National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Anant Prasad Jain vs Standard Chartered Bank on 31 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: IV(2007)CPJ159(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant Mr. Anant Prasad Jain, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, Standard Chartered Bank (hereinafter referred to as Bank).
2. Undisputed facts of the case are that the complainant had the facility of a credit Card issued by the opposite party Bank which was being used from time-to-time by the complainant and according to him the payments were being made regularly. But sometime in late 2002 there was outstanding amount shown in the statement issued by the opposite party Bank to the extent of Rs. 1,15,141.96 ps. which included interest on irregular payments etc. After the issue was discussed between both the parties, a 'one time settlement' was reached on the basis of the complainant paying Rs. 66,000 as one time settlement. Admittedly, this amount of Rs. 66,000 (Rs. 60,000 cash and Rs. 6,000 by way of cheque) was paid in middle December 2002. Despite having paid the settlement amount, it is the case of the complainant, that he kept on receiving the statements showing outstanding against him till about June 2003. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank, this complaint has been filed claiming, in all, a compensation of Rs. 10 crores for mental agony, harassment.
3. Upon issue of notice, written version was filed by the opposite party, wherein under the head preliminary submissions, following was admitted:
However, it is submitted that on account of the reconciliation of the accounts between the one department of the Bank which settled the account and the other department whose function was to generate the statement of account showed certain entries which otherwise were settled.
4. The stand of the opposite party is that there have been irregular payments earlier but we are concerned with only a limited issue of 'statements showing outstanding amount against the complainant, being issued by the opposite party Bank despite having received the settlement amount and to this extent the opposite party Bank has been candid enough to admit that the settlement amount was received in middle December 2002, but the department dealing with the generation of statement of account remained unaware and kept on issuing the statements even when the amount was paid. It was also pleaded that there is no cause for claiming amount of Rs. 10 crores as compensation.
5. In support of respective pleadings affidavits by way of evidence were also filed by both parties.
6. We heard the complainant, who is in person and the learned Counsel for the opposite party.
7. It is an admitted position that there were outstanding amount against the complainant, and it is also admitted position that the settlement was arrived at between the parties in December 2002. It is also admitted position that the NOC was issued to the complainant by the opposite parties only in mid March 2003 and statement of account continued to be issued to the complainant till June 2003 showing amount(s) outstanding against him, despite settlement of account as per agreement between the parties.
8. Para 6 of the affidavit filed by the opposite parties reads as follows:
6. I further state that all the statement of accounts are computer generated statement of accounts and are sent to all the credit card holders in normal course of business. I state that on account of reconciliation of the accounts from one department of the bank, which settles the account and the other department which generates the statement of accounts continued to be generated and showed some outstanding balance. I stated that since the entire system is computerized, it used to take about 6 months time to zeroize the credit card account even after settlement. I further state that on account of this technical system error, the statement of accounts were sent to the complainant but never ever any demand was made. Further in about June, 2003, no statement of account was sent to the complainant as the account stood zeroized.
9. If in view of admitted position, that one hand/branch/division of the opposite party Bank did not know what the other corresponding Division is doing, in our view, it is purely an internal matter on the part O.P., i.e., of poor coordination between different branches of the same Bank. A customer who has settled the account is not entitled to be harassed by continuously receiving the statements showing the amounts as outstanding and not correcting it despite being informed from time-to-time. It is also admitted position that even when the account was settled between the parties in mid December 2002, the NOC was issued only in mid March, 2003. This is clear case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. It is for the opposite party Bank to keep their house in order and not to do something which harasses an honest consumer. Learned Counsel for the opposite party assured us that they have since improved the coordination between the various divisions of the Bank but this does not mitigate the harassment caused to the complainant for several months running. Deficiency in the instant case is writ large and too serious to be ignored.
10. Having said so, the question is the amount of compensation which the complainant shall be entitled to. The complainant has asked for Rs. 10 crores which is neither supported by any detail nor appear to have any basis or rationale. It is true that he kept on receiving statements for 7 months or so which is a case of deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.
11. In the aforementioned circumstances, in our view, the complainant shall be entitled to same compensation which we fix at Rs. 30,000 along with cost of Rs. 5,000.
12. All the above payments shall be made to the complainant by the opposite party Bank within a period of 6 weeks from the date of passing of this order, failing which it shall carry interest ® 10% p.a. from the date of order till the date of realisation.
The complaint stands disposed of in above terms.