Order No.  10  dt.  20/07/2017

       The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant obtained credit card from o.p. bank having credit limit of Rs.34,000/-. As per rules SCB the complainant will be entitled to get statement every month and he should be informed the dues amount for payment. The complainant received the statement and paid the dues accordingly. From the statement received on 19.5.02 and 12.6.04 the minimum balance was shown ‘zero’. The dues amount was paid after settlement and the bank authority did not claim any dues amount from the year 2004. The complainant received a letter from o.p. bank asking for payment of due on 16.1.04. But the complainant paid the entire amount in that year. In the month of Oct. 2015 the complainant applied for personal loan to SBI in medical treatment of his sister in law the bank authority informed him vide letter dt.30.10.15 that his name is appearing in CIBIL. The complainant thereafter made contact with o.p. bank and filed RTI to o.p. bank, but no reply was given. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for waiving the amount of Rs.75,211/- against the credit card which issued on 11.5.02 as the matter was settled in the year 2004 and also compensation of Rs.2 lakhs and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

            The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant approached the o.p. bank for debt restructure plan of his outstanding. Based on the complainant’s request with the bank the outstanding in the card ending 1001 for an amount of Rs.641.47 and the outstanding card ending 0113 for an amount of 38,079.60 were zeroised and subsequently the bank had given credit for those amount of Rs.89,743.97 and Rs.861.07 and issued him with the debt restructure plan for total amount of Rs.40,605.04 which was to be paid in 36 EMIs. Accordingly the outstanding in both the cards ending 1001 and 0113 reflecting in the statement dt.12.1.14 were zeroised by the bank. Accordingly for the aforesaid debt restructure plan availed by him the EMIs were billed under instabuy account and the same is reflected in the 2^nd page of the statement dt.12.1.14. The o.p. bank found from the record that 1^st EMI for an amount of Rs.1480.11 is reflecting in the statement dt.12.1.04. The o.p. bank stated that the complainant failed to clear the 1^st EMI for an amount of rs.1480.11. Hence the debt restructure plan availed by the complainant became null and void. Subsequently the balance principal amount of Rs.39,673.32 was redebited in the complainant’s card account. The o.p. bank further stated that the payment made by the complainant were adjusted towards his total outstanding. The complainant did not make any payment after 23.3.06 which led to an accrual of outstanding and unpaid dues. On the basis of the said fact the name of the complainant was forwarded to CIBIL and accordingly the name of the complainant is appearing in CIBIL. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.p. bank and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant had the credit card in the o.p. bank?
2. Whether the complainant paid the EMIs regularly after the settlement arrived at with the bank?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant being the credit card holder of o.p. bank paid the dues as per the terms and conditions of the credit card and from the bank statement it can be found that no balance remained due towards the account of the said credit card. Unfortunately the complainant while sought for obtaining loan from SBI the loan was not sanctioned since his name was appearing in CIBIL. The complainant came to know of the said fact contacted the o.p. bank but the o.p. bank could not give any satisfactory reply for which the complainant fild this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for waiving the demand amount of Rs.75,211/- as well as other reliefs.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that it is true that there was restructure of loan and the amount was settled between the complainant and o.p. bank. The complainant was provided with the statement regularly, but he has suppressed the said fact. It was also emphasized by ld. lawyer for o.ps. that the amount paid by the complainant was duly adjusted towards the outstanding amount payable to o.p. bank. The complainant failed to pay the EMI @ Rs.1480.11 in order to liquidate the total amount of Rs.40,605/-. The said amount was not paid by the complainant and subsequently with the inclusion of the interest and other charges the amount was demanded from the complainant. Since the complainant failed to pay the dues and as per RBI guideline the name of the complainant was recorded in CIBIL. As such, there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. bank and the case is to be dismissed.

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant was the holder of two credit cards of o.p. bank. It is also an admitted fact that there was an outstanding amount for which a settlement was arrived at between the parties and the complainant agreed to pay the EMIs as per the said settlement and it was decided that the complainant would pay EMI @ Rs.1480.11 to liquidate the balance principal amount of Rs.39,673.32. But from the materials on record it appears that the complainant could not produce any evidence before this Forum to prove that he paid the amount as per the terms of settlement arrived at between the parties. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has claimed that earlier the account shown was ‘zero’, accordingly debt restructure plan was availed by him, the EMIs were billed under instabuy account bearing no.9356500802043877 and the same was mentioned in the 2^nd page of the statement dt.12.1.04. After availing of the debt restructure plan the complainant failed to pay the EMI @ Rs.1480.11 and accordingly, said debt restructure plan availed by the complainant became null and void and subsequently the balance principal amount of Rs.39,673.32 was redebited in the complainant’s credit card account.

            It is also found from the materials on record that the complainant was repeatedly requested to pay the amount but he failed to comply the said request. Ultimately as per the guideline of RBI his name was forwarded to CIBIL and as such, his name was appearing in CIBIL. In this respect we can rely on a decision as reported in 2017(2) CPR 636 (NC) wherein it was held that bank has every right to recover the outstanding balance from its customer. The complainant has miserably failed to prove that he did not owe any money to bank. One settlement has been reached between the complainant and bank, the complainant was duty bound to make payment to bank in terms of settlement. On failure of the complainant to follow the terms of settlement, the bank has every right to recover outstanding amount from the complainant as per terms and conditions of the settlement between the parties. Here in this case, we find that in spite of availing of the benefit of settlement the complainant did not comply the same and ultimately the outstanding lying in the account of the complainant increased due to non payment of the amount as well as accrual of interest on the said amount which gave rise to o.p. bank to claim the amount from the complainant to the tune of Rs.75,211/- after the payment of the said amount the name of the complainant will be expunged from CIBIL. So long the said amount was not being paid, the complainant cannot expect that his name will be expunged from CIBIL. On the basis of the facts and circumstances as stated above as well as the evidence adduced by both the parties, we hold that there was no deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.   

            Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the CC No.121/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.