Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1123/2013

Sumit Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank - Opp.Party(s)

03 Sep 2019

ORDER

 

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

                                               NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C.1123/2013                                        Dated:

In the matter of:

Sumit Paul,

P4/A6, Janta Flat,

Dilshad Garden,

Delhi-95.      

       …… Complainant

Versus

Manager,

Standard Chartered Bank,

Narain Manzil, Ground Floor,

23, Barakhamba Road,

Connaught Place,

New Delhi-110001.

 

                     ……. Opposite party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

ORDER

       

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the OP issued a S C B Titanium Card- Primary(Credit Card A/c  No.5546232906446835 to the complainant for the period from 5/2013 to 6/2017. The OP had levied wrong penalty charges of Rs.11773.60  under the pretext of Late Fee charges, Over limit fee etc. for the period from July 2013 upto December 2013.  The OP failed to credit a sum of Rs.26,800/- deposited by the complainant from the period  29/06/2013 upto 2/12/2013 pertaining to the above credit card account .  Moreover, the OP had blocked the above credit card since July 2013 indicating total outstanding for Rs.30,044.27, hence no transaction was allowed thereafter. 2.   In the month of December, 2013,  account statement of above card  issued by the OP indicated total outstanding of Rs.41532.74, it seems that the OP had levied another additional charge for about Rs.11488/- during the blockage period of above card, but failed to consider the sum of  Rs.26,800/- deposited by him against the credit card in question.  Despite collecting the amount of Rs.26,800/- for the period from 29/6/13 upto  3/12/12  by the OP, his Recovery Agent in a deliberate manner continued their undue harassment and mental torture  on phones and through sms to the complainant and his family members raising the illegal demand of Rs. Rs.41532.74.  As such, the complainant sent various letters to the OP for waiving the outstanding dues on above card a/c statement levied under the pretext of late fee and penalty charges in the light of payments made by him but nothing has been done by the OP, hence this complaint.

3.     Complaint has been contested by the OP.  OP filed its written statement.  OP has stated that there is no deficiency on its part. It is stated that the present complaint is self created, false, frivolous and baseless story of the complainant with the malafide intention of getting wrongful gain at the cost of OP Bank.  It is submitted that as per the OP Banking process, the credit card shall be allowed for any transaction beyond the credit limit subject to fulfillment of the internal terms and conditions wherein their systems have been designed to adapt and support the same.  It is the customer’s duty to track their available balance in the card and effect a transaction within the said available limit.  It is stated that if the customer exceeds the set credit limit then the over limit fees is levied to the card account.   The transaction details related to card account along with the charges levied have been communicated to all the customers by the OP Bank vide the monthly statements and the charges are also levied as per the Card Member Rules and Regulations.  It is submitted that the statements sent to the complainant have not been returned undelivered to the OP Bank.  It is stated that for the period July 2012 to May 2014, the complainant has not made any payments against the outstanding or has made the part payment after their respective due dates. Hence, the OP Bank is within its right to levy late charges and interest for non receipt of payment within the due date and prayed for dismissal of complaint on the alone grounds.

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidence by way of affidavit.  

4.     We have heard argument advance at the Bar on behalf of both the parties and have perused the record.

5.     Perusal of the credit card statement shows that in the month of July  2013, the total outstanding on the credit card in question was Rs.30,044.27 against the above payment the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.1400/-, further against total outstanding of Rs.31,713/- in the month of August 2013, the complainant made a part payment of Rs.1400/-. Again, against total outstanding of Rs.32,866.33/- for  the month of September 2013, the complainant made a part payment of Rs.2000/-.  Similarly, against total outstanding of Rs.35,452/- for  the month of October 2013, the complainant made a part payment of Rs.2000/-.  As against the against total outstanding of Rs.37,485/- for  the month of November  2013, no payment was made by the complainant and as such in the month of December 2013, the total outstanding comes to Rs.41,532.74/p-  against which a  part payment of Rs.2000/-was made by the complainant.  In the month of December 2013, due to nonpayment of the dues, the OP blocked the credit card in question.  The payment details given by the complainant in its complaint itself proves that against the outstanding of Rs.30,044.27/-, the complainant has made part payment of Rs.1400/- due to which OP levied penalty and interest charges on the outstanding against the credit card in question. The complainant ought to have clear all the dues of the credit card in question for the month of July in the July itself, which he failed to do so. Further, he did not clear his entire dues  till December 2013 which compel OP to levy the late fee charges and interest for the period July 2013 to December 2013.   

6.     Hence, in our view, the OP cannot be held guilty of deficiency in services for imposing the penalty and late fee charges on outstanding dues on credit card in question.

7.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant failed to establish the case of deficiency in service on the part of OP. We find no merit in the present complaint, the same is hereby dismissed.              Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on03/09/2019

 

 

(ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

          PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                  (H M VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER