State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Pushpa Garg vs H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd. on 16 May, 2013
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.897 of 2009
Date of institution : 30.06.2009
Date of decision : 16.05.2013
Pushpa Garg, E. Zone Cyber World Gole Diggi Market, SCO No.10,
Ist Floor, Bathinda.
.......Appellant- Complainant
Versus
1. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., having their Card Services Division at
CEEBROS No.110, Nelson Manichkam Road, Aminjikarai,
Chennai-600 029 through its Manager/Incharge.
2. H.D.F.C. Bank Ltd., G.T. Road, Main Branch, Bathinda through
its Branch Manager.
......Respondents- OPs
First Appeal against the order dated
5.6.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bathinda.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri G.L. Bajaj, Advocate. For the respondents : Shri Sandeep Suri, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.6.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (in short "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant, First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 2 Pushpa Garg, was dismissed on the ground of limitation, he has preferred the present appeal.
2. Briefly stated, the facts are that the complainant on the allurement having been given to her by the officials/agents/workers of the respondents/opposite parties that the credit card is very useful and no excess amount is charged on any account, she got one such credit card and took a cash loan of Rs.60,000/- from opposite party No.2 in the month of January/February, 2005. At the time of opening of the account her signatures were obtained on plain papers, stamp papers, revenue stamps, printed forms and all those were blank at that time. The maximum withdrawal limit of the credit card was Rs.60,000/-. After availing the credit facility she had been depositing huge amounts but on some of the occasions no counterfoil/receipt was issued. From 7.2.2005 to 13.6.2007 she deposited a sum of Rs.87,413/- and thus, she made the payment in excess. In spite of that 'No Objection Certificate' was not issued to her by the opposite parties and when she asked about that delay, they issued false and frivolous notice dated 1.8.2008 from Chennai whereby a demand of Rs.1,04,363/- has been raised; being balance amount. That payment is illegal and against the facts. She gave reply to that letter and made a demand from the opposite parties to furnish the exact details of the amounts deposited by her and also the statement of account but to no effect. The non- issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' and the statement of account despite repeated demands amounts to deficiency in service on the part First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 3 of the opposite parties. On account of the issuance of the notice dated 1.8.2008 by the opposite parties, she suffered mental tension, harassment and botheration. She prayed for the issuance of directions to the opposite parties to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for this mental tension etc., to withdraw/quash the notice dated 1.8.2008 and to issue 'No Objection Certificate'.
3. In the written reply filed by the opposite parties they admitted that the complainant availed the credit card facility from them and that she had been availing of the credit facility from time to time. They also admitted the issuance of letter dated 1.8.2008 to the complainant. They denied the other contentions made in the complaint and averred that this facility was availed by the complainant voluntarily on her own in December 2004. Nobody can be expected to deposit any amount in the bank without getting a receipt thereof. There was no question of issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' to the complainant as a sum of Rs.1,14,972.80P was outstanding against her on 1.11.2008. In case the non-payment of the outstanding balance the finance charges were to be levied on any new purchase and any related debit charge from the date on which the purchase was to be transacted on the basis of the card account. The schedule of charges provided in the "Most Important Terms and Conditions" clearly details every charges that the bank would levy in the credit card account of the customer and these terms and conditions are always furnished to the customer along with the card agreement booklet at the time the credit card is delivered First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 4 to her. The complainant was fully aware of the charges and the interest being charged from the very beginning and she cannot raise objection to that effect. The legal notice was issued to the complainant legally. They have also averred that the complainant is not their customer and, as such, is not competent nor has any locus- standi or any cause of action to file the complaint. She has concealed the material facts and the documents from the District Forum. Complicated questions of facts and law are involved, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination and the same is not possible in the summary proceedings before the District Forum and the appropriate remedy, if any, lies in the civil court. The complaint has been filed beyond the period of limitation provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as the complainant was fully aware of the levy of different charges, including finance charges, late fee, interest etc., against the credit card account in question from the very beginning and that fact stands proved from the correspondence with her.
4. Before the District Forum the parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments. After going through the same and having heard the learned counsel on behalf of the parties, the District Forum dismissed the complaint having been filed after two years of the accrual of the cause of action, vide aforesaid order.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 5
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the cause of action to file the present complaint accrued to the complainant from the date of the notice dated 1.8.2008, vide which the sum of Rs.1,04,363/- was demanded. The complainant is challenging that notice itself. Even the cause of action for challenging the previous transactions arose to the complainant on that day itself as she had come to know about those illegal transactions on that day itself. The complaint was filed within two years of the date of that letter and, as such, is within limitation. It was wrongly held by the District Forum that the cause of action had arisen to her on 30.1.2006 when the letter Ex.R-6 was written by her to the opposite parties.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties that all the previous transactions regarding charging of process fee, finance charges etc. had already come to the notice of the complainant when she had written letter dated 30.1.2006 Ex.R-6. Therefore, the cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued to her on that day itself. She was required to file the complaint within two years of that date but she failed to do so and the same was rightly dismissed by the District Forum.
8. The District Forum failed to properly appreciate the facts and the evidence produced by the parties. Had it minutely gone through the same, it would not have recorded the finding that the cause of action for filing the complaint arose to the complainant on 30.1.2006. No doubt, the letter dated 30.1.2006 Ex.R-6 was written by her to the First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 6 opposite parties for deletion of sales tax, processing fee and finance charges etc. in respect of the cash credit card in question but before filing the complaint she was to see the outcome of that letter. It was only on the refusal of the opposite parties to accede to her request that the cause of action was to accrue to her. It is pertinent to note that the main grouse of the complainant, as projected in the complaint, is for the withdrawal of the letter dated 1.8.2008 and the consequential relief of compensation is also based upon the issuance of that letter. The same was proved by her on record as Ex.C-6. It was only after the issuance of that letter that it came to her notice that as to how much amount is being demanded by the opposite parties in respect of the cash credit card. It was wrongly concluded by the District Forum that the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the cause of action had arisen on the receipt of that letter is without any merit in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Kerala Agro Machinery Corporation Ltd. v. Bijoy Kumar Roy and others [2002(2) CLT 105]. In that case the complaint was filed more than four years after the defects were pointed out and there was no dispute about the date on which the cause of action has arisen. In the present case, it may be said that some deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties had come to the notice of the complainant when she had written letter dated 30.1.2006 Ex.R-6 but it is pertinent to note that she has based her claim in the complaint about that deficiency in service, which is on account of the issuance of the notice First Appeal No.897 of 2009. 7 dated 1.8.2008 Ex.C-6 by the opposite parties. We are of the firm opinion that the cause of action to file the present complaint arose to the complainant for the first time on 1.8.2008. The complaint was filed within two years of that date and, as such, was within limitation. A wrong finding to the contrary was recorded by the District Forum, which cannot be sustained.
9. Accordingly the appeal is allowed, the order of the District Forum is set aside and the complaint is remanded back to it for deciding the same on merits. The parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 17.6.2013. The records of the District Forum be sent back well before that date.
10. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH)
PRESIDENT
May 16, 2013 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER