DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BARNALA, PUNJAB.

 

Complaint Case No : CC/121/2020

Date of Institution : 27.07.2020

Date of Decision : 27.01.2023

Sukhdeep Kaur wife of Sh. Amarinder Singh resident of Amla Singh Wala, Tehsil Barnala District Barnala.  

                            …Complainant

Versus

1. State Bank of India, local head office, Sec. 17 B, Chandigarh (India) 160017, through its General Manager/Authorized Signatory. 

2. State Bank of India, main Branch, Near Govt. Hospital Barnala, District Barnala through its Branch Manager. 

3. Innovsourse (Credit Card Office) SCO 127, First Floor, Near PNB Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala through its Authorized Signatory. 

…Opposite Parties

Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Present: Sh. Amarinder Singh Adv counsel for complainant.

Sh. A.K. Jindal Adv counsel for opposite parties No. 1 & 2.

Opposite party No. 3 exparte.  

Quorum.-

1. Sh. Ashish Kumar Grover : President

2.Smt. Urmila Kumari : Member

3.Sh. Navdeep Kumar Garg : Member

 

(ORDER BY ASHISH KUMAR GROVER PRESIDENT):

    The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 against State Bank of India and others (in short the opposite parties). 

2. The facts leading to the present complaint are that the complainant is the consumer and availing banking services of opposite parties and has saving account (salary) No. 65046444837 with the opposite party No. 2. It is alleged that the opposite parties offered for the issuance of credit card on free of costs to the complainant through telephonically. The complainant applied for the credit card and the bank inquired from the complainant through telephonically before issuance of credit card and opposite parties sent several text messages to the complainant. It is further alleged that no credit card served upon the complainant till date. But the opposite parties sent several text messages on the mobile number of complainant and auto deducted Rs. 3,538/- from the account of complainant without the consent to the complainant. Thereafter, the complainant sent a e-mail on 5.4.2020 through her e-mail id chandandeep56@gamil.com for requesting not deduct any amount from the account of complainant and also made request for the cancellation of credit card on the branch id sbi.50027@gmail.com of opposite party No. 2 but despite the fact the opposite parties deducted Rs. 3,538/- from the account of complainant. It is further alleged that the complainant has sent several mail requests to the opposite parties through her registered mobile for the cancellation of credit card which was not served upon the complainant till date and refund the auto deduct amount from the account of complainant but of no use. Hence, the present complaint is filed for seeking the following reliefs.-

i)The opposite parties may be directed to cancel the credit card and refund the deducted amount of Rs. 3,538/- alongwith interest. 

ii)To pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation for mental agony and harassment to the complainant. 

iii)Further, to pay Rs. 5,000/- as litigation expenses.  

3. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 appeared and filed written version by taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of no locus-standi or cause of action to file the present complaint, as the complainant failed to implead address of the issuing authority of credit card. Complainant not come with clean hands and the present complaint is frivolous and vexatious etc. On merits, it is submitted that a separate wing of the opposite parties i.e. Credit Card Office Innovsource SCO 127, First Floor, Near PNB Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, and the complainant get the services of the credit card from the Credit Card Office on telephonically and the complainant herself applied for the credit card. It is further submitted that the complainant was duly informed by the credit card office on her mobile through massage on 5.4.2020 regarding the auto deduction of the charges of the credit card. It is further submitted that the complainant sent a request to opposite party No. 2 to cancel the request of complainant regarding the issuance of credit card, whereas the opposite party No. 2 has no concern with the issuance of credit card as the complainant directly applied on telephone with the credit card office at Patiala. It is further submitted that the complainant herself given consent to the officials of the credit card to deduct the charges of amount from her saving account automatically. The answering opposite parties has no concern with this alleged auto deduction and the same was deducted by the credit card office at Patiala from the account of complainant. Even the opposite party No. 2 has no knowledge that the complainant purchased credit card from the credit card office at Patiala, so the present complaint is not maintainable against the answering opposite parties. As such, there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. 

4. The opposite party No. 3 preferred to remain exparte.  

5. In order to prove her case the complainant tendered into evidence her own affidavit Ex.C-1, photocopy of Passbook Ex.C-2, copy of bank account statement Ex.C-3, copy of messages Ex.C-4 to ex.C-8, copy of e-mails Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13, statement of account Ex.C-14 and closed the evidence. 

6. The complainant has also filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 and reiterated the averments as mentioned in the complaint. 

7. The opposite parties No. 1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit of Labh Singh Ex.O.Ps-1, copy of statement of account Ex.O.Ps-2 and closed the evidence. 

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record on the file.

9. Ld. Counsel for the complainant argued that the complainant is availing banking services of opposite parties and has a saving account (salary) No. 65046444837 with the opposite party No. 2 Ex.C-2. It is further argued that the opposite parties offered for the issuance of credit card on free of costs to the complainant through telephonically and the bank inquired from the complainant through telephonically before issuance of credit card and opposite parties sent several text messages to the complainant. It is further argued that no credit card served upon the complainant till date but the opposite parties sent several text messages on the mobile number of complainant and auto deducted Rs. 3,538/- from the account of complainant without the consent to the complainant Ex.C-4 to Ex.C-8. Ld. Counsel for complainant also argued that the complainant sent an e-mail on 5.4.2020 through her e-mail id chandandeep56@gamil.com for requesting not deduct any amount from the account of complainant and also made request for the cancellation of credit card on the branch id sbi.50027@gmail.com of opposite party No. 2 i.e. Ex.C-10 to Ex.C-13, but despite the fact the opposite parties deducted Rs. 3,538/- from the account of complainant. It is further argued that the complainant has sent several mail requests to the opposite parties through her registered mobile for the cancellation of credit card which was not served upon the complainant till date and refund the auto deducted amount from the account of complainant.

10. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that from a separate wing of the opposite parties i.e. Credit Card Office Innovsource SCO 127, First Floor, Near PNB Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, the complainant get the services of the credit card from the Credit Card Office telephonically and the complainant herself applied for the credit card. It is further argued that the complainant was duly informed by the credit card office on her mobile through massage on 5.4.2020 regarding the auto deduction of the charges of the credit card. It is further argued that the complainant sent a request to opposite party No. 2 to cancel the request of complainant regarding the issuance of credit card, whereas the opposite party No. 2 has no concern with the issuance of credit card as the complainant directly applied on telephone with the credit card office at Patiala. It is also argued that the complainant herself given consent to the officials of the credit card to deduct the charges of amount from her saving account automatically and the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 has no concern with this alleged auto deduction and the same was deducted by the credit card office at Patiala from the account of complainant. Ld. Counsel for the opposite parties No. 1 & 2 argued that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part.

11. From the perusal of account statement Ex.C-14 placed on record by the complainant it is proved that an amount of Rs. 3,538/- has been debited from the account of complainant on account of SBI CREDIT CARD PAYMENT and this fact is also admitted by the opposite parties No. 1 & 2. The allegation of the complainant is that till date no credit card has been served upon him and without the consent of complainant an amount of Rs. 3,538/- has been deducted from the account of complainant. The opposite parties No. 1 & 2 stated that they have no concern with this alleged auto deduction and the same was deducted by the credit card office at Patiala. On the other hand, there is nothing on record from the side of opposite party No. 3 to show that the complainant herself applied for the alleged credit card and the same was delivered to the complainant and the above said amount of Rs. 3,538/- has been deducted with the consent of complainant. But the opposite party No. 3 has preferred to remain exparte. The complainant has sent several mail requests to the opposite parties for the cancellation of credit card which was not served upon the complainant till date i.e. Ex.C-9 to Ex.C-13. Therefore, it is proved on the file that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No. 3 i.e. Credit Card Office Innovsource SCO 127, First Floor, Near PNB Bank, Leela Bhawan, Patiala, who has deducted the amount of Rs. 3,538/- from the account of complainant without the consent of complainant and the opposite party No. 3 remained exparte despite valid service. It assumed that the opposite party No. 3 have nothing to say against the allegations of complainant. 

12. In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party No. 3 and the opposite party No. 3 is directed to cancel the alleged credit card as same is not delivered to complainant and refund the deducted amount of Rs. 3,538/- to the complainant. The opposite party No. 3 is further directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- on account of compensation and Rs. 3,300/- on account of litigation expenses to the complainant. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the records after its due compliance.  

ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COMMISSION:

        27th Day of January, 2023

 

 

            (Ashish Kumar Grover)

            President             

 

 

(Urmila Kumari)

Member

 

(Navdeep Kumar Garg)

Member