State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Naresh Kumar vs Hdfc Bank on 6 April, 2016
2nd Additional Bench
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB
DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. 1614 of 2014
Date of institution: 16.12.2014
Date of Decision: 6.4.2016
Sh. Naresh Kumar son of Sh. Gopi Chand, resident of 479, Green Avenue,
Amritsar.
Appellant/Complainant
Versus
HDFC Bank Ltd. having its Card Service Division at CEEBROS No. 110,
Nelson Manickam Road, Aninjikarari, Chennai - 6000029 and having its
Branch Office at Mali Road, Amritsar through its Branch Manager.
Respondent/Op
First Appeal against the order dated
10.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar.
Quorum:-
Shri Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
Shri Jasbir Singh Gill, Member
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member
Present:-
For the appellant : None.
For the respondent : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate
Gurcharan Singh Saran, Presiding Judicial Member
ORDER
First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 2
The appellant/complainant(hereinafter referred as
complainant) has filed the present appeal against the order dated 10.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred as the District Forum) in consumer complaint No. 486 dated 16.7.2012 vide which the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.
2. Complaint was filed by complainant under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short 'the Act') against respondent/opposite party (hereinafter referred as Op) on the averments that he was holder of Master Card No. 5176523000368926 issued by Op for the validity period of three years w.e.f. June, 2009 to June, 2012 and he was using the same against consideration. Complainant had paid the charges of Rs. 4500/- to Op in cash vide receipt dated 27.11.2009 agianst which credit card No. 5176523000368926 was mentioned. However, Op issued the affidavit dated 2.1.2012 through their counsel from Chennai mentioning therein credit card No. 5176523000419927 calling the amount of Rs. 54,587/- from him, whereas the complainant does not hold any such card. However, Op has claimed the amount wrongly and illegally. Complainant immediately brought this fact to the notice of Op that he was not holder of credit card mentioned in the notice but they did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant and threatened to take criminal action against him. It is also pertinent to mention here that complainant had sent a request through email dated 22.12.2010 to the Op to cancel his card as it was being misused inspite of such a request, the message was being received by him on phone regarding First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 3 the transaction. Legal notice was issued on 12.5.2012 but with no result. This act and conduct of the Op, amounted to deficiency in service. Hence, the complaint with the direction to Op to withdraw the notice demanding Rs. 60,026/- and also pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/-.
3. Complaint was contested by Op, who filed their written reply taking preliminary objections that the complaint was not maintainable as the complainant had suppressed the material facts from the Forum; complaint was not maintainable as there was no cause of action accrued to the complainant to file this complaint; complainant was not a consumer of Op No. 2 as credit card in question was provided free of cost to the complainant; the complaint was nothing but an abuse of process of law with an intention to enrich himself by raising absolutely unjust and untenable plea. Real facts are that on the basis of application, Master Card Gold Personal credit card bearing No. 5176523000368926 was issued as on 25.6.2009 and as on 30.11.2010, the said card was blocked to prevent any misuse. As per banking process, a different card No. 5176523000419927 was issued though physical plastic card was not issued to the complainant for want of written request. The complainant while applying for the said card conclusively accepted to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Master Card agreement, for the use of Ist as well as 2nd Credit Card was deemed acceptance of the said terms and conditions, therefore, complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. Card member agreement was extracted and notified separately to the First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 4 complainant under the head most important terms and conditions. This document contains complete information of fees and charges, cash advance fee, late fee charges, finance charges and schedule of charges, which were applicable and the said document was sent to the complainant alongwith the credit card. The bank had been regularly issuing statement of account to the complainant every month and complainant had never disputed the same. A sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited on 9.12.2010 and Rs. 3120/- on 7.3.2011. The demand raised by Op is genuine. There was no deficiency in service on the part of Op. Complaint was without merit, it be dismissed.
4. The parties were allowed by the learned District Forum to lead their evidence.
5. In support of his allegations, the complainant had tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, copy of master card Ex. C-2, legal notice copies Exs. C-3 & 4, letter dt. 6.6.2012 Ex. C-5, letter dt. 12.7.12 Ex. C-6, vouchers Exs. C-7 to 10. On the other hand, Op had tendered into evidence affidavit of Aman Gupta Ex. R- 1, instructions Ex. R-2, driving licence copy Ex. R-3, monthly statements of credit card Ex. R-4 to 27.
6. After going through the allegations in the complaint, written version filed by Op, evidence and documents brought on the record, the complaint was dismissed by the District Forum.
7. Aggrieved with the order passed by the learned District Forum, the appellant/complainant has filed the present appeal.
8. None has appeared on behalf of appellant/complainant and we have heard the learned counsel for the respondent - Sh. First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 5 Sandeep Suri, Advocate and have also gone through the record of the District Forum.
9. As is clear from the pleadings of the parties, it is an admitted fact that credit card No. 5176523000368926 was issued to the complainant w.e.f. June, 2009 and was valid upto June, 2012. As per the written reply filed by the complainant on the request of the complainant, card was blocked on 30.12.2010, therefore, whatever the amount due towards this card upto 30.11.2010, is the liability of the complainant. However, Ops have stated that after blocking card No. 5176523000368926, a different credit card bearing No. 5176523000419927 was allotted to the complainant. Although no physical plastic card was issued. However, there is no request on behalf of the complainant for issuance of any fresh credit card. A plea has been taken by Ops that card No. 5176523000419927 was issued as per the procedure of the bank, however, counsel for the Op has not mentioned any rules and regulations of the Bank that in case a credit card has been blocked by any customer then how any new account is to be opened in the name of the complainant without any request from the complainant. However, evidence on the record shows that a notice was issued to the complainant to make a payment of Rs. 54,587/- against credit card No. 5176523000419927. When no such credit card was issued and there was no request from the complainant to issue any fresh credit card after blocking of his previous credit card then in case there is any transaction, against the new credit card, complainant is not responsible. Counsel for the Op was unable to convince how this credit card was issued and in case First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 6 any credit card was used other than the complainant then the complainant was not responsible for that as no such credit card number 5176523000419927 was ever issued to the complainant as per his request. The documents placed on the record show that against credit card No. 5176523000419927, various amounts are due. However, upto 30.11.2010, complainant was bound to make the payment due against card No. 5176523000368926. Every month account statements was being issued and as on 5.11.2010, a sum of Rs. 39,924/- was due. Therefore, complainant is liable to pay this amount alongwith interest upto date. However, as admitted by Op, a sum of Rs. 4,000/- was deposited by him on 9.12.2010 and Rs. 3120/- on 7.3.2011. However, no statement of account was placed on the record by the Op how this amount was due against the complainant and whether the amount deposited by the complainant as referred above was considered while preparing that statement. How the interest is to be calculated have not been referred by the counsel for the Op whereas plea of the counsel for the complainant is that no such terms and conditions were ever supplied to the complainant. In case these were supplied then it is the duty of the Op to place on the record terms and conditions applicable to this type of credit card account but no such terms and conditions were supplied. Even standard terms and conditions have not been placed on the record. However, the District Forum did not appreciate this fact that there was no request on behalf of the complainant to issue a fresh credit card number after his previous credit card number was blocked, therefore, credit card number 5176523000419927 was not First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 7 issued at the request of the complainant, therefore, in case this number 5176523000419927 has been used by the bank or any other person used it then complainant is not liable to make this payment against this number. However, as referred above, as on 5.11.2010 a sum of Rs. 39,924/- was outstanding against the complainant. After that two payments of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3120/- were deposited by the complainant, in this way, Op will not be entitled to the amount as demanded by them. However, Op can issue a revised statement of account pertaining to his account No. 5176523000368926 to which the complainant will be responsible to pay the outstanding amount. However, the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by the District Forum, without taking into consideration that 2nd credit card number was never applied by the complainant, therefore, any transaction against that number will not be the responsibility of the complainant. Therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum required modification with regard to the payment by the complainant against account No. 5176523000419927. Counsel for the Op was not able to rebut this position how the complainant is liable to pay against account No. 5176523000419927 and that the payments after blocking of account No. 5176523000368926 will be considered, which have been paid by the complainant. These facts were not properly appreciated by the District Forum, therefore, the order so passed by the District Forum required modification.
10. In view of above, we partly accept the appeal. Impugned order is set-aside. It is held that credit card No. 5176523000419927 was never applied for by the complainant, therefore, in case any First Appeal No.1614 of 2014 8 payment is being shown by Op against credit card No. 5176523000419927, complainant will not be liable to pay this amount. However, the complainant has applied for and he was allotted/issued credit card No. 5176523000368926 and he utilized the same upto 30.11.2010 and as on 30.11.2010 this number was blocked, therefore, the complainant will be bound to make payment of Rs. 39,924.61p outstanding against him as on 5.11.2010. After that a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and Rs. 3120/- was paid by the complainant on 9.12.2010 and 7.3.2011. This amount would be deducted from the outstanding amount against the complainant and after adding the interest as applicable to these type of account, fresh statement will be issued by the Op to the complainant to which he will be liable to pay the same. No order as to costs.
11. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 1.4.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.
12. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(Gurcharan Singh Saran) Presiding Judicial Member (Jasbir Singh Gill) Member April 6, 2016. (Surinder Pal Kaur) as Member