State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mr. Vivek Hareshwar Gondhalekar vs State Bank Of India on 20 March, 2019
1
BEFORE THE HON'BLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL
COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO.A/16/320
(Arisen out of Order Dated 09/02/2016 in Consumer Complaint No.537/2009 of
District Forum, Thane)
Mr.Vivek Hareshwar Gondhalekar,
R/at : B/1, 201, Rutu Park, R.W.Sawant
Road, Majiwade, Thane West. ...........Appellant(s)
Versus
1] State Bank of India,
SBI Cards,
Mahalaxmi Industrial Estate,
3rd floor, Lady Jamshetji Road,
Behind Church, Mahim West,
Mumbai 400010.
2] State Bank of India,
SBI Cards,
Customer Correspondence Unit,
DLF Infinty Towers, Tower C,
12th floor, Block 2, Building No.3,
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122 002.
Haryana.
3] Mr.Ajay Bharti,
c/o. State Bank of India,
Assistant Vice President-Customer
Services.
SBI Cards, Post Bag No.28,
GPO, New Delhi 110 001. ............Respondent(s)
BEFORE: Justice Mr.A.P.Bhangale, President
Mr.A.K. Zade, Member
For the Appellant/s: Mr.Vivek Gondhalekar
For the Adv.A.V.Patwardhan
Respondent/s
ORDER
Per Mr. A. K. Zade, Hon'ble Member [1] This appeal is filed by appellant/original complainant against order dated 09/02/2016 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thane by which the consumer complaint filed by complainant was partly allowed and the opponents were declared guilty of 2 deficiency of service in rendering service to complainant relating to credit card. By the said order, the Ld.District Forum directed opponents to pay to complainant an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards compensation for mental harassment and an amount of Rs.5,000/-towards costs of litigation before 31/03/2016, failing which interest @ 9% p.a. will have to be paid by the opponents on the said amount with effect from 01/04/2016.
[2] Perused record. Heard arguments on behalf of the parties.
[3] Appellant filed this appeal on the ground that the learned District Forum wrongly mentioned in the order that some gift was given to the complainant by SBI Cards which was not received and never accepted by the complainant. As per appellant, consumer complaint was filed by him alleging unfair trade practice against Opponents by way of recovery calls for the amounts which were not due from the complainant and charging complainant for the annual fee in spite of the fact that the said card was life time free although it is true that, subsequently, demand for annual fee was reversed. However, it had caused harassment to the complainant. Also, because the said card was blocked, public image of complainant was spoiled. However, these points were not considered by the learned District Forum while awarding compensation. Appellant also mentioned that although he had filed consumer complaint against opponent no.3 in addition to opponent nos.1 and 2, opponent no.3 was proceeded ex-parte and there is no separate order against opponent no.3 and it is not clear whether there is any order against opponent no.3 or not. Appellant further mentioned that his earlier CIBIL reports were spoiled because of outstanding dues shown against him in the statements of SBI card although he was not actual defaulter during the relevant period. Although SBI Card had subsequently corrected its account statements and consequently the present CIBIL report in respect of complainant was showing the correct position, there is nothing mentioned in the impugned order about earlier CIBIL reports of complainant which were still showing complainant as defaulter. No direction in respect of those earlier CIBIL reports have been given by the learned District Forum in the impugned order in spite of the fact that he had prayed in the consumer complaint for the directions to opponent to declare him as non-defaulter and to inform 3 the credit information bureaus/agencies about the same under intimation to complainant.
4) During arguments, appellant explained that if the opponents make such communication to credit information bureaus/agencies, then, in the earlier CIBIL reports which were showing complainant as defaulter during the earlier period, a remark/endorsement would be made in remark column of those CIBIL reports that those CIBIL reports were incorrect and were wrongly showing complainant as defaulter. This is necessary because the CIBIL reports of previous months/years are also considered to evaluate the credit history of the person by any financing institution. Although during arguments, appellant admitted that earlier CIBIL reports cannot be replaced or corrected but he submitted that remark as above can certainly be placed in those CIBIL reports. Appellant also submitted that the amount of Rs.660/- was shown excess credit in his credit card account and SBI Card asked complainant that they want to credit it in his saving account. However, complainant thereafter received message that his request will be closed within 10 days and again received another message that the excess amount had been adjusted against excess credit given to the complainant earlier which as per complainant was not true. The appellant, therefore, prayed that the order should be passed directing SBI to declare him as 'no defaulter' as on date and also at any moment earlier and to inform CIBIL authorities about the same with copy to him. Appellant also prayed for enhancing the compensation to Rs.3,00,000/- and costs to Rs.25,000/- as originally claimed in the consumer complaint. Appellant also prayed for direction to opponents to allow him to use amount payable to him by SBI card and to continue his SBI card and reward points be allowed to be redeemed and penalty should be imposed against opponent no.3.
[5] In this respect, we have referred to the prayers of complainant in consumer complaint. The same show that there is a prayer for direction to opponents to inform the credit information bureaus/agencies about the above said wrong credit card statements with copy to complainant. In this respect, we find that although the learned District Forum had held that the opponents have already admitted their errors and have subsequently 4 corrected the monthly statements and the present credit status of the complainant communicating the same to credit information bureaus/ agencies because of which the present CIBIL report was updated and was shown correctly, there are no directions by Ld.District Forum to opponents in respect of earlier CIBIL reports which were showing complainant as defaulter. Although the appellant himself admitted that he being banker, he knows that earlier CIBIL reports cannot be replaced or corrected, he argued that necessary remark/endorsement can be placed in those CIBIL reports that the complainant was wrongly shown as defaulter in those earlier reports and the CIBIL reports to that extent were wrong. Although during arguments, advocate for opponents argued that they have corrected their errors and the present CIBIL report is showing correct position, it is an admitted fact that complainant continued to be shown defaulter in earlier CIBIL reports which were damaging his CIBIL report and his credit status. We, therefore, find it necessary to allow this prayer of complainant in respect of giving direction to opponents to communicate to credit information bureaus/agencies either to correct the earlier CIBIL reports/credit ratings of the complainant or to put a remark/endorsement in those CIBIL reports/credit ratings that they were not correct and complainant was wrongly shown as defaulter so far as it relates to the said credit card account for the relevant period and to modify the impugned order accordingly.
[6] So far as imposing penalty on opponent no.3 in his personal capacity is concerned, we do not find any justification for the same. Also in this appeal, appellant had prayed for continuation of his card enabling him to use the amount payable to him and it be continued with same terms of life time free and also reward points earned by him on said card till that date be allowed to be redeemed by him. However, we find that this prayer is not part of his prayers in the original consumer complaint and therefore the same cannot be allowed at the stage of appeal. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, we do not find it necessary to intervene with the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum as the learned District Forum had come to conclusion after discussing the entire case on merits and the impugned order is well reasoned and well discussed order 5 in that respect. We, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER (1) Appeal is partly allowed.
(2) The impugned order is modified by introducing following clause 2(a) in the impugned order after Clause 2.
2(a): Opponents are directed to communicate to credit information bureaus/agencies with intimation to complainant that remark should be placed against earlier credit ratings/CIBIL reports that complainant was wrongly shown as defaulter in respect of said SBI credit card account of complainant during the relevant period and the same had been duly corrected in the subsequent credit rating/CIBIL report.
(3) Remaining part of the impugned order remains unchanged.
(4) No order as to costs of this appeal.
Pronounced and dictated in open court on 20th March, 2019.
[Justice A.P.Bhangale] PRESIDENT [A.K.Zade] MEMBER pg