Delhi

New Delhi

CC/298/2010

Ashok Aggarwal - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. ABN Amro Bank - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2022

ORDER

 

                                                 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VI

(NEW DELHI), ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

Case No.CC.298/2010                               

IN THE MATTER OF:

 

SH. ASHOK KUMAR AGGARWAL

S/O LATE SH. B. M. AGGARWAL

R/O G-308, PREET VIHAR,

DELHI-110092                                                      …..Complainant

 

VERSUS

ABN AMRO BANK

(KNOWN AS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.)

THROUGH ITS MANGAER,

HANSALYA BUILDING, SHOP NO.1, 1^ST FLOOR,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

ALSO AT:

ABN AMRO BANK

(KNOWN AS KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LTD.)

THROUGH ITS MANGAER,

KOTAK HOUSE, 7^TH FLOOR,

SECTOR-125, NOIDA-201301

ALSO AT:

ABN AMRO BANK

(NOW KNOWN AS NEW ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND)

THROUGH ITS MANGAER,

OFFOCE OF HANSALYA BUILDING, SHOP NO.1, 1^ST FLOOR,

BARAKHAMBA ROAD, CONNAUGHT PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110001

ALSO AT:-

ABN AMRO BANK

THROUGH IT’S A.R/MANAGER,

HEAD OFFICE AT 71/72, SHANKAR BHAVAN,

7^TH FLOOR, OPPOSITE OBEROI SHOPING CENTRE,

NARIMAN, MUMBAI                                             …...OPPOSITE PARTY

 

Quorum:

Ms.Poonam Chaudhry, President

Shri Bariq Ahmadi, Member

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

 

                                                                      Dated of Institution:-11.03.2010                                                              Date of Order   :                  31.10.2022

 

ORDER

 

BARIQ AHMAD, MEMBER.

 

1. The present complaint has been filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in brief referred as CP Act). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Complaint had subscribed a credit card No.AAB-5415 3823 2173 2992 from the Opposite Party in the year 2006, having the limit of Rs.25,000/- and the complainant regularly made payments against the bills of credit card to the Opposite Party.
2. It is stated that OP bank illegally charged from very beginning Rs.58/- in the account of credit shield-06209020246 12 EMI, which is not mentioned in the terms & conditions of credit card. The OP bank levied a late fees on the credit card usage and misc. late fees expenses. However, the complainant cleared all dues on 03.11.2006 except misc. Charges.
3. It is stated that the complainant has lodged his grievance through written letters dated 11.09.2006, but Op bank not bothered. It is further stated that the complainant made various written communications with OP  dated 07.11.2007, 15.11.2007, 10.12.2007, 11.12.2007 and 19.12.2007 for settlement but Op failed and neglected to any reply on the over limit fees Rs.300/-, late fees Rs. 350/- and finance charges Rs. 270.88/- which includes Rs. 58/- for credit shield policy.
4. It is stated that the complainant on 07.11.2006 wrote a letter to discharged his liability and to clear his all dues, forwarded request for settlement of account and also surrendered credit card in question. The OP bank issued a letter dated 29.10.2006 demanded outstanding amount of Rs.2707.48, towards msc. charges and a statement of credit card  started from 04.11.2007 to 03.12.2007 which shows outstanding amount of Rs.12271.14, reflected all the dues outstanding which were earlier paid to Op in the year 2006, the same is illegal.
5. It is further stated that the complainant found his name  on the website of CIBII, in defaulters' list. The reflection of name of Complainant as a defaulter came as a rude shock which was unbearable for the complainant. That complainant suffered great difficulties as due to above said details put on the CIBIL website the complainant could not secure loan from any other bank, which resulted in more loss in business and unbearable anxiety and distress.
6. It is stated that the default of repayment of was blunder committed by the officials of Opposite Party with unpardonable recklessness Moreover, contrary to what reflected on website the Complainant never used credit card from the Opposite Party since the year 2006.

 

7. It is stated that on 26.02.2010 the complainant had to serve Opposite Party with a legal notice through their lawyer calling upon them to withdraw the name of complainant from list of defaulters at CIBIL website and to compensate.

 

8. It is stated that conduct of the Opposite Party reflects their ignorance and carelessness about their potential customers who are made scapegoat for the fault of someone else. The OP has not cleared the name of complainant from the defaulter / CIBIL list, neither issued No Dues Certificate and not cleared the illegal outstanding amounts. The present consumer complaint has been filed seeking reliefs directed to OP bank to withdraw the name of the Complainant from the CIBIL Website and to pay a compensation of Rs.19,00,000/- lacs to the Complainant on account of loss in business, physical suffering for causing mental pain, agony and harassment  along with a cost of litigation.

 

9. Notice of the complaint was issued to OP pursuant to which OP contest the case on merits and filed written statement stating inter alia that as per the terms and conditions, as given in Most Important Terms and Conditions (in short ’MITC’), governing the use of credit card, the complainant is under the contractual and legal obligation to pay all the outstanding dues and discharge all the liabilities with respect to the credit card. It is submitted that still Rs.14,636.17/- is due and outstanding against the credit card of the complainant.
10. It is contended that settlement of disputes with respect to matters relating to business of credit information companies shall be done only through Civil court. This commission have no jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint.
11. It is denied that the Opposite Party has placed the name of the complainant in the list of defaulters at CIBIL, whereby the name and reputation of the complainant was defamed to an irreparable extent.
12. It is not disputed that a credit card No.AAB-5415 3823 2173 2992 from the Opposite Party in the year 2006 with a credit limit of Rs.25,000/-. It is stated that the complainant was not regular in making payments towards dues on the aforesaid card and due to non-payment of dues the said card was closed in the year 2006 with dues amounting to Rs.14,636.17/- .
13.  It is prayed that the complainants are not entitled to any relief and further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
14. The complainant filed replication and reiterated the complaint allegations. Both the parties filed their evidences by affidavit and also filed their respective written arguments.
15. We  have heard the Ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record as well as written arguments. To sum up, the matter in dispute, is in regards to the Insurance Policy on credit card, issued to the complainant by OP bank, the Complainant had availed credit card from the Opposite Party credit card bearing No.AAB-5415 3823 2173 2992 and due to non-payment of dues the card was closed in the year 2006 with dues amounting to Rs.14636.17/-, the total outstanding dues on the aforesaid card in the head of others charges only, the outstanding which was showed in the alleged CIBIL report.
     
16. The counsel for complainant has stated that at the time of signing of agreement by the complainant, its terms and condition does not mention any insurance policy i.e. credit shield attached with card for which monthly premium was charged. The OP bank does not authorized bank to debit any amount of insurance without permission of the customer as per the guidelines of the RBI. All the amount is just due to debit of such insurance premium amount and penalty amount of the premium of insurance since 03.08.2006. On perusal of invoice dated 03.08.2006 OP Bank has firstly charge Rs. 58/- in the name of credit shield EMI 01 of 12.

 

17. The complainant has placed on record the specific account statement starting from 03.08.2006 to 03.12.2006  exbt. CW1/E colly.  (page 13 & page 18)  to clearly show that what amount the complainant utilized/exhausted against the credit limit and what was repaid by them, However, the OP bank written off the utilized/exhausted amount against the credit card as it had become a non-working stock.

 

18. In our considered opinion, the complainant neither subscribed to the services of Opposite Party nor ever utilized or used their credit card further since November,2006, the OP bank ignored the instructions of RBI bearing No.RBI/2008-2009/100. BOD.FSD.BC.23/24.01.01.011/2008-09, JULY 23, 2008, in regards to the reporting the name of the defaulter to CIBIL/Credit Information companies, which states as under:-

It is desirable that the banks in terms of paragraph 6.2 © of the Master Circular on credit card operations of banks (Circular no.DBOD.FSD.BC.6/24.01.011/2008-2009 DATED July 1, 2008), before reporting default status of a credit card holder to CIBIL or any other credit information company VI CIBIL issues 17. Reporting to CIBIL/credit information company are made to follow a uniform method of reporting to CIBIL/master card international negative list authorized by RBI, Bank should ensured that they adhere to a procedure duly approved by their board including issuing of sufficient notice to such card holder about the intention to report him/her as a defaulter to the credit information company. The procedure should also covered the notice period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter. These procedures should be transparently made known as part of the MITCs. The above instructions are reiterated. In the present case, the OP bank now here issued any notice to the complainant while sending information to the CIBIL declaring him as a defaulter and complainant was never given opportunity to clear his account before sending his name in the defaulter list which apparently is non-adherence of the RBI instructions as produced as above. Such an action of the OP bank resulting in causing harassment to the complainant.  The dispute in regards to the issuance of no-due certificate the OP bank has failed to produce any record of no-due certificate and further written off the amount outstanding as on 2006, card was closed in the year 2006 with dues amount Rs.14,636.17/- of msc. Charges/over due bill, as it had become non working stop. So it is believe that OP bank had not issued no-dues certificate to the complainant which is in our opinion the OP bank was liable to issue.

Recently the RBI  issued Master Direction in the public interest called “The Reserve Bank of India (Credit Card and Debit Card – Issuance and Conduct) Directions, 2022”, effective from July 01, 2022, as per Section 3  of clause No.  xvii  of Master Direction;- Minimum Amount Due is the minimum amount of money, as a part of the total bill amount, that a cardholder has to pay to not be treated as an overdue bill and as per Section 6 ii. The MITC as given in Chapter VI of these directions, shall be highlighted and published/sent separately to the customers, at the acceptance stage (welcome kit) and in important subsequent communications. The MITC shall be provided to the customer at the time of onboarding and each time, a condition is modified with notice to the customer. The MITC and copy of the agreement signed between the card-issuer and cardholder shall be sent to the registered email address of the cardholder or postal address as per the choice of the customer. In the present case OP bank failed to show any documents that they were sent the MITC to the complainant.

As per Section 6 (viii) of Master Directions:- “The consent for the cards issued or the other products/services offered along with the card shall be explicit and shall not be implied. In other words, the written consent of the applicant shall be required before issuing a credit card. In the present case Insurance Policy issued by the OP bank without any written consent, the OP bank also indulged in unfair trade practices.

 

In the light of above observations, the OP bank is held to be deficient in rendering proper services and indulging in unfair trade practices to the complainant and liable to be burdened with costs for causing harassment to the complainant as well as thrusting this litigation. Accordingly, the present complaint of the complainant is allowed.

The OP bank directed as under

1. To get the name of the complainant cleared from the records of CIBIL forthwith;
2. To pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) to the complainant as consolidated amount as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.
3. To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. The above said order shall be complied with by OP within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which Op shall be liable to pay the awarded compensation amount along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from  complying with directions as at sub-para (a) & (b) above.

The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced 31.10.2022

 

   (POONAM CHAUDHRY)

President

 

   (BARIQ AHMAD)                                                            (ADARSH NAIN)     

Member                                                                             Member