PRESENT

                   Complainant by Adv. Shri. A.Mathew pesent.                                                      

                  Opponent by Adv.Shri.S. Husen  present.   

                                      ORDER

(Per- Mr. S. D. MADAKE, Hon’ble President. )

1. The complainant filed complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Opposite Party no. 1 Standard Chartered Bank and  Opposite Party no. 2 M/S. Shah finance Private Limited company for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for recovery of loan amount.
2. According to complainant, Standard Chartered Bank issued him a Visa Card bearing number 4129 0370 81 85 9795 in 2000. He did not used said credit card till expiration of its validity. The Opposite Party no. 1 again issued other card with same number which was valid till March-2006.
3. According to complainant, in July 2004, he received bill dated 4.7.2004 showing his credit card limit as Rs. 50,000/- he submitted that as per said bill amount have been shown in respect of another card number 9356 5008 0471 and its allege uses had been added to his bill.
4. The complainant alleged that opponent number 1 issued bill in October 2004 and shown debits in respect of billing of two credit cards. he met the employee of Bank Mr. Abhishek Roy who assured that inquiry will be made and steps will be taken after receipt of information from office at Bangalore.
5. The complainant stated that Mr Ashish Roy failed to take any steps as assured and threatened him for payment as per bills. he made payment o amount based on the credit card of Rs. 59545/- from time to time during 10.7.2004 to 9.10.2005. according to complainant Opponent no. 1 number one committed fraud by raising bogus bills and demanding payment against another credit card.
6.  The complainant stated that in July 2008, he received legal notice dated 2.7. 2008 stating that he is liable to pay Rs. 1,23,1816/- asking him to appear for settlement on 12.7.2008 Mrs Swati Ghadge. He replied said notice seeking detail information about card number 9356 5008 0471 4145 and same was not given to him.
7. The Complainant stated that Opposite Party no. 2 sent notice to him calling upon him to pay Rs.2,75,859.37/- with interest at 2.95% per month since June 2010. It is stated that Opposite Party no. 1 assign entire Dept payable by complainant by a deed of assignment dated 9.2.2010.
8. The complainant stated that he was subjected to mental agony due to threats by opponent for recovery of loan amount based on the credit card.
9. The complainant alleged that he received threatening call for recovery of amount from anti-social elements. He claimed compensation for mental agony caused to him due to illegal acts of opponents in recovery of amount. He claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- for treatment for heart ailment payment Rs.2,50,000/- for mental agony and Rs.50,000/- for cost.
10. The complaint was filed on 9.12.2011 and was admitted on 23.12.2011. The notice was issued to opposite parties and they filed Written Statement on 7.6.2012. The Opposite Party no. 1 denied each and every statement made in the complaint.
11. The Opposite Party no. 1 stated that complainant availed their credit card facility in March 2001 and credit card account was opened with credit limit of Rs. 50,000/- with certain terms and condition of the uses of credit card. He has not cleared his credit card outstanding dues and in order to avoid payment he started making false allegations.
12. The Opposite Party no. 1 stated that the cause of action arose in 2004 and complaint has been filed in December 2011 i.e. beyond period of limitation.
13. The Opposite Party no. 1 stated that the complainant availed their credit card facility and used the card in 2002 for mobile recharge. It is stated that the bill dated 4.7.2004 was issued as per the use made by the Complainant. It is further stated that the Complainant has been offered SCB privilege loan and loan account was created and no physical credit card was given to him.
14. The Opposite Party no. 1 stated that complainant made false allegations regarding assurance given by Mr Abhishek Roy, mental agony and suffering, ailment of heart attack. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
15. The Opposite Party no. 2 filed written statement and resisted the claim. It is stated that complainant availed credit card facility namely 'VISA CLASSIC AND INSTABUL'S ACCOUNT CLASSIC' form the bank and failed to repay the loan amount.
16. The Opposite Party no. 2 alleged that, on  the basis of assignment deed, Opposite Party no. 2 was empowered to recover Loan amount from the complainant. It is stated that there is no coercion adopted by Opposite Party no. 2 to compel complainant to make payment of loan amount.
17. The Opposite Party no. 2 stated that calls made to the complainant were genuine and were made as a gentle reminder for payment of the outstanding amount and also to negotiate for an amicable settlement.  The Opposite Party no. 2 denied all other allegations made by complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.
18. We have perused complaint, Written Statement filed by the both parties and documents produced on record. The Complainant's case is that the Opposite Party no.1 bank has committed fraud by raising bogus bills and demanding the payment. The Complainant admitted that the bank issued VISA card in 2000 vide card bearing no. 4129037081859795. he admitted that the Standard Chartered Bank i.e. Opposite Party no.1 has issued other card to him.
19. The Complainant admitted that he was using the card and stated that he paid entire amount as per the bills issued from Opposite Party no.1 bank. The Complainant has denied his liability in respect of the bill dated 04.07.2004 in respect of credit card no. 9356500804714145 stating that said card was not issued to him.
20. The Opposite Party no.1 bank stated that the Complainant has availed loan account and credit card account facility. Ld. advocate for bank relying on the documents produced on record submitted that the loan account number was opened and billed in his statement of credit card account jointly. It is submitted that the combined accounts bill was sent to Complainant billing both account together i.e. credit card account and loan account. 
21. We have perused the notice sent by Kohli and Sobti advocates dated 05.07.2008 to the Complainant on behalf of Opposite Party no.1 bank and found that it is mentioned that the Complainant availed credit card facility. There is no reference about loan account in the said notice.
22. We have perused notice sent by Shahzee Kazim on behalf of Opposite Party no.2 which shows that there is reference of only card bearing no. 4129037081859795. The said notice is silent in respect of any other card or loan account.
23. There is no dispute that the Opposite Party no.1 is entitled to recover the legitimate amount paid to the Complainant. The Opposite Party no.1 is also entitled to recover the legally recoverable amount by appointing proper agency. As per the principles of equity it is legitimately expected from the reputed bank to explain in detail along with all relevant document to Complainant regarding the payment of the loan amount.
24. The Opposite Party no.2 is also legitimately expected to intimate in detail to Complainant regarding the details of accounts and particulars of the loan. It is obligation of Opposite Party no.2 to verify that the proper and reasonable method has to be adopted for recovery of loan amount.
25. The Opposite Party no.1 has alleged in para no. 7 of Written Statement that the credit card was opened on 10.03.2003. It is further stated that the Complainant has used the said card in 2002 for mobile recharge. The Opposite Party no.1 stated in para. 8 of Written Statement that the Complainant has been offered SCB privileged loan and physical card is not given to him. The Complainant has specifically denied the opening of the account as alleged by Opposite Party no.1.
26. Considering the rival contention made by the parties, we are of the view that the Opposite Parties are under an obligation to furnish to the Complainant detail information regarding his application for opening of account and all relevant details. The Opposite Parties are under an obligation to infirm in writing that the amount claimed is calculated as per the guidelines issued by Competent Authority. This is utmost necessary because the Complainant has specifically denied about the opening of the loan account. 
27. The Complainant has stated in affidavit of evidence that he used to receive threatening calls from one Mr. Kadam from second week of August-2011 and the tone of caller was akin to that of anti-social element which led all his family members to undergo sleepless nights. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the family members of the Complainant apprehended that the goondas of Opposite Parties may inflict injury to them. It is alleged that threatening to recover non-existing loan amount to deficiency in service.
28. The Opposite Party no.2 stated that the calls made to Complainant were genuine and as a gentle reminder to pay the outstanding amount and also to negotiate for amicable settlement.
29. As per the banking regulation Act, no use of force or abuse is permitted in recovery proceeding. As per the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble national Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, the recovery of loan could be done only through legal means. The Hon'ble Supreme Court laid dawn the law that social responsibility is more important than bank profit and growth.
30. The Hon'ble Apex Court laid down the law that strong arm tactics, use of abusive language and practice of hiring recovery agent needs to be deprecated. The Complainant stated on oath that the tone of caller was akin to that of anti-social element. Hence we hold that, the Complainant and his family members were harassed for the recovery of loan without justifying the same. In such circumstance, the contention of Opposite Party no.2 regarding that calls made for loans were as a gentle reminder is not acceptable.
31. The Complainant and his family members were subjected to mental agony due to unethical method adopted Opposite Parties for recovery of amount without explaining the details of the loan. The Complainant is entitled for the reasonable compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The Opposite Parties are directed that the Complainant should not be harassed for recovery of loan amount by adopting illegal modes, which is termed as gentle reminder by the Opposite Party no.2.
32. The Complainant claimed Rs. 3,50,000/- heart ailment. We are of the opinion that the said claim is too remote has not allowed. The Complainant is entitled for the cost. The Opposite Party no.1 bank is entitled to take legal and proper steps against Complainant in respect of legally recoverable amount as per the law. The Opposite Parties however are refrained from adopting unfair trade practice for recovery of any amount payable by the Complainant as per the law.

33.     In the result, we pass the following order.

                                         O R D E R

1.       RBT Complaint case No.571/2011 is partly allowed.

2.         The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay the Complainant an amount of Rs. 50.000/- for mental agony caused to him and his family members.

3.         The Opposite Party no.1 is directed to furnish details in respect of credit card account and loan account particularly application for loan, payment of loan and rate of interest.

4.         The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally directed to pay to cost of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant.

5.       Copy of this order be sent to both parties.