate of interest was 16% reducing per annum. The Complainant was liable to repay the said loan within two years from the date of disbursement with interest @16% p.a. reducing.



[4] Accordingly, the Complainant had obtained the said advance loan of Rs.40,000/- in the month of October-2007. The same was acted upon by the Opposite Party No.1 by letter. The Complainant was issued monthly statement of November-2007. He was surprised to see that the flat rate of interest @ 16% p.a. was charged by the Opposite Party. An amount of Rs.12,800/- was charged for interest for the aforesaid period of two years. The total dues payable by the Complainant was Rs.84,087/- by November-2007. Thereafter, the Complainant raised an objection by sending E-mail. The same was received by the Opposite Party No.1 on 1/12/2007. The Complainant had simultaneously sent E-mail to Assistant Vice President of the Opposite Party on 3/12/2007. There was no positive response from the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 in the monthly statement of December-2007. The flat rate of interest @16% p.a. was charged. The amount of Rs.95,703/- was payable by the Complainant by December-2007. The Complainant contacted the staff of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. They did not respond favourably. Consequently, on 3/1/2008, the Complainant had filed the complaint before RBI’s Banking Ombudsman Office bearing No. CC- 831/07-08.



[5] The Complainant submits that despite of the fact of pendency of the said case before the Appropriate Authority, time and again, he was receiving the telephone calls from the Bank of the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Many times, the local people used to come at his residence and were demanding the payment. He was fade up with these calls and the conduct exhibited by the Opposite Party No.2 staff. He had made a proposal before the Opposite Party No.2 that he would pay an amount of Rs.80,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim. Out of which, an amount of Rs.40,000/- was towards the cash advance, Rs.30,000/- was on account of balance transfer and Rs.10,000/- was towards the cash withdrawn. The said proposal was accepted by the Opposite Parties and settlement took place on 30/1/2008. The Complainant presumed that on payment of Rs.80,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2, the matter is settled and that he is not liable to pay any amount to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. To his surprise, the Complainant had received the statement for the month of February-2008. An amount of Rs.80,000/- was adjusted. Still the amount of Rs.17,260/- was found due and payable by the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 have indulged in an unfair trade practice. Despite of the payment of Rs.80,000/- towards full and final settlement of the claim, payment of Rs.17,260/- was shown by the Opposite Party No.2. The same is deficiency in service. The Complainant therefore prays that suitable directions be given to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 that the statement dtd.30/1/2008 is final and conclusive and that the complaint is not liable to make any payment to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. The Complainant has further claimed an exemplary damages of Rs.19,00,000/- from the Opposite Parties. It appears that the Opposite Party No.3 is impleaded because it had not dispose of the said complaint pending before the RBI, Banking Ombudsman office.



[6] The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 were duly served with the notice. The postal acknowledgment bearing the seal of their respective Banks bearing the signatures of the concerned staff have been received by the Forum. The date of appearance for them was given is 3/6/2008. On that date, the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 did not appear. It appears that the notice sent to the Opposite Partyno.3 – RBI was received and therefore the Complainant had filed an application to reissue the notice to the RBI. Inadvertently, in the rojnama, it is mentioned that notices sent to the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 had been refused by them. The postal acknowledgments however made it clear that they were served with the notice well in advance before the date of appearance on 3/6/2008.



[7] The Opposite Party RBI had appeared on 11/7/2008. An ex-parte order came to be passed against the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 on 1/8/2008. The complaint proceeded ex-parte against the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The written statement was filed by the Opposite Party RBI on 15/9/2008.



[8] The contention raised by the RBI in its written statement is very much specific. It is pleaded that the Complainant is not a “consumer” of the RBI. The Complainant had not availed any services from the Opposite Party No.3 RBI. Similarly, it is pleaded that the Opposite Party-RBI is a legal entity, constituted under the provision of RBI Act, 1934. It had issued Scheme in the year 2006 known as Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006. The complaint was received by Ombudsman, which was disposed of on 28/5/2008. A copy of that order is also placed on the record by the Opposite Party No.3. The sum and substance of the contention of the RBI is that there is no question of providing any service to the Complainant. There is no privity of contract. As such the RBI is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to the Complainant.





[9] The Complainant has filed the rejoinder to the written statement filed by the RBI.. He has reiterated the same averments. He has relied upon a case decided by National Commission and has urged that the Complainant continues to be a “consumer” of the Opposite Party RBI.





[10] We shall have to first consider the role of RBI in the entire grievances made by the Complainant. The Complainant had filed the representation before the Ombudsman on 3/1/2008. The same was disposed of on 28/5/2008. In the meantime, the present complaint was filed before this Forum on 28/3/2008. Thus, on the date when the complaint was filed in this Forum, the grievance of the Complainant was pending before the Ombudsman which lateron was disposed of on 28/5/2008. We have gone through the ratio of the case on which the reliance is placed by the Complainant. We find that the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. There is no question of applying the principles of Doctrine of vigarious liability. As such, the entire complaint filed against the RBI appears to be on account of failure of Ombudsman to dispose of the complaint filed by the Complainant. Having regard to the fact that the said complaint was disposed of on 28 /5/2008, we find that very efficacy of the case of the Complainant vis-à-vis the claim against the Opposite Party No.3 is substantially reduced.





[11] This takes us to the grievances of the Complainant made against the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2. Indeed, they had failed to appear before the Forum and had allowed the complaint to proceed ex-parte against them. A question if the rate of interest was charged @16% reducing per annum or it was 16% flat as charged by the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 is essentially a question of fact. The Complainant submits that he had verified the rate of interest and had confirmed the same and thereafter borrowed the loan. For the said verification, there is apparently no documentary evidence. In the complaint filed before the Assistant Vice President on 3/12/2007 and also in the letter sent to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 by E-mail, the fact is reiterated that the rate of interest was 16% reducing p.a.. Thus, prima-facie, the contention of the Complainant is consistent throughout. As and when he had received monthly statement, he had raised the objections before the appropriate authority and had disputed the rate of interest at flat rate of 16% p.a.. Atleast in this regard the contention of the Complainant is consistent throughtout. As the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 had failed to appear, we have no other option but to accept the same.





[12] This has another implication. The talk of compromise was going on between the parties and ultimately, on 30/1/2008, the settlement took place between the Complainant and the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. The Complainant has relied upon Annexure ‘H’ in the form of the settlement of the claim. The Bank had confirmed that on payment of Rs.80,000/-, there will be no dues in respect of the Complainant’s SBI Credit Card Account. The payment is already confirmed by the Bank in the subsequent statement on 16/2/2008. The fact that the Bank had received the amount of Rs.80,000/- is admitted. A question is whether there is any breach of the terms and conditions of Annexure ‘H’ dtd.30/1/2008. We have gone through the contents of the said letter. Prima-facie we do not find that there is any breach committed by the Complainant of the agreement dtd.30/1/2008. On that day itself, the payment of Rs.80,000/- was received by the Opposite Party No.1 and 2. It can be reflected from the statement dtd.16/2/2008. Thus, as on that date, the payment was received by the Bank. Offer was subject to the realization of the cheque. The dues prior to that date, which were not mentioned in the statement, were only excluded by the Bank. The same is not the case in the present case. We therefore find that there is compliance made by the Complainant as he had paid Rs.80,000/- in full and final settlement of the entire claim. The Complainant is therefore not liable to make any payment to the Bank. The demand of Rs.17,260/- raised by the Bank in the bill dtd.16/2/2008 will have to be quashed and set aside. The Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 are hereby directed to issue no dues certificate to the Complainant in respect of his Credit Card loan bearing No. 4006 6760 1686 1323.



[13] This takes us to the question of awarding the compensation as against the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2. There is an application made by the Complainant that time and again, he was harassed by the staff of the Opposite Party No.2. It had also indulged in muscle power. Unfortunately, there is no satisfactory evidence adduced by the Complainant in this regard. Having regard to the fact that the claim was settled on 30/1/2008 itself and the demands were raised by the Bank, subsequent thereto, we find that the claim of Rs.19,00,000/- on account of the said harassment, mental agony, torture etc. is quite unreasonable. There is no legal basis as to how the Complainant had computed the compensation at Rs.19,00,000/-. We are therefore inclined not to award any compensation to the Complainant. The direction given to the Opposite Parties No. 1 and 2 to issue the no dues certificate to the Complainant would be sufficient to meet the ends of justice.

Sripathi Bhat,

S/o Krishna Bhat,

Aged about 32 years,

R/at Jaya Nagar,

1st Cross Road,

Adu Maroli, Kulshekhar,

Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri.)



VERSUS





1. Authorized Officer,

S.B.I. Credit Card,

Vardhaman Towers,

P.V.R. Central Market,]

Prashant Vihar,

New Delhi-110 085.



2. SBI Credit Cards Collection Centre,

2nd Floor, Above Amarnath

C0-Op. Bank, West Coast

Complex, Nellikai Road,

Mangalore. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES

The Complainant availed SBI Credit Card facility from the Opposite Parties bearing Credit Card No.004315755074760167. It is submitted that, the Complainant used the said card only once i.e. to fill up the petrol in a petrol pump worth of Rs.400/-. After the said purchase about 10-15 days the Complainant paid Rs.500/- to the said account of the Credit Card and settled the amount with Opposite Parties and thereafter the Complainant went to the office of the Opposite Parties and asked to cancel the Credit Card and officials of the Opposite Parties destroyed the card and account was blocked. It is contended that thereafter there was no communication, suddenly on 12.7.2008 Complainant received a notice requiring him to pay Rs.15,671-04 and the Complainant approached the office of the Opposite Parties and the Opposite Parties told the Complainant that the card was already destroyed and the account was blocked.

Finally the Complainant issued a legal notice to the Opposite Parties even after issuance of the legal notice the Opposite Parties sending demand notices which amounts to deficiency hence the Complainant filed the above complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to pay damages of 50,000/-.


2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD, despite of serving notice, the Opposite Parties neither appeared nor contested the case till this date. Hence, we have proceeded exparte as against the Opposite Parties in this case. The postal acknowledgement marked as court document No.1 and 2.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?

(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint Sri Sripathi Bhat (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint. Ex C1 to C6 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. The Opposite Parties neither appeared nor contested the case till this date.

We have heard arguments, perused the pleadings, documents and evidence placed on record. We answer the points are as follows:

Point No.(i): Negative.

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.

REASONS

5. POINTS NO. (i) to (iii):

The Complainant filed affidavit along with Ex.C1 to C6. The facts involved in this complaint is that according to the Complainant he had made only one transaction in his credit card bearing No.004315755074760167 i.e., to purchase the petrol worth Rs.400/- and thereafter he had settled the amount and cancelled the Credit Card and the account was blocked. Except the above oral statement there is no documentary evidence available before the Fora to show that the above Credit Card was cancelled by the Complainant and the account was blocked and also there is no document to show that he had made only one transaction worth Rs.400/- and thereafter about 10-15 days the entire amount was paid and subsequently the card was cancelled.

However, we have gone through the documents produced by the Complainant, wherein the Ex C1 is the statement dated 17.12.2006, wherein it reflects that on 2.12.2006 he had made transaction of Rs.410/- and other transactions also highlighted in the statement and the Ex C2 is the one more statement i.e, 17.2.2007 wherein the Complainant on 25.1.2007 paid Rs.535/- by way of cheque to the Opposite Party and Ex. C3 is the registered letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 9.12.2008 reflects that the card of the Complainant was not cancelled and he is still arrears of payments amounting to Rs.17,500/-.

Even the Ex C4 dated 11.10.2008 also do not show that the Credit Card of the Complainant was cancelled and Ex. C5 is the legal notice issued by the Complainant to the Opposite Party. From the above documents as well as the evidence available on record do not show that the Complainant Credit Card was cancelled and there was no due whatsoever under the Credit Card. The Complainant ought to have obtained the endorsement from the Opposite Parties towards the closure of account if at all there was no due from the Complainant. But in the present case no such attempt was made hence the complaint of the Complainant has no merits which deserves to be dismissed. No order as to costs.

6. In the result, we pass the following:


ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Mr.Derrick J.Rego,

Aged 55 years,

S/o Late A.L.Rego,

25-25-1968/A, M.R.Bhat Road,

Cascia Jeppu,

Mangalore 575 002. D.K.,

Rep. by his G.P.A. Holder,

Mrs. Louella Rego,

Aged 40 years,

W/o Derrick J.Rego,

Residing at M.R.Bhat J.Rego,

Residing at M.R.Bhat Lane,

Jeppu, Mangalore. …….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate: Sri.M.S.Krishna Prasad.)



VERSUS



1. S.B.I. Cards & Payments,

Services Pvt. Ltd.,

P.O.Bag No.28, G.P.O,

New Delhi-110 001.

Represented by its Authorised Signatory.



2. S.B.I. Card, Tower ‘C’,

23rd Floor, Block 2,

Building 3 Infinity Towers,

DLF, Cyber City,

Gurgaon-122 002, Haryana,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory.

3. S.B.I. Credit Card &

Collection Centre,

Upper Floor of the Amanath Co. Op.

Bank Ltd., West Coast Complex,

2nd Floor, Nellikai Road,

Mangalore-1.

Represented by its Authorised

Signatory. …. OPPOSITE PARTIES


The Complainant submits that, he had obtained only one credit card bearing No.0004006661031084473, the same was cancelled by the Complainant long-back. It is alleged that the Opposite Parties are wrongfully and illegally demanding the Complainant to pay the amount the same has been caused mental torture, tension and stress to the Complainant. It is submitted that, the Opposite Parties has issued a lawyers notice dated 12.7.2008 stating that the Complainant has to pay arrears/dues in the above said Credit Card. The Complainant had sent detailed reply to the said notice even though the Opposite Parties got sent two demand notices and started to threaten the Complainant.

The Credit Card number mentioned in the aforesaid notices is not belonging to the complainant. It is submitted that, the Credit Card bearing No.0004006661031084473 was cancelled and the amount was fully settled and the Opposite Parties Manager–Payment Assistance had informed the Complainant that “the account stands settled on payment of Rs.24,000/- the Complainant paid the entire amount under the Credit Card and also cancelled the Credit Card despite of that the Complainant is keep on receiving the demand by the Opposite Parties which amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act’) seeking direction from this Hon'ble Forum to the Opposite Parties to quash the illegal demand of Rs.12,686.89 and 13,468/- made by the Opposite Parties by notices dated 12.7.2008 and 11.10.2008 against the Complainant in respect of the cancelled Credit Card No.0004006661031084473 and to direct the Opposite Parties to issue clearance certificate and further prayed 10,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings.


2. Version notice served to the Opposite Parties by RPAD. Opposite Party No.1 filed version and Opposite Party No.2 placed exparte and Opposite Party No.3 appeared through their counsel but not filed any version.

Opposite Party No.1 filed version submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and the Complainant is not a consumer and it is submitted that Opposite Parties are non banking sector companies engaged in the business of issuing Credit Cards to the general public. The Opposite Party No.1 upon receiving the application issued the Credit Card with a certain terms and condition. It is submitted that, in case the card holder fails to pay the minimum amount due the balance will carry 2.75% interest. It is submitted that, the Opposite Parties have never issued the Complainant of the closure of the account prior to clearing all the dues including the interest payable by the Complainant. It is submitted that, all the averments made in the complaint are denied specifically and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.


3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:

(i) Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Parties committed deficiency in service?


(ii) If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?

(iii) What order?

4. In support of the complaint Mrs. Louella Rego G.P.A. Holder and wife of the Complainant (CW1) filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and Ex C1 to C10 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. Opposite Party No.1 filed version and Opposite Party No.2 is placed exparte and Opposite Party No.3 appeared before this Forum but led no evidence.

We have considered the oral/written arguments submitted by the learned counsels and we have also considered the materials that was placed before the Hon'ble Forum and answer the points are as follows: Point No.(i): Affirmative

Point No.(ii) & (iii): As per the final order.
REASONS

5. Points No. (i) to (iii):

The Complainant contended that he availed a credit card from the Opposite Party bearing Credit Card No.0004006661031084473. The said card was cancelled after settling the entire amount and the Account was closed/cancelled. Even after closure/cancellation of the card the Opposite Parties keep on sending/demanding the amount stating that the Complainant is still due under above said Credit Card and under another Credit Card i.e. 0004006661035475958. The Complainant contended that the above said Credit Card i.e. 0004006661035475958 is not availed by him and there is no connection what so ever with the above said Credit Card.

On overall reading of the complaint, the contention of the Complainant is that he has closed the account year back i.e. 2004 by settling on payment of Rs.24,000/-. However, we have gone through the entire documents produced by the Complainant. On careful scrutiny of the Ex. C3 i.e. a letter issued by the Opposite Party dated 10.1.2005 makes it clear that the Credit Card of the Complainant was cancelled as desired by the Complainant but they have claimed current outstanding on his account Rs.4,214.56. Except issuing the said letter and filing bear version no evidence was led in order to substantiate their claim. It is noted that the Complainant specifically stated that the Credit Card 0004006661035475958 is not pertaining to the Complainant, but the documents i.e. demand notice issued by the Opposite Parties reveals that they have demanded the amount under the above said Credit Card.

When such being the case, the entire burden lies upon the Opposite Party to satisfy before the Fora to show that the Complainant is due of Rs.4,214.56 or Rs.12,686.89 under the above said Credit Card by making transactions. The documents produced by the Complainant shows that the Opposite Party kept on demanded the amount but no documentary proof produced before the Fora or no records are called before the Fora in order to show that the Complainant availed so much of amount under the Credit Card issued by them. Since the Opposite Parties failed to produce the material/cogent evidence in order to substantiate their contentions, merely relying on the terms and conditions of the Credit Card is not sufficient to claim the amount according to their whims and fancies.

We are of the considered opinion that the demand notice issued by the Opposite Parties are not justified which amounts to unfair trade practice/deficiency in service. And further it is made us clear that the Credit Card No. No.0004006661031084473 is availed by the Complainant. Therefore, we hereby direct the Opposite Parties to issue no due certificate to the Complainant and stop sending demand notice to the Complainant hence forth. And further Rs.5,000/- awarded as compensation for the harassment and the inconvenience and Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Payment and Compliance shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER

The complaint is allowed. The Complainant is not liable to pay any amount as demanded by the Opposite Party after cancellation of the Credit Card No.0004006661031084473. The Opposite Parties are hereby directed to issue no due certificate to the Complainant and Rs.5,000/- as compensation. Further Rs.1,000/- awarded as cost of the litigation expenses. Compliance and Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.

Hi All,

I have an SBI Card #4317575279018551, I had withdran Rs 12,000, on the card after confirming with the Customer Service Rep about the daily interest. After that I got a call for Balance Transfer and Transfered Rs 29,000. When i called in to enquire how i can close my cash withdrawal, as its a very high interest of 3.3 % daily, the bank rep are saying its not possible to just close the cash withdrawal, alone and i have to pay the entire amount due of Rs 41,000, to avaoid the daily interest rate.
This practise is not ethical, as the Bank cannot close the cash withdrawal seperately but can charge seperate interest rates.

Can any one please look into this.

Regards,
Syed

S.B.I. Cards & Payments,
Services Pvt. Ltd.,
P.O.Bag No.28, G.P.O,
New Delhi-110 001.


Name: Srinivas K
Address: 649 MIG-2, K.P.H.B. Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad – 72
SBI Card No: 4317 5755 0412 7268 - COMPLAINANT

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing to dispute a Rs. 58469.31 on my credit card as outstanding, and I hope you can help me.

Sir or Madam the facts of the dispute is as follows

1) I received the above said credit card in Nov 2003
2) I received a statement stating an amount of Rs. 18752.75 vide statement dtd: 06/09/2006 total amount due inclusive of EMI
3) On 25/10/2006 vide Settlement Tracer No: Hyderabad4102006372946 I have settled the outstanding amount on payment of Rs. 15000/- vide Cheque No: 060003 of Centurion Bank of Punjab Ltd and Temporary Receipt No: 6342219 dtd: 30.10.2006 and book no: 126845
4) The above said cheque got cleared in my account on 13.11.2006

And several time I visited SBI offices and almost more than 10-15 times SBI collection agents collected the Settlement letter, Temporary Receipt and Bank statement.

On 19.08.2009 at 12.35PM Page No: 108 Entry No: 9 I have visited SBI card office Secundrabad office and met Mr. Srinivas Reddy who's direct no 040-39826909 and once again submitted Settlement letter, Temporary Receipt and Bank statement. And Mr. Srinivas Reddy told he will settle the issue in 4 working days and till date nothing is settled and still I am receiving the statements.

I have applied for home loan from SBI and rejected on the ground to close the CIBIL pending queries and I am not able to apply for any vehicle loan / personal loan even after settling the issue 3 years back

Still today I am receiving phone calls for the outstanding payment. I need immediately to clear the issue in CIBIL by SBI Credit Card enabling me to apply for Home Loan.

Thank you for resolving this matter immediately.
Thanks & Regards
Srinivas
Mobile: 09246539234 / 09848439234