IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, ALAPPUZHA

Saturday the 4^th  day of March, 2023.

                                      Filed on : 06.09.2022

Present

1. Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar  BSc.,LL.B  (President )
2. Smt. C.K.Lekhamma, B.A.L,LLB (Member)

                                                   In

                                        CC/No.223/2022

between

Complainant:-                                                     Opposite parties:-

Sri.M.V.Viswabhadran                                1.  Monisha Vora,                                            

S/o B. Vasu                                                       Head of SBI Cards and Payment

Munduvadackal House.                                    Services Ltd, Aggarwal Millenium   

 Eravukad ward                                                Tower Wazipur, New Delhi-110034  

 Alappuzha-688002                                            (Adv. Jithesh Menon)

  (Party in person)                                      2.  The Branch Manager, SBI,

                                                                         Kalarcode Branch, Opp. Shymas Honda, 

                                                                         Alappuzha-688002,                                            

                         ,                                               (Adv. Miji S.Mony)

O R D E R

SMT.  SHOLY.P.R(MEMBER)

          This is a consumer complaint filed under Sec.35 of Consumer Protection Act,2019.

1.      Material averments briefly discussed are as follows:-

Complainant  is holding SB account having no.20116595226 with 2^nd opposite party since the year 2012.  As part of expanding their credit card business in the year 2017  2^nd opposite party  issued to the complainant a credit card with No. 4726427585116320 having a limit of Rs. 1 lakh and valid for 5 years. No annual fee or renewal fee collected for the same.  The payments made by using auto debit from his SB account for which the complainant had been maintained sufficient balance in the said account. During the validity period of the card, 1^st opposite party informed about another variant credit card called Elite Contactless and asked his permission to convert the existing one to new variant.  The complainant agreed for the conversion only on getting assurance that no annual fee or  renewal fee on this new variant also a new card with number 4335817866957706 was issued to the complainant and the same is valid  till Sept. 2026. Though there was no annual fee or renewal fee was applicable to the 1^st card an amount upto Rs. 4999/- shown on the schedule of charges supplied along with monthly bills.1^st opposite party was allowed payments in EMI and the complainant had been paying the monthly dues on the card also opting  “auto debit” from his SB  account so far no bill remained un paid or no delay in making payments.

2. During April  2021 the complainant had received a SMS, offering EMI facility for payment  of the outstanding amounts to the card billed on 11/4/2021 and the amount payable was Rs. 92,151.37/-. As no information regarding sanction of the EMI facility was received before 1/5/2021, the complainant arranged funds in SB account for enabling payment by ‘autodebit’ and  the said amount was taken by 1^st opposite party from his SB account under auto debit.  Therefore no need was there for the amount 1^st opposite party has said to have sanctioned under EMI Scheme.  No physical statements were provided to the complainant during the period of Covid-19 pandemic and it was started only in October 2021.  On going through the statement of account received in October 2021 the complainant came to know of sanction of EMI facility of Rs. 80,808, but 1^st opposite party had collected  interest from the  complainant for the said amount. A registered letter was sent to 1^st opposite party on 27/10/2021  regarding the same.  As the 1^st opposite party failed to settle the issue satisfactorily  the complainant preferred a complaint before Banking Ombudsman. The said complaint was closed under clause 14(9) of  the integrated Ombudsman Scheme 2021 stating that 1^st opposite party shall refund the annual fee of Rs. 4999/- collected along with its other charges. But it was not honoured by the 1^st opposite party.

3.      Thereafter 1^st opposite party issued another card to the complainant after collecting annual charges of Rs. 499 + tax, without obtained his consent in this regard. 1^st opposite party has not refunded the said charges collected unnecessarily, inspite of several request and thereafter 1^st opposite party has blocked the new card in June 2022 without intimating the complainant.

In response to the complaint both parties filed version.

4.      Version of 1^st opposite party is as follows:-

The complainant was a holder of SB account with 2^nd opposite party. 1^st opposite party had issued a credit card having a low profile SBI card which had no annual fees with limited features on application of the complainant. Thereafter the said credit  card  facility was upgraded to Elite card with vast features without any compulsion from  opposite parties. In December 2019 the complainant received the new card with aware that having features like additional cost and as such the 1^st opposite party had billed him Rs. 4999/- +Gst as an annual fee for the new card. In March, 2020 the complainant became aware this charge and requested to downgrade the card to its previous normal status. In response 1^st opposite party had cancelled the new card and reversed the annual charges levied on his card, on a pro-rata for the four months that he had held the card refunded an amount of Rs.3824/-.

5.      Despite the refund, the  complainant was still unsatisfied and approached the RBI banking ombudsman on 27/2/2022 seeking a full reversal of the charges. It was disposed of one 22/9/2022 stating that there was no deficiency in the service provided by 1^st opposite party. Subsequently, the complainant’s outstanding amount on the card exceeded the card limit, resulting in an overdraft charge of Rs. 12,00/-. To settle the outstanding amount of Rs. 92,151.37/- the complainant availed of a flexy pay EMI facility by making a request on 24/4/2021.

6.      On submission of application of credit card agreeing to the most important terms conditions (MITC) document which clearly specify the charges that will be levied on failure to pay the due amounts within the prescribed due date as per the monthly statement. The complainant  convey his acceptance of the card upgrade during the call, and was informed of the annual fee of Rs.4999/- + tax which he duly accepted.  Annual fee is charged on the credit card account on every year in December and as per upgraded Elite card account the annual fee of Rs. 4999/- was charged on 11/12/2021. When the complainant requested a card downgrade on 14/3/2022  the opposite party complied with the request by reversing Rs. 3684.20/- on 16/3/2022 on a pro-rata basis as the request was made after the lapse of 6 months (from the delivery date of the upgraded card in October 2021 to March 2022).

7.      The statement date for the complainant’s credit card account was the 11^th of every month and the payment due date was twenty days from the bill date and complainant regularly received monthly statements.

 8.     On his card account, the complainant made a transaction  from LIC, BILL DESK on 7/4/2021 for Rs. 72,660.66/- and it was converted into EMI’s since the purchase was billed on 11^th April. The complainant made a complete payment via auto debit towards Flexy Pay. As per the terms and conditions it should have informed the foreclosure of the EMI facility, and as a result, the specified EMI payments were levied in subsequent months. The amount debited through auto payment was adjusted towards the outstanding balance. As per the terms and conditions, the Flexy pay offer availed by the complainant commenced from the next billing cycle and was duly reflected within account and the complainant was provided with intimation regarding the same. The 1^st opposite party had acted in accordance with the law and there is no deficiency in service on the part of  1^st opposite party. Hence complaint may be dismissed as it lacks merit and good faith.

9.      2^nd opposite party filed version as follows;-

The complainant is bad for misjoinder  of parties. They were not issued credit card to the complainant. The complainant is having SB account to the 2^nd opposite party bank.  SBI is a Central Govt. Public Sector bank constituted under the SBI Act, 1955 having its corporate office at State Bank Bhavan, Madam Camo Road, Mumbai whereas SBI cards and Payment Services Ltd previously known as SBI cards is a payment solutions provider in India. 2^nd opposite party is doing the   business of banking whereas 1^st opposite party is doing the business of credit cards and other payment products.

10.    The legal name of SBI Card was changed from SBI cards and Payment Services Ltd to SBI Cards and payment from 2019 August onwards on account of its conversion from private limited company to public limited company. Hence both are two different legal entities having separate legal existence.

11.    There is no deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party to the complainant with regard to the banker customer relationship. 2^nd opposite party has no business of issuance of credit cards.

12.    Complainant is not a consumer of 2^nd opposite party with  regard to the issuance of credit card. No cause of action arose against the 2^nd opposite party and the cause of action alleged is only against 1^st opposite party. By unnecessarily implicating 2^nd opposite party, the complainant has abused  the process of law and hence 2^nd opposite party is entitled to get cost from the complainant.

13.    On the above pleading the points raised for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties No.1 & 2?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the complaint from 1^st opposite party and 2^nd opposite party ?
3. Reliefs and costs?

14.    Evidence in this case consists of oral evidence of PW1 and Ext.A1 to A8 on the side of the complainant and oral evidence of RW1 and Ext.B1 to B5 on the side of opposite parties.   Complainant and 1^st opposite party’s counsel filed notes of argument.  Heard both sides.

15.    Point No.1 and 2

PW1 is the complainant.  He filed an affidavit in lieu of chief examination and got marked Ext.A1 to A8.  During cross examination by the learned counsel appearing for 1^st opposite party Exts.B1 and B2 were marked.

16.    RW1 is the litigation manager of 1^st opposite party.  He filed an affidavit in tune with the version and got marked Ext.B3 to B5.

17.     PW1’s case is that he had availed a credit card facility from 1^st opposite party in the year 2017 onward and having SB account with 2^nd opposite party 2012 onwards.  He had taken the said facility having no service charges to the same as assured by 1^st opposite party.  In the meantime the said credit card was upgraded with his consent to Elite contactless also on getting confirmed by the bank that there is no annual or renewal fee on this new variant. 

18.   Subsequently a schedule of charges supplied along with monthly bill a fee upto Rs.4999/- was given to the complainant. As he had availed auto debit facility from his SB account, sufficient balance for the same was keeping in his account.  Thereafter on going through the statement of account received in October 2021, he came to know of the sanction of EMI facility of Rs.80,808/- and for which 1^st opposite party was collecting interest on the EMI loan amount of Rs.80,800/-.

19.    He had filed a complaint before the Hon’ble banking ombudsman where the complaint was disposed of stating that 1^st opposite party shall refund the annual fee of Rs.4,999/- collected along with other charges.  But they did not honour the terms. 

20.    According to the complainant the 1^st opposite party collected an amount of Rs.4,999/- plus GST from the complainant in violation of assurance given by them at the time of issuing the card as not chargeable.  He also alleged that 2^nd opposite party also commits unfair trade practice debiting amount from his SB account unauthorisely.  Per contra the 1^st opposite party contented that the complainant was intimated all the terms and conditions of the credit card facility and they only acted upon the lawful manner.  According to 2^nd opposite party they are a separate legal entity and existence and they have no connection with regard to the issuance of credit card.

21.   Admittedly the PW1 availed credit card facility from 1^st opposite party. He is also having SB account with 2^nd opposite party.  From the accepted documents of the PW1, Ext.A2 shows an amount of Rs.4,999/- is charged as annual charge.  On the reverse side of the said document a schedule of charges showed for the service in connection with the credit card and no free credit period mentioned in the schedule.   It is true that the credit card facility provided to the PW1 during 2017.  Subsequently it was renewed on Dec.2019 to a new variant known as Elite contactless.  According to Pw1 no service charges or fee chargeable to the said credit facility as assured by the opposite party over phone.  However the document speaks otherwise.  Ext.B.3 is the terms and conditions with regard to the credit card facility issued by 1^st opposite party.  Eventhough the complainant pleaded absence of charges or fee to the credit facility during cross examination by the counsel appearing for 1^st opposite party PW1 answered that the annual charges may be the charges for service provided for one year.  Though the PW1 deposed that it was issued on saying there is no charge and for further clarification for the same, when put a question, “Annual charge Df-f-XvsIm­v  charge CÃmsX Xcm³ downgrade sNbvXp Xcm³ Bh-iy-s¸-«n-cp-¶tÃm ( Q  ) Annual charge  s\Xnsc ]cm-Xn-s¸-«n-cp-¶p. (A)

22.   In the above wordings it can be realised that the complainant was having knowledge regarding the annual charges to the new credit facility.  It is also admitted that from the charges obtained by 1^st opposite party the charges of the remaining period from holding the card was returned to the PW1.   The allegation regarding the same to the PW1 is that the entire amount awarded by ombudsman was not refunded.  As per Ext.B1 and B2, the complaint and its order respectively  before the Hon’ble Ombudsman reveals that the said complaint was disposed off.

23.  During cross examination by counsel for 1^st opposite party when put a suggestion that, if the complainant request for cancelling EMI facility within 45 days there would be credited the entire amount without charging a single penne,  it was answered he had no knowledge for 6 months.  We cannot expect such a contention from a person like PW1.  He further contented that he did not read the contents of Ext.B3 which is the terms and conditions of the credit card in which it is specifically explained the terms of annual charge for providing service to customers of 1^st opposite party.

24.   It is also pertinent to not that after accepting the EMI facility, the transaction amount should be converted in to EMI before the next bill date, or else the entire amount should be paid.  From the deposition of PW1 it is understood that the had availed EMI facility.  However, whatever the reason he was not proceeded with the same, hence as per auto debit facility which he already availed was functioned and debited in lumsum.  When put a question regarding the same he also answered that no need to enquire about it.  In the circumstances stated above the complainant could not prove his pleadings regarding the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the side of opposite parties, hence we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

25.    Point No.3:-

In the result complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him corrected by me and pronounced in open Commission on this the 4^thday of March, 2023.

                                           Sd/-Smt. Sholy.P.R(Member)

                                           Sd/-Sri.S.Santhosh Kumar(President)

Appendix:-Evidence of the complainant:- 

PW1                           -    M.V.Viswabhadran (complainant)

Ext.A1                       -    Copy of Passbook

Ext.A2                       -    Copy of Monthly Statement

Ext.A3                       -    Letter dtd. 17/2/2022

Ext.A4                       -     CRPC dtd. 27-2-2022

Ext.A5                      -      CRPC dtd. 28/3/2022

Ext.A6                      -      Letter dtd. 27/10/2021 & 1/11/2021

Ext.A7                      -      Transaction on Account

Ext.A8                      -       Account statement  from1/4/2021 to14/2/2022

Evidence of the opposite parties:

RW1                          -            Chandrasekharan(witness)

Ext.B1                       -            RBIO Complaints

Ext.B2                       -            RBIO Complaints

Ext.B3                       -            Terms and conditions

Ext.B4                       -            Mail communication between complainant and OP

Ext.B5                       -             Proof of delivery of monthly statements to the complainant

                                                       ///True Copy ///

To     

          Complainant/Oppo.party/S.F.

                                                                                                     By Order

                                                                                                 Assistant Registrar

Typed by:- Br/-

Comp.by: