State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Deven Rasik Dagli vs Standard Chartered Bank on 29 January, 2021
1
Details DD MM YY
Date of Judgment 29 01 2021
Date of filing 10 03 2014
Duration 19 10 06
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
GUJARAT STATE AT AHMEDABAD.
Complaint No. 24 of 2014.
Deven Rasik Dagli
A/6, Beleview Apartments,
Thaltej,
Ahmedabad-380054. ...Complainant
Vs.
Standard Chartered Bank
19, Rajaji Salai,
Chennai-600 001.
The process be served at Standard Charged Bank,
Mithakhali Branch,
Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads,
Navrangpura,
Ahmedabad-380009. ...Opponent
Complainant- Learned advocate Mr. S. C. Shah
Coram : Justice V. P. Patel, President
Smt. U. P. Jani, Member
ORDER:By Justice V. P. Patel, President
1. The complainant has filed the consumer complaint u/s. 17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (For short "The Act) against the opponent bank claiming main relief in terms of para 23 which reads as under:
(A) Hon. Commission be please to order the opponent bank to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 1 of 11 2 lakhs Only) with 12% running interest from 12.3.2012 till payment to the complainant.
(B) The opponent be ordered to take all necessary steps to get removed and get removed and deleted the "DEFAULT STATUS" of the complainant from the records of CIBIL in the manner as if the such status was never reported to CIBIL.
(C) The opponent be restrained permanently from reporting periodically or otherwise to CIBIL or any other credit information company regarding any defaults or default status of the complainant in respect of both the credit cards stated above bearing credit card nos. 5543 7480 9000 9306 and 4129 0380 9001 9215.
(D) Hon. Commission be pleased to order the opponent bank to pay Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) by way of costs to this complainant.
(E) Hon. Commission be pleased to grant any other or further relief or reliefs that may be necessary in the interest of justice.
Facts of the complaint:
2. Short facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under:
The complainant has taken two credit cards from the opponent bank before the year 2001 being credit card nos. 5543 7480 9000 9306 and 4129 0380 9001 9215. The complainant was paying regularly the amounts due as per statements received from the opponent from time to time for both the credit cards. From the beginning the statement were not received in time and mostly statements were being received after the due date for payment was over. Even if the due amount is paid fully the next statement was being received with late payment charges and interest. The complainant made representation to the local branch but the problem was not solved and the same has been continued. The entire outstanding amount for the cards were consisting the illegal late payment charges and interest and interest on interest amount.M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 2 of 11 3
2.1 It is submitted that complainant has visited the local branch of the opponent bank and intimated that he did not want to continue both the cards and the same may be cancelled and discontinued immediately. The concerned branch executive told that both the cards will be discontinued and the complainant will be informed in writing about the same. Thereafter, complainant was not using the cards. In spite of this complainant has received the statement in which opponent have charging further and additional, exorbitant and illegal interest amounts and late payments charges as well as interest on interest. After such surety given by the executive of the opponent to the complainant, complainant has not received any letter from the opponent about the discontinuing or closing the cards.
2.2 It is further submitted by the complainant that after trapping card holders, if any card holder objects to such illegal charges, the opponent bank was resorting to illegal and criminal activities to pressurize card holder to make payments. The opponent was also sent some unauthorized person who threats the card holders to commit criminal assault.
2.3 The complainant has sent the letter dated 16.4.01 which was duly served but opponent was never replied. The letter was sent to the opponent, wherein it is specifically stated to the opponent to send full accounts of all charges, interest amount, details of rate of interest and the period of amounts were debited etc. and if opponent is fail to send the same to the complainant, it will be presumed that there were no dues of the complainant and as no reply was received from the opponent it was clearly proved that there are no dues.
2.4 After the above said letter received by the opponent, opponent discontinued sending unauthorized persons to the complainant's residence but threats were continued on telephone. However, on 8.5.01 and 8.8.01 the unauthorized person in the name of the recovery agent was sent by the local branch of the opponent at M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 3 of 11 4 complainant's residence. Complainant asked them about their identity and authority but they are failed to show any authority letter therefore, complainant told them that he will call the police and they are suddenly left.
2.5 After following these criminal and illegal activities, opponent has reported to credit information bureau of India (hereinafter referred as CIBIL) that the complainant is a defaulter and complainant's status so reflected in CIBIL records. The complainant applied for the loan which was denied by the bank and after inquire about the same complainant came to know that in the records of CIBIL the complainant is reported as defaulter. Thereafter, complainant has approached the CIBIL and on payment of Rs. 450/- purchased the transunion score + credit information report (CIR) dated 28.9.11, in which it was found that that opponent has wrongly and illegally reported to CIBIL that the complainant is defaulter. Even this opponent has not followed any procedure prescribed by Reserve Bank of India. Hence, the opponent has committed breach of all the Legal Provisions, Rule, and Regulations and illegally reported the status of the complainant as defaulter.
3. This commission has admitted the complaint, notice was issued to the opponent. First time the notice was return back on 1.11.14 thereafter the notice was reissued and the same was not return back.
As per postal track report dated 17.12.15, RPAD No. RG057340267IN was booked on 17.12.15 and the item was delivered on 22.12.15 thus, it is clear that notice was delivered to the opponent. The complainant has filed application under section 28 (A) of the C.P. Act, and requested the commission to make on declaration that the notice was duly served to the opponent as provided in sub section 3 of section 28
(a) of the C. P. Act. Thus, it is presumed that the notice was served to the opponent. Opponent has neither appeared nor filed any reply against the contents of the complaint.
Evidence produced by complainant:
M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 4 of 11 54. We have gone through the following documents submitted in this complaint, which are on record.
Description Page
Date
Sr.
1 Letter by complainant to opponent sent by Regd. A. D. 16.4.01 15-16
Regd. A. D. Slip signed by opponent when above letter 2 - 17 was delivered Names of two recovery agents written on stamp of
3 global enterprise who visited on 8.5.01 (noted at back 8.5.01 18 side) Visiting card of opponent given by recovery agents 4 8.8.01 19 "Altafkhan" on 8.8.01 Newspapers- Sandesh & Gujarat Samachar reporting 5 15.9.01 20 arrest of Branch Manager of Opp.
Money laundering scam of opponent bank reported in 6 8.8.12 21 Times of India - Ahmedabad Ed Above scam of opp. Bank also reported in Gujarat 7 7.8.12 22 Samachar- Ahmedabad Letter by complainant to opponent Bank by speed 8 24.12.11 23-24 post A. D. 9 Speed post A. D. Slip signed by opponent - 25 10 Reply of opponent bank to letter at Sr. no. 8 18.1.12 26 Legal notice sent to opponent by advocate of the 11 12.3.12 27-37 complainant by speed post A.D. Speed post A. D. slip signed by opponent receiving 12 - 38 above notice 13 Additional affidavit by complainant 28.5.19 -
14 Affidavit by complainant 4.1.20 -
Copy of cheque Rs. 1005/- dated 8.6.2000 in favour 15 8.6.2000 -
of RBI Copy of cheque Rs. 2000/- dated 18.9.2000 in favour 16 18.3.2000 -
of HDFC Bank 17 Copy of passbook dated 10.4.2000 to 23.9.2000. - - 18 Copy of passbook of March-1992 to March 2000 - -
5. Evidence produced by the opponent: NIL M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 5 of 11 6 Arguments of the Complainant:
6. Ld. Advocate for the complainant has argued that the complainant has resell the two credit cards from the bank. That the complainant was using credit card by paying regularly amount as due by the bank. That the bank was not sending statement in time and were send after due date of the payment and thenafter the bank has charged late fee and penalty and interest. The complainant approached bank and requested to correct mistakes but wrong charged continued like illegal late payment charges and interest payment therefore, complainant has requested to cancel the credit card. The complainant was assured by executive of the opponent that both the credit cards were discontinued. Thereafter, complainant did not used the card however, opponent has send the statement showing illegal interest and late fees charges. The modus operandi to extort amount illegally and resorted to recovery agents like goondas and harassed the complainant and his family members. That the complainant wrote letter to the opponent for detailed statement of account and charges. After above said letter, opponent has discontinued illegal practice of sending recovery agents. Two goonds namely Nilesh Trivedi and Pravin Patel came to the residence of the complainant for the recovery of the amount and on second occasion Altafkhan came for recovery. That the complainant has pointed out incidents and illegal recovery of other cases in para 11 (A to C). Therefore, bank has reported to CIBIL that the complainant is defaulter.
6.1. The legal notice was served to the opponent, they have not replied positively. The above Complaint is filed against opponents /Bank showing deficiency in service by opponent Bank officials and claiming compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- with interest and also for directions to opponent to take steps to remove and delete "default status" of complainant sent by them to CIBIL or any other Credit Information Company and for costs of Rs.50,000/-. The complaint is filed on 10/3/2014. The complaint is admitted and notice issued to M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 6 of 11 7 opponent time and again. The notices are served to opponent however nobody is appearing and no reply is filed on record contesting reliefs claimed in this case. The rojnama /proceedings in this case shows that on 27/7/2018 opponent has filed Vakalatnama however thereafter no reply is filed in this case. Hence it is submitted that opponent has fīled to contest the claim and Hon'ble court may be pleased to proceed exparte and decide the case in absence of any contest on merits.
6.2 The complainant is relying upon Master Circular- 2007 issued by RBI to all Credit card issuing Banks and NBFC, copy of which is produced herewith.
(a) Copy of Master Circular -2007
(b) (2007) 4CPJ page 159 (NC)
(c) Decision of Kolkatta High Court in WP No.11833 /2013 in case of Shantanu Ghosh Vs State Bank of India.
Merits of the case:
7.1 The complaint has filed by the complainant with affidavit. The contents of the complaint are supported by documentary evidence. The legal notice was issued to the opponent but no positive reply is given by the opponent. The documentary evidence shown that the complainant made grievances to the authority of the bank but they have not resolve the grievances of the complainant.
7.2 (1) credit information companies (regulation) Act, 2005 and (2) regulation made by the RBI under said Act namely credit information regulation 2006 (3) various master circular issued by RBI i.e. 21.11.05 and 2.7.07, the contention of the statutory provision as referred above was drown to the opponent head office but they have not taken care to resolve the problem.
8 Customer confidentiality is required to be maintained but card issuing bank (opponent) has reveal the information against the provision of law and without the consent of the complainant. The M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 7 of 11 8 opponent have not taken care before reporting of so called defaulter status of credit card holder to the CIBIL.
9 That the opponent have deliberately committed unfair trade practice and also gross deficiency in service by reporting false and illegal default status of the complainant.
Quantum of compensation:
10 It is also argued that the complainant has become entitled for heavy damages for all pain and suffering, harassment etc. due to unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opponent and amount of Rs. 40,00,000/- but complainant has not produced any calculation or any other evidence for quantum of compensation.
11 Ld. Advocate for the complainant has relied upon the following judgments.
(A) Calcutta High Court in case of Santanu Ghosh and Ors. Vs. The State Bank of India and Ors. Writ Petition No. 11833 (W) of 2013 judgment dated 27.6.13 wherein, it is held as under:
"The petitioners will also be entitled to costs assessed at 3000 GM from the respondent bank for its inappropriate appreciation of the seriousness of the procedure required to be adopted under the master circular and its tardy conduct in not communicating its decision to the petitioners, particularly as the bank in this case is no less than the State Bank of India."
(B) IV (2007) CPJ 159 (NC): Anant Prasad Jain vs. Standard Chartered bank Judgment dated 31.8.07, Wherein it is held as under:
"2. 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 M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 8 of 11 9 complaint has been filed claiming, in all, a compensation of Rs. 10 crores for mental agony, harassment.
6.1 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.
9. 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.
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 Removal of defaulter status from the record of CIBIL. Complainant has produced master circular of 2007 RBI/2007- 2008/32 being circular No. DBOD.FSD.BC.17/24.01.011/2007-08.
In this circular it is stated that all the credit card issuing banks/NBFCs should adhere to these guidelines strictly. It is also stated in para 6.2 as under:
"b. In case of providing information relating to credit history / repayment record of the card holder to a credit information company (specifically authorized by RBI), the bank/NBFC may explicitly bring to the notice of the customer that such information is being provided in terms of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.
c. Before reporting default status of a credit card holder to the Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd. (CIBIL) or any other credit information Company authorized by RBI, banks/NBFCs should ensure that they adhere to a procedure, duly approved by their Board, including issuing of sufficient notice to such card holder about the intention to report him/ her as defaulter to the Credit M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 9 of 11 10 Information Company. The procedure should also cover the notice period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter. Banks /NBFCs should be particularly careful in the case of cards where there are pending disputes. The disclosure/ release of information, particularly about the default, should be made only after the dispute is settled as far as possible. In all cases, a well laid down procedure should be transparently followed. These procedures should also be transparently made known as part of MITCs."
12.1 It is also submitted that para 7 of the circular redressal of the grievances are not attended by the opponent and on perusing the record it appears that the action taken by the opponent bank for default status of the complainant in respect of both the credit cards is without offering any opportunity and redressal of grievances procedure is not adopted by the opponent therefore, it is required to be quash and set aside
13. In view of the above documentary evidence on record, it is proved that the opponent have made illegal efforts by sending unauthorized person to recover the amount from the complainant. That the claimant suffered mental torture due to illegal procedure adopted by the opponent. The said illegal action can be said to be deficiency of service rendered by the opponent. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for the compensation.
14. Considering the contents of the complaint, documentary evidence on record, arguments advanced by the ld. Advocate for the complainant, ratio laid down in the above referred judgments, we are of the view that the complainant has made out his case for compensation and opponent have shows deficiency in service. Therefore, complaint is require to be allowed. Hence, following final order is passed.
M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 10 of 11 11ORDER
(i) The complaint No. 24 of 2014 is partly allowed.
(ii) The default status of the complainant from the record of CIBIL as the instance of opponent in respect of both the credit cards being credit card nos. 5543 7480 9000 9306 and 4129 0380 9001 9215 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Opponent is ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) to the complainant as compensation with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the complaint till its realization.
(iv) Opponent is ordered to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) to the complainant as costs of the complaint and shall bear its own costs if any.
(v) Opponent shall comply with this order within 60 days from the date of this order, on failing the complainant will be entitled addition cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only).
(vi) Copy of the judgment and order be provided to the parties free of costs.
Pronounced in the open Court today on 29th January, 2021.
[U. P. Jani] [Mr. V. P. Patel]
Member President
M. B. Desai CC-14-24 Page 11 of 11