BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 16/04/2013

Date of Order : 31/08/2015

Present :-

Shri. Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 287/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. This complaint is filed by Sri. Sony Joseph who is a customer of HDFC Bank Credit Card Division. The complainant was using the credit card issued by the said bank, since 03-06-2010. It is submitted that the initial credit limit was Rs. 75,000/- and credit limit was enhanced to Rs. 1,31,000/- with effect from 04-08-2011 in view of the consistent payment track record. It is submitted that the purchases on the credit card issued to the complainant was for Rs. 3,23,733/- and the complainant paid Rs. 2,42,350/- and the balance due is only Rs. 81,192/-. It is further submitted that due to compelling financial circumstances, the complainant could not remit payments in January and February 2013 and the bank demanded Rs. 1,54,000/- in the month of March 2013 by way of the amount due, compound interest, penal charges and allied charges and threatened the complainant in front of his aged mother. The complainant approached the higher officials of the opposite party bank. Yet his request to waive off the huge compound interest/penal charges/allied charges was denied and the opposite party bank demanded Rs. 1,64,593/- in the latest bill for the month of April 2013. The above amount demanded by the opposite party bank exceeded more than double the amount of Rs. 81,193/- due to the opposite party bank. The complainant therefore filed this complaint seeking direction from this Forum to the bank for an amicable settlement and to direct the opposite party to allow repayment the actual dues of Rs. 81,192/- with reasonable interest in 10 or 12 equal instalments and also to pay an amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by the complainant in view of frequent humiliation/ threatening/deficiency.

2. The notices were issued to the opposite parties and the opposite parties appeared and filed their joint version.

3. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties :- It is contended by the opposite parties that the complaint is neither maintainable in law nor on facts, since the issues involved related to settlement of accounts. It is admitted that the opposite parties issued the credit card No. 4617863000514420 to the complainant. It is further submitted that the complainant is not a “consumer” as defined under Section 2 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and that the dispute raised is not a “consumer dispute” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, that the relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor based on a contract which contract was initiated by the credit card application submitted by the complainant after accepting the terms and conditions governing the same. As per the contractual agreement, the opposite party bank was settling the demands of the third party merchants from whom the complainant purchases goods without charging interest for the same. There is no consideration for the issuance of the credit. However, the opposite parties are entitled to demand interest for the amount due if the customer opts to pay only a minimum amount to the bank or fails to pay the amount due within the due date, that the credit limit was increased to Rs. 1,31,000/- on the request of the complainant and due to continuous default of the complainant to repay the monthly instalments of credit card dues to the opposite parties, the available cash limit has even reached “o”. Therefore, the opposite parties are having all the rights to collect the money which is legally due to the opposite parties and to impose the charges or interest on the dues of the complainant. The opposite parties contended that there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complainant was regularly being updated with the transactions in the credit card as well as the charges imposed by the opposite parties on the dues of the complainant and the complainant had been served with his monthly credit card statement on each and every month and the complainant had chosen not to honour the monthly account statements. As per the monthly account statement dated 04-02-2012, the total dues of the complainant had reached Rs. 1,19,947.79 and in that accounting month the payment effected by the complainant was Rs. 26,387/- as against the dues of Rs. 56,959.72. The complainant's dues in the month of November 2012 was Rs. 1,44,420.96. The complainant effected purchases for Rs. 18,411.12 in the month of December 2012 and his last payment in December 2012 was Rs. 22,000/-. Thereafter, the complainant chose to pay not even a single pie towards the credit card dues and he approached this Forum only to thwart the legal actions taken against the complainant to recover the amounts legally due to the opposite parties. It is further submitted that the opposite parties are acting strictly as per the RBI guidelines and the allegations of the complainant that the opposite parties are threatening and intimidating him is only a cooked up story with the sole object of tarnishing the image of the opposite parties, to gather sympathy from this Forum and to avoid payment of the dues to the opposite parties. In fact, the request of the complainant is to settle the account which is out of the jurisdiction of the Forum and the averment made by the complainant that he is entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- for the mental agony is without any basis uncorroborated and without any reasoning. The opposite parties contended that this complaint is filed by the complainant only on an experimental basis and without any basis that the opposite parties had not committed any unfair trade practice or provided any deficiency service to the complainant. Therefore, the complaint is sought to be dismissed.

4. The evidence in this case consisted of the documentary evidences furnished by the complainant marked as Exts. A1 to A46 and Exts. B1 to B5 were marked on the side of the opposite parties. No oral evidence adduced either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. When the complaint was posted for hearing neither the complainant nor any representative of the complainant appeared before us. The counsel for the opposite parties was present and this complaint is disposed off after hearing the counsel for the opposite parties and after considering the argument notes furnished by both the parties.

5. On the above pleadings, the following issues emanated for consideration :-

1. Whether the complainant is a 'consumer' as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

2. Whether the issues involved in this complaint related to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or unfair trade practice practised by the opposite parties?

3. Whether the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation or costs of the proceedings to the complainant?

6. Issue No. i. :- The complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank and the credit card No. is 4617863000514420. The opposite parties have no dispute regarding the issuance of the above said credit card. It is contended by the opposite parties that the above said credit card was issued to the complainant on getting a request application from the complainant for the issuance of the credit card as evidenced by Ext. B1 credit card brochure cum application form and the above credit card was issued after accepting all the terms and conditions relating to the credit card by the complainant without receiving any consideration. The opposite parties have fairly conceded that they charge interest or other banking charges if the credit card holder opts to pay only the minimum amount to the opposite party bank or fails to make the repayment within the due date. Exts. A1 to A6 related to the e-mail communications between the complainant and the opposite party asking for monthly credit statements and the opposite parties e-mailing the said statements. Exts. A7 to A45 related to the copies of monthly credit statement for the period from June 2010 to April 2013. Ext. B2 series related to the monthly credit statements for the period from June 2010 to July 2013. On going through the above statements, it is revealed that the opposite party HDFC Bank had debited by “Finance charges” to the account of the complainant except in four months during the above period. In the instant case, the complainant availed credit facility from the opposite party bank. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported in 2000 (2) CPC (SC) 204 held that the facilities rendered by the bank is covered under 'service' as defined in Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1096. In the present case, the complainant availed credit facility from the opposite party bank and the facilities rendered by the opposite party bank is a service and is covered under Section 2 (1) (o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In view of the above, the issue is decided in favour of the complainant and we find that the complainant is a “consumer” as envisaged under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. Issue No. ii. :- In this case, the complainant contended that his requests for monthly credit statements and the settlement of his account with reasonable interest rate, were denied by the opposite party bank. His request to waive off the huge compound interest/penal charges/allied charge was also denied. The opposite party bank on the other hand submitted that prior to the issuance of the credit card, the complainant had been served with the “Most Important Terms and Conditions, usage guide, payment schedule etc”. but the complainant contended that Ext. B3 usage guide, Ext. B4 schedule of charges, Ext. B5 card member agreement etc. were not communicated to the complainant. The above contention was denied by the opposite party bank. The opposite party bank submitted that the complainant's dues to the opposite party bank were increasing, since the monthly payment effected by the complainant was either minimal or nil. On going through Ext. B2 monthly credit statements, we find that the above contention of the opposite party bank is true and correct. It is also seen that the last payment of dues of Rs. 26,273/- was in December 2012 while his total dues of November 2012 was Rs. 1,44,420.96 and the total dues as per the credit statement for the month of July 2013 was Rs. 1,88,432.61. The complainant's credit card was suspended and was declared invalid for further use as per Ext. A46 e-mail communication of the opposite party bank. The relief sought for by the complainant like waiver of unreasonable interest (more than 130%) request to allow instalments non-issuance of usage guide, schedule of charges, card member etc. are issues closely and essentially related to settlement of accounts between the complainant and the opposite party. Here the complainant's dues to the opposite party bank were increasing, since his payment was minimal or nil and the complainant had used the credit card extensively. Thus, we find that the complainant has not established a case of deficient service or of unfair trade practice practised by the opposite party bank and the grievances of the complainant are related to settlement of accounts. This Forum is not empowered to decide an issue related to settlement of accounts between the parties. Hence we decline to decide such matters. We find no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Thus, this issue is decided in favour of the opposite parties and against the complainant.

8. Issue No. iii. :- Having found the issue No. (ii) against the complainant, we are not inclined to decide the issue No. (iii). In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.

9. In the result, this complaint is dismissed without prejudice to file appropriate proceedings before the appropriate Civil Court, if so advised, by seeking exclusion of the time taken to prosecute this complaint before this Forum, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute reported in (1995) 3 SCC 583.

10. The complaint is dismissed accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of August 2015

Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Cherian. K. Kuriakose, President.

Forwarded/By order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-