DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM

       Dated this the 30^th day of May, 2023                                                                                                

                          Filed on: 16/12/2015

PRESENT

Shri.D.B.Binu                                                                          President

Shri.V.Ramachandran                                                              Member

Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N                                                                 Member                                                        

CC NO. 821/2015

Between

COMPLAINANT

Maria Gorety, Konottu House, Water Land Road, Palluruthy, Kochi 682006

(Rep. by Adv. Alex Antony Sebastian, 2^nd Floor, XL/6024B, Thoppil Lane, South of St. Assisi Cathedral Church, Broadway North End, Ernakulam)

VS

OPPOSITE PARTIES

1. H.D.F.C. Bank, Cards Division, 8 Latic Bridge Road, Thiruvannyur, Chennai 600041. Rep. by its Manager
2. H.D.F.C. Bank, Palarivattom Branch, S.L. Plaza, Palrivattom. Rep. by its Manager

(OP No. 1&2 Rep. by Adv. T. Rajesh, 4F, Metro Plaza, Ernakulam)

FINAL ORDER

Sreevidhia T.N., Member:

1. A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:

The complainant had took a card from the opposite party bearing Credit Card No. 5337440400189834 for personal purpose. The credit limit offered to the complainant was upto Rs.75,000/-. Through this credit card the complainant did several transactions for the last 3 years. Later the complainant noticed that the interest rate calculated by the opposite party was not proper and the matter was reported to the authorised representative of the opposite party at Palarivattom. But after request the attitude and the interest calculation of the opposite party did not changed. Thereafter the complainant approached the Manager of the opposite party at Palarivattom. He had agreed to correct the interest rate calculated by the opposite party. The complainant had agreed to close the transactions between the complainant and the opposite party in October, 2014. At the time of agreement for closing the transaction, the balance amount payable to the opposite party was only Rs.67,000/- in 6 instalments.  On December, 2014 the complainant had paid Rs.23,033/-, on January 2015 the complainant had paid Rs.8,000/-, on March, 2015 the complainant had paid Rs.1,600/-, on April, 2015 the complainant had paid Rs.3,600/-, on May, 2015 the complainant had paid Rs.3,000/-. The total sum paid by the complainant was Rs.48,033/-. The balance left to the bank as per the agreement was on Rs.18,967/-. The complainant approached the opposite party for closing the balance amount. The opposite party did not accept the balance amount of Rs.18,967/-. The opposite party is not ready to close the credit card issued to the complainant. The complainant states that the attitude of the bank is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice from their part. Hence this complaint.

2. Notice.

Notices issued to the opposite parties from this Commission on 21/12/2015. 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties appeared before the Commission and filed Vakalath and their joint version (on 29/03/2016). Since the version filed beyond the statutory time limit, the version filed by 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties is rejected.

3. Evidence

On 19/05/2016, the complainant had filed an authorization letter before the Commission authorising her husband Mr. Paul to conduct the case and to give evidence on behalf of the complainant. Complainant’s authorized representative filed proof affidavit and. The documentary evidence filed by the complainant is marked as Exbt. A1. No oral evidence from the side of the complainant.

Opposite party has no documentary or oral evidence. Hence evidence was closed and the case was posted for hearing. Meanwhile opposite party filed I.A.486/2018 to re-open the evidence. Since no documents produced by 1^st opposite party the petition is also rejected.

4. Points for consideration in this case are

1. Whether any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant?
2. If so, reliefs and costs?

For the sake of convenience we have considered issue No. (1) and (2) together.

The case of the complainant is that she had taken a credit card from the opposite party for her personal purpose. After some years the complainant had noticed that the interest rate calculated by the opposite party was not proper as offer given to the complainant by the opposite party. That was reported to the authorized representative of the respondent bank at Palarivattom Branch where the credit card issued. The interest calculation method was corrected by the opposite party. Later the opposite party agreed to close the agreement regarding the credit card facility between the complainant and the opposite party bank. The complainant states that as per the agreement for closing the account the complainant agree to repay the balance amount of Rs.67,005/- in 6 instalment. As per the complainant he had paid an amount of Rs.48,033/- for closing the credit card account of the complainant and he is liable to pay only Rs.18,967/- to the opposite party bank as per the agreement.

The complainant has produced one document before the Commission which is marked as Exbt. A1. Exbt. A1 is the credit card of the complainant.

The complainant also alleges that he had approached the opposite party bank for paying the balance amount of Rs.18,967/- and he is ready to close the account and cancel the credit card.

In this case the complainant has not produced sufficient documents to prove that he is liable to pay only Rs.18,967/- to the opposite party for closing the credit card account. No evidence produced by the complainant to prove that he had already paid Rs.48,033/- to the opposite party for closing the credit card account of the complainant. No agreement was produced by the complainant to prove that the opposite party had permitted the complainant to repay the balance amount of Rs.67,000/- in six instalments. Except for the averments in the complaint he has failed to prove his allegations through sufficient documents. From the available documents filed by the complainant no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is proved from the side of the opposite party towards the complainant. Hence issue No. (1) and (2) are found not in favour of the complainant hence the case is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.  

Pronounced in the Open Commission this the 30^th day of May, 2023.

Sreevidhia.T.N, Member

D.B.Binu, President

Assistant Registrar

APPENDIX

Complainant’s evidence:

Exbt. A1:    Copy of Credit Card

Opposite parties’ evidence

Nil

Despatch date:

By hand:     By post                                                  

kp/

CC No. 821/2015

Order Date: 30/05/2023