Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

158/2008

Nagarajan kalyanaraman - Complainant(s)

Versus

Standard chartered Bank and 2 others - Opp.Party(s)

S.Satish chandra sekaran

05 Feb 2018

ORDER

      

           Date of Filing  : 05.05.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 05.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

           DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                                  

CC. NO.158 /2008

MONDAY THE 5^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

Nagarajan Kalyanaraman,

Flat No.B-7, Shyams Royal Enclave,

25, Sathya Nagar 2^nd Street,

Mugappair Road,

Chennai 600 050.                                                        .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

 

1. The Manager,

Customer Assistance,

Standard Charted Bank,

Bank Card Customer Service Centre,

2^nd Floor, Raja Rajeshwari Towers,

29-30 Dr. Radhakrishnan Road,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

 

2.  The Manager,

Credits, Standard Charted Bank,

2^nd  Floor, Raja Rajeshwari Towers,

29-30 Dr/ Radhakrishnan Road,

Mylapore, Chennai 600 004.

 

3. The Customer Assistant Manager,

Standard Chartered Bank,

India Bank Card Centre,

3^rd and 4^th Floor, Raheja Point,

Magarath Road, Bangalore 560 025             ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant       :  M/s. S.Muthuvenkataraman & another   

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. Sanjay Ramaswami & others      

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.600/- towards cheques return charges and also another sum of Rs.3825/- as collected excessively and also to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/-  towards mental agony and Rs.25000/- as cost of the complaint.  

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that  he had availed the credit card services of the 2^nd opposite party from the year 2003 vide credit card No.4129 0380 8015 0962.  During the month of May 2003 the 1^st opposite party had given the option of converting the credit card into the loan account and thereby the balance credit card amount of Rs.28,034/-  has been treated as loan account and it should be repayable by EMI at the rate of Rs.1427/-  from the month of May 2003 vide loan account No.9356 5009 0120 3076.  The complainant also issued 23 post dated cheques towards the loan facility and the same had been cleared upto the month of December 2003 without any default.     Further during the month of January 2004 the complainant had given a chance for one time settlement through Lok Adalat and the complainant paid the entire amount vide receipt No.1,42,404 dated 4.1.2004.Even after the payment of entire amount by way of one time settlement  through Lok Adalat  the opposite parties failed and neglected to return the unused cheques bearing Nos.182702 and 182706 to 192717 and no due certificate.   Further the complainant states that the opposite parties collected an excess amount of Rs.3825/- from the complainant by way of EMI.   Further the complainant states that the opposite parties without any information closed the credit card and claimed an amount of Rs.7500/- from the complainant when the matter is placed before the Lok Adalat.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   

2.      The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite parties is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that the complainant is availing credit card facility and a chronic defaulter in payment of outstanding  amount.   Hence the opposite parties opted to convert the credit card amount of Rs.28,034/- into a loan account to be paid in easy installments @ Rs.1427/- for the period 23 months from  May 2003.       Further the opposite parties state that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.21,870/- towards his credit card account only and admittedly to confuse the credit card loan account.    Further the  opposite parties state that on 4.1.2004 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20119.96 and in the loan account was Rs.21,546.96/- the outstanding on the credit account No.4129 0380 8015 0962 as on April 2003 was Rs.28,034/- which was completed into EMI by providing a separate loan account No.9356 5008 0120 3076 and the complainant issued a 23 cheques towards EMI the amount paid by the complainant on 4.1.2004 was only towards outstanding in the credit card account.  The total outstanding in both account was Rs.41,666.92; but the complainant had paid only an amount of Rs.21,870/-. The outstanding in the loan account was never paid by the complainant but the complainant insisted on issuing a No due certificate for both the accounts.  The allegation that an official of the  opposite party had asked Rs.7500/- is false.  The opposite party had requested the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.7500/- in one installment and the same may be treated as full and final settlement of the total outstanding in the loan account.   Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.20 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex8.  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

4.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.600/- debited towards cheques return charges and another sum of Rs.3825/- collected excessively by the opposite parties as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to  a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.25,000/- as prayed for ?

5.   POINTS 1 & 2:

          Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he had availed the credit card services of the 2^nd opposite party from the year 2003 vide credit card No.4129 0380 8015 0962 is admitted.  During the month of May 2003 the 1^st opposite party had given the option of converting the credit card amount into the loan account amount and thereby the balance credit card amount of Rs.28,034/-  has been treated as loan account amount and it should be repayable by EMI at the rate of Rs.1427/-  from the month of May 2003 vide loan account No. 9356 5009 0120 3076.  The complainant also issued 23 post dated cheques towards the loan facilitating the EMI and the same had been cleared upto the month of December 2003 without any default.     Further during the month of January 2004 the complainant had given a chance for one time settlement through Lok Adalat and the complainant paid the entire amount vide receipt No.1,42,404 dated 4.1.2004.    Even after the payment of entire amount by way of one time settlement  through Lok Adalat  the opposite parties failed and neglected to return the unused cheques bearing Nos. 182702 and 182706 to 192717 and no due certificate.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties collected an excess amount of Rs.3825/- from the complainant by way of EMI.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite parties without any information closed the credit card transaction and claimed an amount of Rs.7500/- from the complainant when the matter is placed before the Lok Adalat.  The complainant also pleaded and contended that the loan account is different from the credit card account the complainant settled only the loan account and not the credit card account.   The complainant  is claiming a sum of Rs.600/- towards cheques bounced charges  deducted by the opposite party after due settlement of the entire claim of the opposite party and another sum of Rs.3825/- collected excessively by way of EMI. 

6.     The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly the complainant had credit card facility and the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of credit card  amount.  Hence the opposite parties after due intimation after consultation  converted the credit card amount of Rs.28,034/- into a loan account amount to be paid in easy installments @ Rs.1427/- for the period 23 months from my May 2003 as per ExB1.  On calculation it is apparently clear that the admitted outstanding amount of Rs.28,034/- EMI for 23 months @ Rs.1427/- amounting to Rs.32,821/- the difference amount is Rs.3825/-.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that as per Ex.B2 statement of account reveals that the complainant was irregular in paying the installments and there are five cheques were returned dishonoured; but no record.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs.21,870/- towards his credit card account only and attempted to confuse the credit card account and loan account.  The settlement of loan account dated 4.1.2004 by the opposite parties is very clear that the amount was paid only towards the  credit card account bearing No.4129 0380 8015 0962 and not towards the loan account and loan account is till due for which the opposite parties  has issued monthly statement Ex.B4 and demanded payment by letter dated 8.2.2005 as per Ex.B5 and the question of penal charges will not arise.    Further the contention of the opposite parties is that on 4.1.2004 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.20119.96 and in the loan account was Rs.21,546.96/- as per Ex.B7; the outstanding on the credit account No.4129 0380 8015 0962 as on April 2003 was Rs.28,034/- which was converted into EMI by providing a separate loan account No.9356 5008 0120 3076 and the complainant issued  23 cheques towards EMI. The amount paid by the complainant on 4.1.2004 was only towards outstanding in the credit card account.  The total outstanding in both account was Rs.41,666.92; but the complainant had paid only an amount of Rs.21,870/-. But the opposite parties has not produced any record after converting the credit card outstanding into the loan account what is the transaction  done by the complainant in the credit card.  Equally after admitting that the complainant  is a chronic defaulter in payment of credit card account and a chance given for such payment by way of EMI and permitted to settle the claim though Lok Adalat under what circumstances the opposite parties permitted the complainant to transact the credit card has not been explained.  Equally the details regarding the transaction of such amount through credit card from May 2003 on wards is not produced.  Ex.B6 is for the statement  as on May 2004 to 12.5.2007.  Ex.B4 payment coupon from 27.1.2006 to 27.12.2006 without any break up figures. It is very clear regarding the unused cheques etc.  The opposite party also has not explained when the matter is taken before Lok Adalat for settlement what is the handicap caused with regard to settle all accounts.   On the other hand in Ex.A18 it is clearly stated that  “Terms of Settlement “ is as follows:

                                   “ Terms of Settlement “

1. The Officials of the Petitioner/ Standard Chartered Bank Ltd., are present. The respondent Nagarajan Kalyanaraman appears in person.   The total Outstanding amount as per the statement of the Bank is Rs.32,186/-

 

2. In the Lok Adalat held to-day the Bank Officials presents that the respondent has already paid the amount due payable to the petitioner.  Hence the matter is closed as SETTLED.  

Proves there shall be no dues of any amount.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that after connecting complainant’s  credit card account amount into the loan account amount there is no possibility of any transaction through the credit card.  Similarly as per Ex.A18 before the Lok Adalat the opposite party shall not claim any amount with regard to the credit card or the loan amount of the complainant.   The claim of Rs.3875/- towards excess collected by way of EMI and a sum of Rs.600/- towards cheques bounce charges also never arise.   Since the matter is settled before the Lok Adalat.  Hence the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to return unused post dated cheques and issue No Due Certificate and  shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and the points are answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to return unused post dated cheques and issued No Due Certificate and  shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 5^th     day of February 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 31.5.2003  - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A2- 4.1.2004    - Copy of receipt.

Ex.A3- 5.1.2004    - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A4-               - Copy of loan payment details.

Ex.A5- 28.4.2004  - Copy of letter from the complainant to the 2^nd opp. party.

Ex.A6- 7.5.2004    - Copy of mail received from the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A7- 8.5.2004    - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A8- 24.6.2004  - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A9- 13.5.2004  - Copy of mail received from the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A10- 29.6.2004         - Copy of mail received from the 1^st opposite party.

Ex.A11- 31.5.2004         - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A12- 25.7.2004         - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A13- 28.7.2004         - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A14- 8.2.2005  - Copy of letter received from the 1^st opp. party.

Ex.A15- 13.4.2006         - Copy of letter received from HSBC Ltd.,

Ex.A16- 27.12.2007- Copy of mail received from IDBI.

Ex.A17- 22.1.2008         - Copy of notice received from the Lok Adalat.

Ex.A18- 19.2.2008         - Copy of Lok Adalat order No.8645/2008.

Ex.A19-       -        - Copy of Statement of accounts.

Ex.A20- 10.3.2008         - Copy of legal notice.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1-              - Copy of Restructuring of Account.

Ex.B2-            - Copy of complainant’s statement.

Ex.B3- 8.5.2004    - Copy of letter by the complainant 

Ex.B4-           - Copy of statement of account.

Ex.B5- 8.2.2005    - Copy of letter by the opposite party.

Ex.B6- May’2004   - Copy of monthly statement.

Ex.B7- 7.5.2004    - Copy of letter by the opposite party.

Ex.B8-         -        - Copy of letter by HSBC bank. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.