Delhi

StateCommission

A/09/533

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

VIJAY KALHAN - Opp.Party(s)

24 Nov 2015

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision:24.11.2015

Appeal No. 533/09

 

(Arising out of the order dated 02.06.2009 passed in Complaint Case No.135/08 by the

District Consumer Redressal Forum-New Delhi)

In the matter of:

Standard Chartered Bank,

17, Parliament Street,

New Delhi.                                                                                …..........Appellant

 

Versus

Mr. Vijay Kalhan,

C-202, Bhrighu Apartments,

Plot No.4, Sector-9,

Dwarka,

New Delhi-110075.                                                                              ….....Respondent

                                                                

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

S C Jain, Member

 

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

.

1. Present appeal is directed against the impugned orders dated 27.12.2011 passed by the District Forum-VI (New Delhi) vide which OP/Appellant herein was directed to pay to the complainant as under:-

1. OP will quash the illegal demand of credit card bearing No.4129034040037597 immediately and the above card be treated cancelled and also OP may be directed to not to put the name of the Complainant in defaulters.
2. On account of deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment OP will pay Rs.30,000/- to the complainant.
3. OP will pay Rs.10,000/- towards Cost of litigation.

 

2. The facts of the complaint in brief are that complainant Sh. Vijay Kalhan was issued a credit card bearing No.4129 0586 8826 0534.  After issuance of said card, he was making payments regularly according to its usages. After sometime, appellant/OP issued another card in the name of his wife Smt. Jyoti Kalhan.  Complainant raised an objection.  He was informed that the second card was free of costs.  In the subsequent bill/statement of accounts, sent to the complainant, OP charged charges for second credit card.  Again on objection raised by the complainant, OP assured to delete the said illegal demand from the bill.  But in the bill for the month of August 2007, OP demanded Rs.1350/- for the second card. Complainant wrote a letter to the OP who responded vide letter dated 21.04.2008 and stated that outstanding amount in his card was Rs.10151.66.  Complainant received a message on his mobile phone informing him that an amount of Rs.88,536.10 was outstanding and the minimum due was Rs.4426.81. Complainant contacted the OP on 11.08.2008 some antisocial elements persons as recovery agents visited the premises of the complainant and threatened him to face dire consequences. Complainant filed complaint for quashing of the illegal demand.

 

3. The defence raised by OP-1 & 2 was that the complainant was defaulter in making the payments. OP however reversed the said outstanding payment as a service gesture. Contention of the OP is that the balance of Rs.14,194.57 was outstanding towards Visa Gold Card.  The balance of Rs.17,984.08 was arrived at after including transactions of Rs.1396.05 and Rs.1229.64 dated 5^th July, 2007 and 10^th July, 2007 respectively. The complainant made a payment of Rs.10,000/- and the same was apportioned in his account. Next submission of the OP is that as a service gesture he reversed the financial charges towards the Visa Gold Card.  A debit of Rs.9490.75 was reflected on 4^th October, 2007.  In May 2008, the balance against the complainant was Nil in respect of supplementary card. Late payment charges on Visa Gold Card were added showing the amount of Rs.11,217.71 as outstanding.  The contention of the OP is that the name of the complainant was added to the list of defaulters as he had committed defaults in making payments in August 2008.

 

4. Ld. District Forum observed that the OP issued another Credit Card in the name of wife of the complainant Mrs. Jyoti Kalhan in the garb of a free Credit Card. The meaning of free Credit Card was never made clear. The bill for the statement dated 5^th August, 2007 showed the late charges of Rs. 803.07 and interest Rs.350.00, Service Tax & Cess 12.36% and Rs.29.22 and Rs.46.87. The net balance payment due was Rs.1229.16.  The Ld. District Forum observed that even after reversing the outstanding charges, the interest amount has been shown as outstanding.  Balance has been shown as Nil.  It was a clear case of ‘unfair trade practice’. OP thus was held ‘deficient in service’. For this reason, the Directions reproduced above were passed by the Ld.District Forum.

 

5. In appeal OP/applicant stated that the complainant filled in the application form requesting the appellant to issue the Credit Card in the name of Mrs. Jyoti Kalhan.  We have carefully perused the application form which is Annexure-‘A-VI’ of the appeal. Perusal of the said application form shows that the name of Mrs. Jyoti Kalhan is indicated against the column ‘Full name (supplementary Card applicant name as you would like to appear on the card’. In case the wife of complainant was interested in having an independent Credit Card, where was the difficulty in having a separate independent application from her. The language of the column referred to above is couched in such a manner that an ordinary customer cannot comprehend that unknowingly he applied for another Credit Card.  In this context, the complainant has raised his objection even when his wife received the said fee Credit Card. We are, therefore, of the opinion that Ld. District Forum has rightly held it a case of ‘unfair trade practice’.  Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limini.

 

 

(N P Kaushik)

Member (Judicial)

                         

 

                                                                                                               (S C Jain)       

   Member

​