State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Appala Venkata Naga Durga Srinivas, ... vs Sbi Cards & Payment Service Private ... on 1 July, 2013
A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD FA 622/2012 against CC on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry. Between : Appala Venkata Naga Durga Srinivas, S/o A. V. Krishna Rao, Hindu, aged 43 years, Lecturer, R/o Krishna Nagar Seethammapeta, Rajahmundry Appellant/complainant And 01. The Manager, Payment Assistance Unit, SBI Cards & Payment Service Private Ltd P.O.Box No. 28, G. P.O. New Delhi 110 001. 02. The Manager, State Bank of India, Danavaipet Rajahmundry .. Respondents/opp. Parties Counsel for the Appellant : Mr K. Venkateswarlu. Counsel for the Respondents : R1 and R2 served. Coram ; Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao Honble Member
And Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Honble Member Monday, The first Day of July Two Thousand Thirteen Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Honble Member ) ****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the complainant as against the orders dated 08.05.2012 in CC 82/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that on account of the pressure of the agents of the Ops the complainant applied for SBI Credit Card and received the cover containing the credit card with a DD of Rs.9000/- and he noticed that his name is wrongly noted as VND Sappala instead of Appala Venkata Naga Durga Srinivas and that he approached the OP bank authorities who in turn advised him to return the same for correction. Accordingly on 07.01.2007 he returned the credit card with a request to block it to avoid misuse. The opposite parties informed him that the said credit card was blocked on 14.2.2007. Surprisingly, the agent of the OP approached the complainant and demanded to pay Rs.390/- as settlement amount and the complainant paid the same on 18.7.2007 vide receipt No. 6985091 but the OP issued several letters to the complainant demanding to pay more and more amounts therefore he got issued notice 20.4.2009 and 17.05.2009 to the Ops and received reply from them demanding the amounts then he issued reply dated 11.6.2010 for which he received a demand notice for amount with statement dt. 17.6.2010. the said acts of Ops amounts to deficiency in service and hence the complaint to direct the Ops to refund Rs.390/- and also damages of Rs.25,000/- for mental agony and Rs.5000/- towards costs with interest 224% PA from the date of complaint till realization
3. 2nd opposite party remained exparte whereas the 1st OP filed written version opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
On his own accord due to financial assistance the complainant applied for credit card, it was duly issued and there was no pressure from the agents of the Ops in the said context. The complainant is famously known as Appala Venkata Naga Durga Srinivas whose short form will be one and only VNDS Appala. The complainant did not dispatch the card and the demand pay draft to the Ops by regd. Post on
-7.01.2007. He did not contact the authorities of Ops on phone requesting them to block the card on the ground that it contains wrong name and that the said authorities did not block the card on 14.2.2007. The agent of the OP did not request him to pay Rs.390/- as settlement amount assuring that the card in the wrong name will be closed. No notices were received from the complainant and that the complaint is false and frivolous and as per clause 6 sub clause (a) of the terms and conditions the card holder may end the agreement at any point of time by writing to SBICPSL are calling into the SBI Card helpline and by cutting the card or S diagonally. All the cards including the add on cards will be terminated basing on the written request. The termination will be effective after payment of all amounts outstanding on the card. No annual joining or renewal fee shall be refunded on a pro rata basis. The complainant did not follow the said terms and conditions, the complainant approached the Forum by suppressing the material facts with unclean hands to avoid payment the amount due in that account thus prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. Both sides filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective pleadings and Ex. A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint but without costs.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that the District Forum failed to observe that credit card was issued by the opposite parties in wrong name and thereby committed high degree of deficiency in service and that the Ops did not establish their bonafides and that the District Forum also did not appreciate his case which is based on Ex. A1 to a6 and thus prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.
7. Heard the counsel for the appellant with reference to their respective contentions in detail and no representation on behalf of opposite parties.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?
There is no dispute that the complainant applied for credit card with the OP bank. it is his contention that on account of the pressure of the Ops agent it was so applied but he did not substantiate the same with any dependable evidence. It is common experience that whoever in need of money approaches the financial institutions for issuance of credit cards and depending upon his repayment capacity such cards will be issued. enabling the needy person avail financial assistance. Therefore in the circumstances of the case there is acceptable force in the contention of the Ops that as a needy person the complainant applied for such a credit card. It is true that the name of the complainant is Appala Naga Venkata Durga Srinivas and in abbreviation it designs as VNDS Appala. Merely because the alignment of letter S by the side of letter A without any space, it does not mean that the credit card was issued in wrong name. it is much more so when he did not deny that his surname is Appala. Taking advantage of such small mistake, the complainant designed the present complaint without any force in it. There is no dependable evidence from the side of the complainant that he made a request to the Ops for cancellation of the card as per clause 6 and sub clause (a) of the terms and conditions by cutting the card diagonally. Possibility of his using the card and drawing money by the complainant cannot be over ruled as he was in possession of the card and aware of the PIN NUMBER. The complainant failed to establish that never used the credit card with clinching evidence. Normally the transaction takes place with card number in the account of the complainant and such small mistake in the description of the name does not come in the way of operating the card.
Even though he marked Ex. A1 letter he did not file any acknowledgement to the effect that it was served on the Ops 1 and
2. Ex. A2 and Ex. A3 are legal notices dt. 20.04.2009 and got issued by the complainant to OP.1 and Ex A3 is a reply notice said to have been issued to Pathak and Associates Advocates said to be the counsel for the Ops. There are no acknowledgements to Ex. A2 and A3 but Ex. A4 is a notice issued by counsel for opposite parties to the complainant wherein it is mentioned that at his request credit card facility was given to him that the complainant availed the same and that as per the accounts maintained by the Bank in the ordinary course of business a sum of Rs.27,966.19 was due by the complainant to the Ops and that in spite of demand he failed to pay the same and therefore such a notice was issued to him. Since the complainant himself filed and marked the said notice it is believed and inferred that it was so received by him. Ex. A5 statement of accounts disclose that opening balance that to be paid was Rs.27,966,19 ps and that purchases and other debits Rs.832.85 ps, payments and reversal and other credits 000 and thus total outstanding due was Rs.28,799.04 ps. It was cautioned in the said notice that Account of the complainant is seriously overdue The complainant pleaded that the agent of the Ops collected Rs.390/- on 18.7.2007 under receipt no. 6985091asuring cancellation of the credit card but he did not file any such receipt. He did not examine the alleged agent on his behalf in the said context and therefore the said contention of the complainant is not believed as true. As per banking laws, there is a presumption in favour of the said bank account that it is true and correct and that the complainant did not rebut the said presumption with any convincing means. Therefore the contention of the opposite parties that Rs.28,799.04 ps was due has to be believed as true. It appears that to avoid payment the complainant designed the complaint taking advantage of such a small mistake in the description of his name on the card . The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. There shall be no order as to costs in the Appeal.
MEMBER MEMBER DATED : 01.07.2013.