| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER Tuesday the 25th day of June 2024 CC.453/2013 Complainant Umesh.O.K, Udash, Mokavoor, P.O. Eranhikkal, Calicut – 673 303. Opposite Party - HDFC Credit Card Division,
8, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur Chennai – 600 041. - HDFC Bank Ltd, Nadakkavu,
Kozhikode – 673 011. (OP1, OP2 by Adv.Sri. K. Madhumohan) ORDER By. Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. - The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The complainant is a credit card holder of HDFC bank from August 2008 onwards. In October 2009 the complainant settled his card due to threatening calls from HDFC call centre. They threatened that there was arrest warrant issued against him. The complainant contacted the HDFC customer care and they agreed to settle the card for Rs. 25,000/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 18,000/- on 30/10/2009 as per the agreement over phone. The customer care people had assured that they would send a settlement letter. But due to the threatening, he paid the amount without having any settlement letter. The balance amount was taken from his account without any prior notice. - Now after 4 years, the complainant is getting threatening calls from the HDFC customer care, who are not only calling the complainant, but also his relatives in New Delhi and Kerala. They are threatening him to pay Rs. 75,000/- or else, they would involve the complainant in cheque case. On the basis of the complaint given by him, the Senior Vice President of the bank informed him via email dated 29/07/2013 that his outstanding dues was Rs. 25,648.95/- and offered a settlement proposal for Rs. 2,000/-. On the basis of the email, the complainant paid an amount of Rs. 2,200/- including bank charges on 31/07/2013. Then he asked the bank authorities to issue a settlement NOC. Now he has received a legal notice issued by the bank asking him to pay Rs. 47,209/-. The complainant had paid more than what he had taken from credit card account. The bank authorities are keeping on adding interest upon interest on his account. They are also mentally torturing the complainant and his relatives. Hence the complaint to direct the bank to issue settlement NOC to him and to withdraw his name from CIBIL.
- The opposite parties have resisted the complaint by filing written version jointly, wherein they have denied all the allegations and claims made against them in the complaint. The opposite parties had issued credit card to the complainant on the basis of his application. Before the issuance of the credit card, the complainant had been served with the terms and conditions, usage guide, payment schedule etc. After accepting all the terms and conditions, the complainant had applied for the issuance of the credit card. The complainant was in lavish usage of the credit card. Though he was served with monthly account statement, he was not paying at least the minimum due amount within the stipulated time and was a regular defaulter of the credit card dues. As per the agreement, the opposite parties have all the right to impose charges on the dues. Thus the dues of the complainant had been increasing.
- The credit card of the complainant had a credit limit of Rs. 30,000/-. But he had crossed the credit limit within a period of 6 months. As per the statement dated 19/02/2009, the opening balance of the dues of the complainant was Rs. 24, 693.46/- Even though the purchases and debits during that period was Rs. 7,833.87/, he had chosen to make payment of only an amount of Rs. 2,250/-. His next payment of Rs. 2,580.46/- was only on 18/04/2009 while his dues as per the statement dated 19/03/2009 was Rs. 33,494.89/-. His next payment of Rs. 190/- was made on 30/04/2009. Thereafter, there was no payment during the next 6 months. Due to the non-payment of amount towards credit card dues, the credit card account of the complainant was ‘charged off ’ on 30/09/2009.
- Accepting his request to settle the dues, the opposite parties had offered a settlement for Rs. 36,000/- payable in 2 installments towards the outstanding prevalent on the card account during October 2019. But the complainant paid only Rs.18,000/- within the stipulated time. Hence the offer became null and void. Hence the complainant cannot avail the benefit of the settlement.
- Thereafter, an amount of Rs. 2,500/- was paid by him on 07/10/2014. Thus after a lapse of 6 months, his account was credited with an amount of Rs. 20,500/- during October 2009 while his total credit dues was Rs. 46,148.95/-. The opposite parties had accepted Rs. 20,500/- towards its dues and not on any settlement. Thus the dues of the complainant had reduced to Rs. 26,277.35/-.
- The complainant had further requested the opposite party to enable him to settle his dues of Rs. 76,226.84/- during July 2013. His request was accepted and dues of the complainant had been reckoned as Rs. 25, 648.95/-. However, as per the demand of the complainant, the opposite parties had agreed to settle his dues for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. But while the same was communicated to the complainant by way of email dated 29/07/2013, as an inadvertent mistake, a typographical mistake had crept in the communication and the amount was wrongly typed as Rs. 2,000/-. Noticing the mistake, a correction email was given on 31/07/2013 itself. But the complainant had paid only Rs. 2,200/- towards the settlement. Hence the settlement has become null and void.
- The complainant had approached the Banking Ombudsman, with a complaint and the same was closed accepting the clarification of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to obtain a NOC until he clears the dues. The opposite parties have every right to collect the money which is legally due to them. The opposite parties were constrained to intimate the complainant about his dues and advised him to clear the dues. The allegation of threatening calls is denied. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant has suppressed material facts. The reliefs sought for is not allowable. With the above contentions, the opposite parties pray for dismissal of the complaint.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
- Reliefs and costs.
- Evidence consists of the oral evidence of PW1 and Exts A1 to A3 on the side of the complainant. The opposite party has filed proof affidavit. The opposite party was not cross examined by the complainant.
- Point No.1:- The complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank. The complainant claims that he had paid all the outstanding dues in regard to the credit card to the bank and in spite of the same, the officials of the opposite parties are making unnecessary phone calls to him threatening to settle the dues or else, he would be arrested by the police. The prayer in the complaint is to direct the opposite party to issue non objection certificate stating that the entire amount in regard to the credit card was paid by him and to withdraw his name from the CIBIL.
- PW1 is none other than the complainant and he has filed proof affidavit and deposed in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the copy of the email dated 22/07/2013 send to the higher officials of the bank, Ext A2 is the copy of the email dated 29/07/2013 of the Assistant Vice President of the bank regarding the dues and settlement proposal for Rs. 2000/- and Ext A3 is the copy of the receipt dated 31/07/2013 issued by the bank.
- Admittedly, the complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank. It is not disputed that the card had a credit limit of Rs. 30,000/-. That the complainant had crossed the credit limit of Rs. 30,000/- is not disputed. It is not disputed that the complainant owed money to the opposite party being the dues in regard to the credit card.
- The case of the complainant is that the bank had issued Ext A2 email to him informing that the outstanding dues with respect to his account was Rs. 25,648.95/- and settlement proposal for Rs. 2,000/- and pursuant to the settlement proposal, he had remitted an amount of Rs. 2,200/- to the bank on 31/07/2013 being the settlement amount of Rs. 2,000/- and Rs. 200/- as bank charges, as per Ext A3. The grievance highlighted by the complainant is that even after the payment as per the settlement proposal, the bank is demanding further amount and harassing him.
- In this context, it is worthwhile to have a glance at the evidence tendered by PW1. PW1 has categorically admitted in the cross examination that after Ext A2 email dated 29/07/2013 the bank had further issued emails on 31/07/2013 and on 2/08/2013 informing that the amount of Rs. 2,000/- stated in Ext A2 was a clerical mistake and in fact the settlement amount was Rs. 20,000/-. So it is crystal clear that the settlement proposal was for Rs. 20,000/- and not Rs. 2,000/-. It appears that the complainant is banking upon an inadvertent error that had crept in to Ext A2 email. There is no whisper about the communication dated 31/07/2013 and 02/08/2013 in the complaint. The complainant has suppressed material facts.
- The definite case of the opposite parties is that accepting the request of the complainant, the bank had offered to settle his dues waiving all the interest imposed subsequent to the ‘charging off ’ of the credit card account of the complainant and the dues of the complainant had been reckoned as Rs. 25,648.95/- and offered to settle the dues for an amount of Rs. 20,000/-, but in Ext A2 communication sent to the complainant, as an inadvertent mistake, a typographical mistake had crept into the communication and the amount was wrongly typed as Rs. 2,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- and on noticing the mistake, a correction email was sent to the complainant on 31/07/2013 itself. But the complainant, who had clear knowledge about the amount of settlement, had paid only an amount of Rs. 2,000/-. Even though a further email was sent to the complainant on 02/08/2013 and even after telephonic communication, the complainant had not turned up to honour the settlement entered between them and hence, according to the opposite parties, the settlement had become null and void.
- It goes without saying that the opposite parties have every right to collect the money which is legally due to them. The evidence in hand indicates that there is credit card dues. The complainant is a defaulter of credit card dues. That being the position, the complainant is not entitled to obtain non objection certificate or for withdrawal of his name from CIBIL, as prayed for unless and until he clears the dues. No deficiency of service can be attributed against the opposite parties in demanding the amount which is legally due to them. There is no proof of any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint must fail.
- Point No. 2:- In view of the finding on the above point, the complainant is not entitled to claim and get any relief.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. However, no order as to costs Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 25th day of June, 2024. Date of Filing: 03.10.2013 Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant : Ext A1 - Copy of the email dated 22/07/2013 send to the higher officials of the bank. Ext A2 - Copy of the email dated 29/07/2013 of the Assistant Vice President of the Bank. Ext A3 -Copy of the receipt dated 31/07/2013 issued by the bank. Exhibits for the Opposite Party NIL Witnesses for the Complainant PW1 - Umesh.O.K (Complainant) Witnesses for the opposite party NIL Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER True Copy, Sd/- Assistant Registrar. | |
