| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BATHINDA C.C. No. 310 of 15-11-2018 Decided on : 23-02-2022 Jagdev Singh S/o Hazura Singh, aged about 40 years R/o H. No. 22811, Street No. 11/1, Power House Road, Bathinda. ........Complainant
Versus HDFC Bank Limited, having its registered office at HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West) Mumbai 400 013, through its Managing Director The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Limited, Guru Kashi Marg, Near New Bus Stand, Bathinda.
.......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 QUORUM Sh. Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President Sh. Shivdev Singh, Member. Smt. Paramjeet Kaur, Member Present For the complainant : Sh. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate For opposite parties : Sh. Vinod Garg, Advocate ORDER Kanwar Sandeep Singh, President The complainant Jagdev Singh (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Now C.P. Act, 2019, here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Forum (Now Commission) against HDFC Bank Limited, and others (here-in-after referred to as opposite parties). Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he is having saving bank account No.50100067197398 with opposite party No. 2 and regularly maintaining the said account. He never misused the said account and taken any undue benefit of the facilities provided by the bank. It is alleged that the opposite parties issued the credit card to the complainant without the consent of the complainant, and further also issued health insurance policy bearing No.2952201016900401000/1 for Rs. 3 Lacs. The complainant never requested for issuance of any such health insurance policy. The opposite party No.2 illegally deducted Rs.14,826/- as premium of the said policy. The complainant never used the credit card issued by the opposite parties. It is further alleged that now the complainant received letter dated 11.04.2018 from opposite party No.1 raising demand of Rs.31,180/-, amount payable Rs.30,300/- without any reason or cause, on account of issuance of "No Due certificate". The opposite parties also directed the complainant that if complainant failed to pay the said amount then opposite parties will not clear the CIBIL of the complainant. The complainant also alleged that he repeatedly requested the opposite parties not to demand the said illegal amount of Rs. 5,30,300/- from him and also clear his CIBIL, but the opposite parties did not pay any heed to his requests. The complainant also got served legal notice upon the opposite parties in this regard, but to no effect, rather opposite parties have refused to accede to the requests of the complainant. On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directions to the opposite parties to not to demand Rs. 30,300/- and issue No Objection Certificate and also pay to complainant Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for harassment and humiliation, alongwith cost of litigation. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In written reply, the opposite parties raised legal objections that intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the present complaint which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination which is not possible in the summary procedure under the 'Act'. That the complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Commission as well as opposite parties. The complainant has concealed the fact that the opposite parties have charged the amount as per rules which were within the knowledge of the complainant from the very beginning and the complainant cannot raise any objection at this stage. The complainant has got the credit card and used the same after fully understanding various terms and conditions of credit card, That the complaint is estopped from filing the present complaint as the complainant was fully aware of the levy of late fee, cess, tax, finance charges and service taxes etc. against the credit card from the very beginning. The complainant was issued the credit card against his application along with annexures wherein the complainant agreed for charging of various charges against the use of said credit card. The complainant signed the same of his own accord after fully understanding the terms and conditions including various charges and agreed to be bound by the same. The complainant used the credit card accepting those terms and conditions and cannot raise objections at this stage. That the present complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as the complainant has not impleaded HDFC Ergo Insurance company as party from whom he purchased the policy in question. That the complainant has no locus standi or cause of action to file the present complaint and that the complaint is not maintainable. On merits, the opposite parties denied that the opposite parties issued the credit card to complainant without his consent or issued health policy No, 2952201016900401000/1 for Rs.3,00,000/- without the consent of complainant or that the complainant never requested to issue him any such health insurance policy or the complainant never used the credit card issued by the opposite parties as alleged. It has been pleaded that the credit card was issued to the complainant against application wherein he agreed for charging of various charges against the use of said credit card. The complainant signed the same of his own accord after fully understanding the terms and conditions including various charges and agreed to be bound by the same. The schedule of charges provided in the Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) clearly details every charge that the bank would levy in credit card account of the customer. The MITC is furnished to the Complainant along with the card agreement booklet at the time the credit card is delivered to the complainant. The complainant was well aware of the outstanding amount of his account as the Statement of account was delivered to his registered address from time to time. The complainant has been very irregular in making payments. It has been further pleaded that the complainant had availed two insurance policies through credit card, one Family Health Cover for 2 years for Rs 16,058/- on 17-03-2015 and same was converted to EMI at 1.1% interest for 24 months, same was renewed on 06.03.2017. Accident Protection Plan Hospital Cash was availed by the complainant for 2 years for Rs 6,228/- on 25.04.2016 and same was converted to EMI at 1.1% interest for 24 months. The interest free period for a purchase (and any related debited charge) in any statement period will apply if the outstanding balance on the card account for the previous statement period is paid within the due date. If the outstanding balance on the card account is not paid in full by its due date, finance charge will be levied on any new purchase and any related debited charge from the day on which the purchase (and any related debited charge) is transacted on the card account and on the outstanding account balance on the card account from the 1st day of last statement period. The opposite parties denied that complainant is not liable to pay the above said amount. After controverting all other averments, the opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint. In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit (Ex. C-1), photocopy of passbook (Ex. C-2), photocopy of policy (Ex. C-3), photocopy of credit card (Ex. C-4), photocopy of letter (Ex. C-5), photocopy of legal notice and postal receipts (Ex. C-6 to Ex. C-8). In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite parties tendered into evidence photocopy of application 12 pages (Ex. OP-1/1), photocopy of account statements (Ex. OP-1/2 to Ex. OP-1/37), affidavit dated 5-1-2019 of Surinder Singh (Ex. OP-1/38), photocopy of policy documents 8 pages (Ex. OP-1/39), photocopy of transcript containting 4 pages (Ex. OP-1/40) and CD (OP-1/41). The learned counsel for the parties reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. In the case in hand, the grudge of the complainant is that opposite parties issued him credit card and Insurance policy whereas he never applied for the same. The complainant also alleged that he never used the credit card and the opposite parties raised demand of Rs. 30,300/- on account of issuance of No Objection Certificate whereas the pleading of the opposite parties is that complainant himself signed application for issuance of credit card and complainant also used the credit card. To prove their version, the opposite parties have placed on record Credit Card Brochure cum Application Form (Ex. OP-1/1) which reveals that this document has been signed by complainant meaning thereby that complainant consented for complying with all rules, regulations and charges in connection with credit card. Ex. OP-1/8 is the credit card statement which shows that complainant made payment through this credit card to Madura Fasion & Life and Bathinda Service Station etc., Therefore, this evidence of the opposite parties proves that complainant himself applied for the credit card and he also used the same for making money transactions. So far as the allegation of the complainant regarding insurance policy to the effect that he did not apply for the issuance policy also, is of no value as the opposite parties have pleaded that complainant have availed two insurance policies first on 17-3-2015 and second on 25-4-2016 through credit card, which were for the period of two years and those policies have already been converted to EMI at 1.1% interest for 24 months. The opposite parties have also placed on file telephonic convertation (Ex.OP-1/40) which they had with complainant before issuance of insurance policy which proved that complainant consented for the same. The complainant has not raised any objection regarding issuance of credit card or insurance policies. He rather used the credit card. The Complainant demanded No Objection Certificate and when the opposite parties demanded amount due against him, complainant filed this complaint as a counter blast. Keeping in view the evidence placed on file by the parties, this Comission is of the considered opinion that complainant has failed to prove his version by cogent and convincing evidence. On the other hand, the opposite parties have placed on file sufficient evidence to prove their pleadings. In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases. Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record. Announced : 23-2-2022 (Kanwar Sandeep Singh) President (Shivdev Singh) Member (Paramjeet Kaur) Member
| |
