Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/4/2016

Prbhakara Singaraju, S/o. S.Sachidananda Moorthy, Aged 62 years - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ajey Kumar

18 Feb 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 20.01.2016

Order Date:18.02.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.04/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

Prabhakara Singaraju,

S/o. S.Sachidananda Moorthy,

D.No.202, Queens Park Apartments,

R.S.Gardens,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Regional Manager,

            State Bank of India Regional Office,

            Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by Managing Director,

            DLF Infinity Towers,

            Tower-C, 12^th Floor, Block-2,  Building-3,

            DLF Cyber City,

            Gurgaon – 122 002,

            Haryana State.

 

3.         Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited,

            Rep. by Managing Director / Authorised Signatory,

            Reg. office at Hoachst House, 6^th Floor, No.193,

            Balackbay Reclamation,

            Nariman Point,

            Mumbai – 400 021.                                                              …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 02.02.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for complainant, and Sri.D.Jayachandra, counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and Sri.A.Purushotham, counsel for opposite party No.3, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages for deficiency in service, 2) to direct the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant and his name be removed from the list of defaulters before the CIBIL and 3) to pay the costs of the complaint. 

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant is a customer of State Bank of India with SBI Account No.0004317575032470222 at Main Branch, Tirupati. He is also a holder of S.B.I. Credit Card bearing No.0004317575037985885, issued by Credit Card Division of opposite parties. The Credit Card is called as S.B.I. Card, which is controlled and subsidiary unit of           1^st opposite party having its head office at Mumbai. That the complainant used the credit card till 2007. As there were some dues, a notice was issued on 16.12.2008 to the complainant stating that on payment of Rs.20,000/- i.e. Rs.10,000/- on December 2008 and another amount of Rs.10,000/- on January 2009, the opposite parties will close the account of credit card dues. The complainant has paid the said amount through cheques. The opposite parties have encashed the cheques bearing No.81322 for Rs.10,000/- and another cheque bearing No.81323 for Rs.10,000/- and informed that clearance certificate will be given soon. Later on 05.09.2013, the opposite parties issued a notice to the complainant stating that the complainant is due a sum of Rs.1,20,165-73. One Mr.Ram Mohan called on the complainant in this regard, when the complainant explained the payments he made, the said Ram Mohan replied that he will enquire and close the issue. The opposite parties got the name of the complainant entered into the list of defaulters of credit card dues before the CIBIL. When the complainant paid all the dues, the opposite parties ought to have closed the account. Instead of doing so, they got entered the name of the complainant in the list of defaulters before the CIBIL and harassed the complainant since last 4 years. There is gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

 

            3.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their written versions independently. Opposite party No.1 contending that he is only a controlling authority. All the transactions are between S.B.I. Main Branch and the complainant. Instead of dealing with S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, the complainant dragged this opposite party to the Forum unnecessarily. The opposite party No.2, is not a subsidiary of this opposite party. It is a separate legal entity and opposite party No.2 is not under the control of opposite party No.1. It further contended that opposite party No.2 has already zeroised the credit card account and issued No Due Certificate to the complainant on 21.03.2016. Even then the complainant has filed this complaint, which is nothing but abuse of process of law. It further contended that the complainant issued cheques bearing Nos.81321, 81322 and 81323 for Rs.10,000/- each, that the opposite party No.2 presented all the cheques, out of them cheqeue No.81323 was encashed and credited to opposite party No.2, other two cheques viz. 81321 and 81322 dt:27.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each were presented on 01.01.2009 and there is balance of only Rs.16,904/-. The S.B.I. Main Branch verified the account and credited a sum of Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.2 in a consolidated form of Rs.14,500/- (viz. Rs.10,000/- towards cheque No.81322 and another cheque amount of Rs.3,000/- belongs to some other card holder  and a draft amount of Rs.1,500/- belongs to some other card holder). The cheque No.81321 is returned to opposite party No.2, with an endorsement of insufficient funds and it is bounced. That the complainant issued 3 cheques to opposite party No.2 and only 2 cheques were encashed / cleared and one cheque was bounced and there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.1 and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against the opposite party No.1.

            4.  Opposite party No.2 in its written version contended that complainant is a customer of SBI Card. That the complainant issued cheques bearing Nos.81322 and 81323 for Rs.10,000/- each. Opposite party No.2 presented both the cheques, but the cheque No.81323 got encashed and the other cheque No.81322 got bounced. That the complainant never adhered the settlement terms nor he made the complete payment, as such the settlement becomes void. Opposite party No.2, again says that the complainant got issued 3 cheques to opposite party No.2, only one cheque bearing No.81323 is encashed and other 2 cheques bearing Nos.81321 and 81322 are bounced. The complainant did not follow the terms of credit card agreement, according to which any dispute in this regard be resolved before the sole arbitrator, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint against the opposite party No.2 and prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs against opposite party No.2.

            5.  Opposite party No.3 in its written version contended that the complaint is not against it, as there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite party No.3, as such complainant is not a consumer of opposite party No.3. That the CIBIL (The Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) does not carry any business or does not have a branch office or working for gain at Tirupati. No cause of action to file a complaint against the opposite party No.3. CIBIL functions as credit information company, in accordance with the provisions of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 (CICRA) and the rules made thereunder. Under the provisions of Section-31 of CICRA no Court or Authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority except the Supreme Court or the High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Articles-32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As per Section-18 of CICRA any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled before the sole arbitrator, but the complainant approached this Forum violating the terms of the credit card agreement. Opposite party No.3 is duty bound to reflect the credit information of the complainant in the Credit Information Reports and it has no rights to change / modify or rectify the same. The opposite party No.3 is not responsible for the accuracy, completeness  and veracity of any and all information reported / submitted by a member credit institutions. Such responsibility lies with the reporting institutions as per the CICRA and the rules and regulations made thereunder. In terms of Section-30 of CICRA no suit or other legal proceedings can lie against for the acts done by opposite party No.3 with good faith. Section-30(1) of CICRA protects the actions of opposite party No.3 done in good faith and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.3 with costs.

            6.  The complainant as P.W.1 filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A11. The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed evidence affidavits as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B6, and also both parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            7.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the

       opposite parties 1 to 3?                  

(ii)  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii)  To what relief?

8.  Point No.(i):- to answer this point, it is to be noted that the specific case of the complainant is that he is a credit card holder of S.B.I.Credit Card Division (opposite party No.2) and he is also a customer of S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati. Since, there were some dues in the credit card, a settlement was arrived at according to which the complainant was asked to pay Rs.20,000/- in order to close the account. Accordingly the complainant has issued 3 cheques, out of them 2 were encashed and 1 is bounced. The encashed 2 cheques are Rs.10,000/- each. As such he was already paid the entire amount as demanded and his account is to be closed as per the settlement. Instead of closing his account, the opposite parties have demanded to pay Rs.1,20,165-73 through a notice dt:05.09.2013. When he has explained about the payments, one Ram Mohan, staff member of opposite party No.2, said that he will enquire into and close the issue. So, the burden is very much lies on the complainant to show that he had issued 3 cheques and out of which 2 cheques were encashed. In order to prove the same, the complainant discloses the number of cheques issued by him, as cheque No.81322 for Rs.10,000/- and another cheque No.81323 for Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, he also issued another cheque, when one of the said cheques was bounced. Admittedly, the complainant has issued another cheque bearing No.81321. According to opposite party No.1, the account of the complainant was already closed and No Due Certificate was issued to the complainant on 21.03.2016.

9.  The complainant is a customer of S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, with account No. 0004317575032470222, his S.B.I. Credit Card bearing No.0004317575037985885. His Credit Card and S.B.I Account No. are not in dispute and it is also not in dispute that the complainant is a customer of S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, and he is also having S.B.I.Credit Card with the above referred number. As could be seen from the written version of opposite party No.1 along with his evidence affidavit, opposite party No.1 is stating that, opposite party No.2 is a separate legal entity and not under the control of opposite party No.1. This version cannot be accepted, as the complainant account number and his credit card number are running in the same sequence i.e. serial numbers. S.B.I. Credit Card is certainly would have been maintained by Credit Card Division of S.B.I. Admittedly, the Credit Card Division, opposite party No.2 is also maintaining its counter in the S.B.I. Main Branch itself, when both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are having one and the same office within the same premises and also maintaining the same serial numbers, how they can say that it does not concerned with opposite party No.2. According to opposite party No.1, the complainant has issued 3 cheques bearing Nos.81321, 81322 and 81323 for Rs.10,000/- each. Out of them only the cheque No.81323 was encashed and credited to opposite party No.2. When other 2 cheques dt:27.12.2008 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- each were presented on 01.01.2009, there is a balance of Rs.16,904/- in the account of the complainant. Then S.B.I. Main Branch verified the account and credited a sum of Rs.10,000/- to opposite party No.2 in a consolidated form of Rs.14,500/- (viz. Rs.10,000/- towards cheque No.81322 and another cheque amount of Rs.3,000/- belongs to some other card holder  and a overdraft amount of Rs.1,500/- belongs to some other card holder). Cheque No.81321 is returned to opposite party No.2 with an endorsement of insufficient funds. So, it implies and clearly denotes that the amounts under cheque Nos.81323 and 81322 were encashed for Rs.10,000/- each. Thus, opposite party No.2 has collected Rs.20,000/- as per settlement letter. Whether the 3^rd cheque bounced or not is not a criteria, as required amount was already received by opposite party No.2, as the said amount was credited to opposite party No.2 according to opposite party No.1. Contrary to this, opposite party No.2 contended that complainant issued cheque bearing Nos.81322 and 81323 for Rs.10,000/- each and opposite party No.2 presented both the cheques, but the cheque No.81323 got encashed and the cheque No.81322 got bounced . Again opposite party No.2 says that the complainant issued 3 cheques to opposite party No.2, only one cheque No.81323 was encashed and other 2 cheques bearing Nos.81321 and 81322 are bounced. So, both of them are giving different version. If this version is true, how the opposite party No.2 has issued No Due Certificate to the complainant on 21.03.2016 under Ex.A4 dt:31.05.2016. Complaint is filed on 20.01.2016 in SR No.47 of this Forum, whereas opposite party No.2 has issued No Due Certificate to the complainant under Ex.A4 dt:31.05.2016. So, it is clear that only after filing the complaint, the opposite parties have issued No Due Certificate in favour of the complainant. When the cheques were issued in the month of December 2008 and those cheques were encashed long back in 2008 itself, issuing No Due Certificate in the month of March / May 2016 i.e. about 7½ years after payment is made, itself shows that the opposite parties are negligent enough and also there is deficiency in service on their part.

10.  The learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 fairly conceded that complainant has issued 2 cheques at the first instance, as one of them is bounced, he issued another cheque, which was encashed. Thus, out of 3 cheques, 2 cheques were encashed, but due to shifting of their branch office from one place to other, due to oversight the encashed cheque was also sent back to opposite party No.2 as if it was bounced. Thus there was a mistake on the part of the bank. That apart the complainant did not made the S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, as a party to the proceedings. In view of the said admissions, it can be said that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2.

11.  Since opposite party No.3 is only a office, maintaining the credit accounts and reflecting the credit information, whatever the banks informed to opposite party No.3, it will preserve the information for guidance. The opposite party No.3 has rightly taken stand that for the latches on the part of the informing institutions / banks, opposite party No.3 cannot be find fault. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly this point is answered.

12.   Point No.(ii):-  Since the complainant has established that though he has paid the amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of cheques referred to above and those cheques were also encashed by opposite party No.2, it was wrongly noted that out of 3 cheques 2 cheques were bounced and send the information to opposite party No.3. Consequently his name was entered in the list of defaulters. Entering the name of the complainant in the list of defaulters before the CIBIL because of the information given by opposite parties 1 and 2, for which opposite parties 1 and 2 are solely responsible. After filing the complaint only and after receiving notices in the complaint, the opposite parties 1 and 2 have verified the accounts and find out their mistakes, then only opposite party No.2 has issued No Due Certificate under Ex.A4 to the complainant in the month of May 2016 i.e. about 7½ years after making the payment. Though the amount was paid, sending another notice by opposite party No.2 on 05.09.2013, demanding the complainant to pay Rs.1,20,165-73 itself shows that the opposite parties are not verifying the accounts thoroughly. Exs.B2 and B3 are the photocopies in page.1 without any attestation or signature of the competent authority or any of the bank authorities, so no value can be attached to those documents. Ex.B5 is the cheque bearing No.81322 dt:27.12.2008 for Rs.10,000/-. According to opposite parties 1 and 2 and Ex.A11 the cheque was encashed, but it was shown as bounced. Thus opposite parties 1 and 2 are failed to furnish correct information to the Forum also. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service and also for causing mental agony to the complainant by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Accordingly, this point is answered.

13.  Point No.(iii):- in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and he is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Therefore, complaint is to be allowed accordingly.

In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards compensation for deficiency in service and also for causing mental agony to the complainant. That the opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint, and both the opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. Complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.  

Opposite party No.2 is hereby directed to inform the present status of the complainant’s credit card information to opposite party No.3 and see that his status should be changed in CIBIL, as was made in C.C.No.14/2016.   

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 18^th day of February, 2017.

 

      Sd/-                                                                                                                       Sd/-                          

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1:   Prabhakara Singaraju (Chief Affidavit filed).            

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW -1:  Maganti Pavan Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Punit Babbar                    (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-3: Satish Pillai                       (Evidence Affidavit filed).

.          

 

             EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s            

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Office copy of legal notice issued for the opposite parties by the complainant along with postal receipts. Dt: 08.10.2013.
	Acknowledgment Card. Dt: 11.10.2013.
	Letter to R3. Dt: 24.06.2015 with postal receipts.
	Letter issued by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 31.05.2016.
	Office copy of
	Office copy of legal notice issued t opposite parties 1, 2 and 3. Dt: 08.02.2015 with postal receipts.
	Letter issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant with regard to send settlement copy. Dt: 28.08.2015.
	Reply for the notice dated: 24.06.2015 issued by the opposite party No.3. Dt: 14.08.2015.
	Letter issued by opposite party No.2 to the complainant with regard to send settlement copy. Dt: 02.06.2015.
	Copy of Bank Statement along with Card Holder/ Depositors Check List. Dt: 28.01.2009.
	SBI Savings Bank Pass Book of the complainant.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Transfer Scroll Dt: 01.01.2009 of SBI, Main Branch, Tirupati. Dt: 19.04.2016.
	Account No. 30040928528, Statement of Account from 01.01.2009 to 05.09.2009 on opposite party No.3 with SBI, Main Branch, Tirupati.
	Voucher Verification report of Customer account dated: 01.01.2009 issued SBI, Main Branch, Tirupati.
	Ex-B1: bounced cheque No. 081321 for sum of Rs.10,000/-. Dt: 27.12.2008.
	Ex-B2: bounced cheque No. 081322 for sum of Rs.10,000/-. Dt: 27.12.2008.
	SBI Card Holders Agreement.

 

    

       

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-   

                                                                                                                              President

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

        

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.