State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Dinesh Parwanda vs Citi Bank N.A. on 22 March, 2007
IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 clause (b)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ) Date of Decision: 22-03-2007 Complaint Case No. C-225/1998 Shri Dinesh Parwanda, Complainant S/o Shri Salig Ram Parwanda Through R/o C-28, Panchsheel Enclave, Mr. Sanjeev Tyagi, New Delhi-110017. Advocate. Versus Citi Bank N.A., Opposite Party Jeevan Bharti Building, New Delhi. CORAM : Justice J.D. Kapoor- President Ms. Rumnita Mittal - Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
JUSTICE J.D. KAPOOR, PRESIDENT (ORAL) Through this complaint, compensation of Rs. 8 lacs has been claimed by the complainant on account of loss of reputation and loss of business due to unilateral impounding of credit card.
2. Facts giving rise to this complaint are that the complainant was a corporate member of Citi bank international Visa gold Card No. 455390002323008 since August 1993. For the services to be provided by the OP the complainant was paying a sum of US $ 100 p.a. as service charges. In the month of September 1997 the complainant had received a bill of Rs.$29,85 for BY Sky phone for US $ 19.09 and 9.95.
The complainant informed the OP that he had not travelled abroad for the last 5 to 6 months and he had not used the card and the said payment of US $ 29.05 was not relating to him. The complainant received a bill in February, 1998 reflecting the previous balance of US $2.85 and current balance of US$808.59.
3. That the complainant left Delhi on 05.03.98 for a foreign tour from Delhi-Frankfurt-Hanover-Moscow-Frankfurt-Delhi. He had taken only US $ 50 from SBI IGIA International Airport with him as he was carrying the international Gold Visa Card with him. The complainant was to make certain payment in Hanover but the concerned merchant did not accept the card and impounded it against a receipt dated 07.03.1998. Because of this the complainant had to return to Delhi from the Hanover abandoning his scheduled tour without going to Moscow where he was to attend important business meetings and conferences and was to stay in Moscow for 5 days.
4. That the card of the complainant was valid upto June 98 but the OP had impounded the card unilaterally without any reason and without any prior notice as well. The said unilateral, illegal and arbitrary action of the OP has caused the reputation loss to the complainant in his International Business. Complainant could not attend his scheduled meetings at Moscow. He also suffered loss of business to the tune of Rs. 4 lakh, which he was to get from Moscow and as such the OP is liable to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.4 lakhs as damages for loss of reputation and harassment caused and Rs. 4 lakh as damages for business, prestige & mental agony.
5. Denying allegations of deficiency in service, the OP Bank contended that the complainant having admitted that he is a corporate card member and used to visit abroad in connection with his business, cannot rank as consumer. The complainant in order to argument his business had been utilizing the credit card service of the Bank, which squarely falls under the category of the commercial purpose. The complainant is devoid of merit as the corporate card member alone could sue the bank for any alleged deficiency and the employee of the corporate body namely the complainant cannot maintain this complaint without the knowledge of the corporate body.
6. On merits, OP averred that during the investigation period the complainant had made a purchase to an amount of USD 778.74 and had not made efforts to clear the amount outstanding in his card account despite the statements being regularly sent to the complainant. The bank was not in receipt of the payment from the complainant for six statement periods and the amount outstanding in the card account had gone up to an amount of USD 809.59. The Bank had withdrawn the charge facilities on the card account with effect from 03.03.98 and a letter dated 04.03.98 regarding this withdrawal was sent to the complainant. The complainant being overdue on his card account was informed in advance about the closure of his card account vide letter dated 04.03.98 and therefore there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
7. After according careful consideration to the rival claims of the parties we find that the contention of the OP that complainant being Corporate Card member used it to visit abroad in connection with his business and therefore he used the Card for commercial purpose and is not a consumer is completely devoid of merit. It is the service which is relevant for determining whether the purpose is commercial purpose or not and not the purpose for which the service is being availed. If a person avails service for further transmission or sale of service to third person to earn profit only then such a service is deemed as service availed for commercial purpose. Services are like purchases of goods. If the retailer purchases goods from the wholesaler for further sale of the goods to individual consumer, he purchases the goods for commercial purpose and not for his personal use. The person who purchases goods from the retailer is consumer qua the retailer as well as manufacturer.
8. Any kind of service falling within the services enumerated under 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a service availed for personal use may be by a company, by an industrial house, by a business house, by a businessman.
The reason is simple. These persons avail the services like banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, housing construction, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information for their own use and not for transmission or further sale to earn profit. These services are not such services which any person would avail for further sale or transmission to earn profit.
9. Since this service was availed by the complainant for using the card to make payment to some persons or purchase of certain goods, such a service by no stretch of imagination can be deemed as service availed for commercial purpose.
10. Similarly, the contention of the OP that it was the corporate card member alone who has locus standi to file complaint holds water like a sieve. Whenever any corporate avails the service of credit card of a bank it avails the service for the benefit of its employees and the officers and any such employee or officer using the card comes within the definition of consumer as defined by section 2(1)(g) which includes any such person who is beneficiary of such service.
11. As regards the plea of the OP that the complainant had made purchases for an amount of US $ 778.74 and had never cleared this amount outstanding in his account which went up to amount of US $ 809.59 which too was not paid and therefore the OP had to withdraw the card facilities w.e.f. 03-03-1998, the complainant has referred to statement of account (Annexure K) showing that payment of US $ 778.74 was duly received by the Bank on 6th March 1998. As a matter of fact the dispute was with regard to US $ 29.85 but this expense was not incurred by the complainant as this amount related to transaction done by one Mrs. Vijaya in September, 1998.
12. The very fact that the card was impounded against receipt dated 07-03-1998 shows that there was no outstanding amount against the complainant as on that date. The OP-Bank failed to perform its function in adjusting the amount of US 778.74 paid by the complainant on 06-03-1998 and also failed to update the statement whereby the complainant suffered humiliation in the foreign land where he had gone for some business tour.
Such an act amounts to grossest deficiency in service which means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.
13. In the given facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of deficiency, we deem that lumpsum compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony, humiliation and other sufferings besides Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation would meet the ends of justice.
14. Complaint is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
15. Payment shall be made by the OP to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
16. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements, be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room.
17. Copy be sent to the Presidents of all the District Fora.
18. Announced on the 22nd March, 2007 (Justice J.D. Kapoor) President (Rumnita Mittal) Member jj