State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Manoj V Pujar on 29 April, 2024
Cause Title/Judgement-Entry KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION BASAVA BHAVAN, BANGALORE. First Appeal No. A/715/2023 ( Date of Filing : 13 Apr 2023 ) (Arisen out of Order Dated 22/08/2022 in Case No. Complaint Case No. CC/10/2020 of District Raichur) 1. HDFC BANK LIMITED NEAR GANDHI CHOW, RAICHUR, RAICHUR KARNATAKA 2. HDFC BANK LIMITED CEEBROS NO.110, NELSON, MANICKAM ROAD, AMINJICARAI, CHENNAI 600 029 CHENNAI TAMIL NADU ...........Appellant(s) Versus 1. MANOJ V PUJAR RESIDING AT H. NO.1-11-53/66-2B, NEAR VIDYA BHARATHI SCHOOL, SRIRAMANAGAR COLONY, RAICHUR RAICHUR KARNATAKA ...........Respondent(s) BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh PRESIDENT HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar JUDICIAL MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M MEMBER PRESENT: Dated : 29 Apr 2024 Final Order / Judgement 29.04.2024:- ORDER
BY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HULUVADI G. RAMESH, PRESIDENT
01. The opposite party Nos.1 & 2 have filed this Appeal under section 41 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 challenging the order dated: 22.08.2022 passed in C.C. No.10/2020 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Raichur.
02. The parties to this Appeal will be referred to as their rank assigned to them by the Commission below.
03. Heard arguments of learned counsels appearing for both parties.
04. The District Commission after enquiring into the matter had partly allowed the consumer complaint No.10/2020 on 22.08.2022 by directing the OP Nos.1 & 2 to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards compensation, Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses to the complainant along with interest at 8% per annum from the date of complaint to till realization. Further Ops are restrained from sending false messages and phone calls to the complainant and restrained for reporting falsely against the complainant to CIBIL and credit mantri and so also the Ops are directed to make compliance of the order within 45 days from the date of the order. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant/opposite party No.1 & 2 has preferred this Appeal.
05. Perused the impugned order, grounds of Appeal and the Appeal papers on record.
06. The brief facts of the case is that, complainant had taken credit card facility from the OP-Bank and whenever he used the said card or availed any loan, he promptly made repayment of the said amounts. Hence no balance was payable to the Ops. But Ops used to send text messages and made false calls to his cell phone demanding payment of Rs.14,731.26 on various dates and time and falsely reported to credit mantri and CIBIL score agencies. On 11.11.2019 the CIBIL score of the complainant was 641 and on 08.12.2019 score was decreased to 623. Though complainant was not a defaulter of any loan or EMI due to the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops complainant was not getting any loan or credit cards. Hence alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops complainant had filed consumer complaint before the below Commission.
07. The grounds urged by the Appellants is that, the below Commission had failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the Appellants to lead further evidence. The below Commission had erred in relying on Exhibit-P.1 and come to the conclusion that, Owe and due bill under Exhibit P.1 I shown as Rs.0/- and as such it concludes that, the respondent had no dues or any repayment of loan on the said card. Admittedly the earlier consumer complaint No.67/2018 came to be disposed-off on 17.07.2019 wherein below commission had directed the Appellants to pay Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and despite the Appellant Bank taking specific stand that, for zeroizing the account it takes time for up-dation of the same and accordingly by the time the said arrears were updated, in the normal course of business the Appellant bank had sent SMS and calls requesting the Respondent to make payment. The Respondent despite knowing the same, suppressing material facts approached the Hon'ble Commission in a second complaint, which is nothing but on the same cause of action, as such the Hon'ble Forum had erred in not considering the contentions of the Appellant Bank and solely on the ground that, no documents were produced by the Appellant Bank, it had allowed the complaint in part. The complainant did not disputes the loan availed through debit card which clearly evidences the contention of the Appellant Bank. The below Commission had failed to appreciate the fact that, the issue in respect of debit card EMI was decided in CC No.67/2018 and the same issue is being raised in the present complaint which is hit by doctrine of Resjudicata. The below Commission had failed to notice that, the loan availed in credit card was cancelled by the respondent and there is no question of repayment of such cancelled loan. That is the reason respondent suppressed the SOA by not filing the same in court since his claim is that, he paid the dues of the Flip kart loan availed in credit card. The loan availed by the Respondent in credit card was cancelled and the loan availed in debit card was not cancelled and the respondent was due to pay the said amount to the Appellant Bank. The below Commission had failed to consider the credit card statement of accounts, per contra, the statement of accounts of debit card EMI shows that, the loan availed by the Respondent has not honored the EMI which shows that, the respondent has not repaid the admitted loan amount availed by him. When the debit card loan entire outstanding was reversed and only during the pendency of such process of reversal messages were sent to the customer since on that date there were dues pending in the account. For sending such message penalizing the Appellant bank to pay Rs.45,000/- is untenable since bank had already paid Rs.21,350/- as compensation while complying the 1st complaint and reversed the debit card EMI outstanding amounting to Rs.14,371/- which in fact the respondent is liable to pay. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Appellant Bank
08. During the course of arguments the LC for Respondent/complainant had vehemently addressed that, in the impugned order passed in CC No.10/2020 at page No.7 the below Commission had clearly stated regarding earlier order passed in CC No.67/2018 and it also narrated that, even after suffering from the judgment in CC No.67/2018 the Appellant/OP had again started to harass the complainant/respondent by sending one by one messages and making cell phone calls demanding the amount and so also it had falsely reported before CIBIL about complainant's outstanding dues, though there were no dues at all from the complainant's side. The District Commission had afforded full opportunity of hearings to the Appellants and there is no suppression of material facts as contended by the Appellants in the Appeal memo by the Complainant during the trial of C.C. No.10/2020. In C.C. No.10/2020 the complainant had sought for direction to the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for making unlawful demands by way of sending unwanted messages and phone calls that too even after suffering from the earlier impugned order passed in CC No.67/2018 the act of Ops persisted. Hence after going through the evidences and documents placed before it and after hearing arguments from both sides the below Commission had rightly passed the impugned order dated: 22.08.2022 in CC No.10/2020 and hence sought for dismissal of the Appeal.
09. In view of the above discussions and the submissions made by the learned counsels for both parties, we are of the considered opinion that, though the Appellant had complied the impugned order dated: 17.07.2019 passed in CC No.67/2018, but again it started harassing the complainant by way of sending messages/phone calls and so also reporting to the credit mantra and CIBIL agencies though there were no dues from the complainant's side. Hence the contention raised by the Appellant/opposite party that, complaint hit from doctrine of Resjudicata is not justifiable. Hence the below Commission after scrutinizing the records placed before it, had rightly passed the impugned order dated: 22.08.2022 in CC No.10/2020 and hence the Commission holds there is no need to interfere in the impugned order dated: 22.08.2022 passed in CC No.10/2020 and accordingly the Appeal No.715/2023 filed by the Appellant - Bank is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.
10. The amount kept in deposit by the Appellant-Bank towards statutory deposit shall be paid to the Respondent/complainant on verification of proper identification proof.
11. Provide copy of this order to the District Commission as well as to the parties to the appeal.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- LADY MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT KNMP* [HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Huluvadi G. Ramesh] PRESIDENT [HON'BLE MR. Krishnamurthy B.Sangannavar] JUDICIAL MEMBER [HON'BLE MRS. Smt. Divyashree.M] MEMBER