BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 17/10/2013

Date of Order : 31/01/2015

Present :-

Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.

Smt. V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

C.C. No. 712/2013

Between

And

O R D E R

V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

1. The facts leading to this case are as stated below :- The complainant is a Paediatrician and Director of a multi-speciality Hospital in Kochi. He is in possession of a credit card of the opposite parties bearing number 4622715364156730. The complainant has been using the above card for over a decade. The card facilitated him payments of bills upto a limit of Rs. 96,000/- and the opposite party bank is to issue monthly bills with option for full or part payment. On 30-11-2012, the complainant went abroad for 3 weeks and while he was abroad, he received the statement of accounts for the month of December 2012 on his e-mail and owing to busy work, the complainant overlooked the credit card statement, which was sent by e-mail. The opposite parties imposed penal charges, late charges etc amounting to Rs. 2,386.98 vide statement of account for the month of January 2013. The complainant objected to the above levy of penal charges and remitted only the amount due as per his credit card. The opposite parties continued to demand late charges, interest, service tax etc. of Rs. 1,055.20 in February, Rs. 2,308.65 in March and so on and by May 2013 penal charges rose to 5,177.74. The complainant sought afresh statement of accounts on 01-06-2013 to which there was no response. Dissatisfied with the service provided by the opposite party bank, the complainant discontinued using the credit card and the credit card was surrendered after remitting the actual amount due. But the opposite party bank continued issuance of monthly statement of accounts adding penal charges month by month and by 15-09-2013, the over due amount rose to Rs. 10,208.98. The complainant contended that the methodology of issuing monthly statements and levying late fee, late charges, interest, service tax etc. is unauthorised and is a restrictive trade practice, that there is no justification in issuing monthly statements even after surrendering the credit card, that the opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the unnecessary hardship and mental agony inflicted. The complainant filed this complaint seeking the following reliefs :-

1. To hold no amount is due from the complainant in connection with the credit card number ending in 6730.

2. To hold that there is no cause or justification for demanding late fee, interest and the demand amounted to restrictive trade practice.

3. To hold that repeated service of statements even after the termination of the contract is unenforceable and is oppressive and amounts to harassment.

4. To award Rs. 50,000/- towards compensation for the harassment of the complainant.

5. To award Rs. 25,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

2. The version of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite party is as follows :-

The consumer case is not maintainable either in law or on facts of the case, that the complainant was provided with the primary credit card facility vide card No. 4563981038303840 and a secondary card was provided to the complainant bearing No. 4563982310012463 on 04-10-2001 and the primary and secondary cards were also replaced by other cards, that the monthly statements generated on 14^th of every month were sent to the mailing address of the complainant at “Smitha. P.C. Road, 96 Azad Road, Kaloor, Kochi – 682 017”, that in case of non-receipt of hard copy of monthly statements, the complainant can contact Phone Banking Unit (PBU) of the opposite party bank or write to Customer Care Unit (CCU) or approach the service desk of any branch of the opposite party bank and seek confirmation of the outstanding dues and make payment within 22 days from the statement generation date. Here the complainant made no efforts to make payment of the dues and the opposite party bank levied only the applicable late charges, interest and the applicable service charges. It is also submitted that the credit card had not been surrendered by the complainant to the opposite party bank, that this complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party bank and to tarnish the reputation in its field of service. It is prayed that the complaint may be dismissed.

3. The notice of the 3^rd opposite party was served, but they chose to remain absent for reasons best known to them. No oral evidence adduced either by the complainant or by the opposite parties. The documentary evidences produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A33 on the part of the complainant and that produced by the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were marked as Exts. B1 to B6. Heard the counsel for the complainant and 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties.

4. The issues to be decided in this case are as follows :-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order stating that no amount is due from the complainant to the opposite parties in connection with the credit card No. 4622715364156730?

2. Whether the service of monthly statements on the complainant even after termination of the contract amounted to harassment and the demand of late fee, interest and other penal charges amounted to unfair trade practice?

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

5. Point No. i. :- The complainant had been availing the credit card facility of the opposite party bank from 04-11-1997 and the said facility was discontinued by the complainant on 19-06-2013 by cutting the credit card and surrendering the said card to the opposite party. Owing to busy work, the complainant over looked the credit card statement for the month of December 2012, which was sent by e-mail and received by the complainant while he was abroad. The opposite party bank imposed late charges, interest etc. for the above lapse of Rs. 2,386.98 in the statement of accounts for the month of January 2013. The complainant objected to the above demand. The total payment due including the penal charges of 2,386.98 was shown as Rs. 39,662.14 in the statement of account for January 2013 against which the complainant remitted Rs. 37,275.16, the actual amount in the credit card vide cheque dated 12-01-2013 on 29-01-2013. The complainant strongly objected to the levy of penal charges on the ground that several objections forwarded to the opposite parties were not responded and the hard copy of the statement of accounts for the month of December 2012 was not yet communicated to the complainant except vide e-mail, while he was abroad. The opposite party submitted that they have actually issued the hard copy of the statement of accounts for the month of December 2012. But no evidence in black and white is produced before this Forum to show that the 3^rd opposite party had actually issued the same to the complainant. Thus, non-issuance of the hard copy of the statement of account for the month of December 2012 in spite of several requests amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The subsequent levy of penal and late charges is therefore found incorrect and illegal and not sustainable in law. We cancel the demand in connection with credit card number ending in 6730.

6. Point No. ii. :- One of the contentions raised by the complainant is that the issuance of monthly statement of accounts by the opposite parties bank to the complainant even after the termination of the contract amounted to harassment. The opposite party bank on the other hand submitted that the credit card had not been surrendered to the opposite party bank and the complaint is filed only to harass the opposite party bank and to tarnish the reputation of the opposite party bank. We have heard both sides and verified the documents furnished before the Court. It is seen that the opposite party bank were generating and were issuing the monthly statement of accounts on the 14^th day of every month from December 2012 to December 2013 to the complainant as detailed below, wherein the payment due, payment made late charges, interest charged, service tax demanded etc. are shown :-

Statement date	Previous balance	Payment	Purchase	Charges	Payment due
14-12-2012 (Ext. A1)	69793.16	69794	28781	0-00	28780.16
14-01-2014 (Ext. A2)	28780.16	0-00	8495	2386.98	39662.14
14-02-2013 (Ext. A4)	39662.14	37275.16	25361	1055-20	28803.18
14-03-2013 (Ext. A9)	28803.18	0-00	12730	2308.65	43841.83
14-04-2013 (Ext. A12)	43841.83	40399.65	2209	504.08	6155.26
14-05-2013 (Ext. A14)	6155.26	504.08	21575	1735.56	28961.74
14-06-2013 (Ext. A19	28961.74	23784	0-00	1902-00	7079.74
14-07-2013 (Ext. A25)	7079.74	0-00	0-00	955.31	8035.05
14-08-2013 (Ext.A26)	8035.05	0-00	0-00	1015.53	9050.58
14-09-2013 (Ext. A27)	9050.58	0-00	0-00	1158.4	10208.98
14-10-2013 (Ext. A29)	10208.98	664-00	664-00	1176.59	11385.57
14-11-2013 (Ext. A33)	11385.57	0-00	0-00	1364.93	12,750-50
14-12-2013 (Ext. A33)	12750.5	0-00	0-00	1308.32	14058.82

7. The case of the complainant is that the hard copy of the monthly statement for the month of December 2012 has not yet received by the complainant except an e-mail message, while he was abroad. The complainant fairly conceded that the above e-mail was overlooked owing to his busy professional work. The opposite party bank imposed penal and late charges interest, service tax and cess amounting to Rs. 2386.98 vide statement of account for the month of January 2013. The above imposition was strongly objected to by the complainant. However, the complainant paid the amount due in the credit card except the penal charges in the month of January 2013 itself on 29-01-2013 vide cheque No. 869678 dated 12-01-2013 (ie. 39662.14 – 2386.98 = 37275.16). The complainant is justified in not remitting the late/other penal charges in view of the fact that the opposite party bank failed to establish that they had sent the hard copy of the monthly statement for the month of December 2012 to the complainant. In spite of the specific requests for the same. Therefore, we find that the imposition of Rs. 2386.98 as late charges, interest etc. is found incorrect and illegal and is therefore cancelled. The action of the opposite party bank in carrying forward the above illegal demand in the ensuing months also is found incorrect and illegal and is therefore cancelled. Ext. A20 letter of the complainant to the Manager customer Care Department, Standard Chartered Bank, 19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001 goes to show that the complainant had cancelled the credit card ending 6730 in June 2013. The complainant had not used the credit card thereafter for any purchase and the cancellation of the complainant's card was also confirmed by customer Care Department vide their letter dated 28-06-29013 for and on behalf of the opposite party as evidenced by Ext. A23. In the circumstances, the issuance of monthly statement of accounts demanding penal other charges even after cancellation of the credit card is found nothing, but harassment and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party bank.

8. Point No. iii. :- We find that the complainant has to knock at the doors of this Forum to redress his genuine grievances. Had the opposite parties given adequate relief to the complainant then and therefore, this complaint could have been avoided. The complainant was not served with a hand copy of the account statement for the month of December 2012 in spite of specific request for the same. The above act on the part of the opposite parties bank amounted to deficiency in service on their part. Compensation is called for. We fix it at Rs. 10,000/-. We find that the complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of the proceedings.

9. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and we direct as follows :-

1. The demand in connection with credit card bearing No. 46227153 64156730 is found illegal and is hereby cancelled.

2. The opposite parties shall jointly and severally pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) towards costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the amount would carry interest @ 12% p.a. till realisation.

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

Forwarded/By Order, Sd/- V.K. Beena Kumari, Member.

Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :-