State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Standard Chartered Bank vs Kulwinder Kaur on 7 February, 2014
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, DAKSHIN MARG, SECTOR 37-A, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No. 1536 of 2009
Date of institution : 29.10.2009
Date of decision : 07.02.2014
Standard Chartered Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through
its Manager.
.......Appellant- Opposite Party
Versus
Kulwinder Kaur wife of Shri Amarjit Singh, resident of B-2, Nobal
Enclave, Bala Chowk, Opposite Park Plaza, Ludhiana.
......Respondent- Complainant
First Appeal against the order dated
8.9.2009 of the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Ludhiana.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gurdev Singh, President.
Shri Baldev Singh Sekhon, Member.
Mrs. Surinder Pal Kaur, Member.
Present:-
For the appellant : Shri Satish Chaudhary, Advocate. For the respondent: Shri Sunil Chadha, Advocate. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH, PRESIDENT :
The appellant/opposite party has preferred this appeal against the order dated 8.9.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, "District Forum"), vide which the complaint filed by the respondent/complainant, Mrs. Kulwinder Kaur, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was allowed and the opposite party was directed to restore the entire amount withdrawn by it from the savings account of the complainant to meet out the premium qua Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies and First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 2 Platinum Repayment Cover Insurance within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of the order and to make available to her the statement of account pertaining to that savings bank account to show that it had complied with the order by restoring and crediting the amount to her account. It also directed the opposite party to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.2,000/-.
2. As per the averments, made in the complaint, the complainant was holder of savings bank account No.703-1-06701-5 in the opposite party-Bank. She never applied for any credit card nor for any Platinum Repayment Cover Policy nor made any request for Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy. Without any instructions from her side and on its own the opposite party debited the amount of expenses of all these facilities in her account and thereby misappropriated the amount lying therein. She requested for the supply of the statement of account but the same was never supplied. Similarly the requests made by her for correction of the amount after adding the amount of all these unlawful deductions were also not complied with. To a number of letters written by her to various authorities of this Bank only one letter dated 3.7.2008 was received from Chennai in which it was mentioned that the Bank had issued the credit card, registered the Platinum Repayment Cover Policy and she had taken Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy. Even after the receipt of that letter she had made a number of requests to make payments regarding the wrong deductions made from her account but to no effect. This act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and negligence on its part for which she is First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 3 entitled to a compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the harassment, mental torture and agony suffered by her and Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses. She prayed for the issuance of directions accordingly to the opposite party.
3. The complaint was contested by the opposite party, which filed a detailed written reply before the District Forum. It admitted that the complainant is holding the above said savings account in the Bank and that the deductions were made therefrom on account of the Platinum Repayment Cover Policy and Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy. While denying the other averments made in the complaint, it pleaded that this account was opened by the complainant on 20.10.2004 on the basis of the application moved by her. She was issued Gold Credit Card bearing No.5543 7598 8009 3962 in her name in the month of September 2005. No unlawful deduction was ever made from her account and all the deductions regarding the insurance policies and the credit card were made legally with her consent. No such letter, as mentioned in the complaint, was ever received by it. Only one letter dated 7.6.2008 was received from her side in which she disputed the Platinum Repayment Insurance Coverage. Before that she never raised any objection regarding that insurance coverage though at the footnote of the statement of account, it was mentioned that the Card Member could approach the Bank within 21 days of the statement date seeking clarification as to the entries reflected therein. The accounts statement of the credit card is being generated on 7th of every month and is forwarded at the mailing address of the Card Member immediately on generation. First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 4 Similarly account statement of savings account is also generated at the end of every month and is sent to the account holder within 7 days. The complainant had given specific consent for the Platinum Repayment Cover Policy on 19.1.2007 after she was duly informed about the features thereof and on her due request, her husband Amarjeet Singh was made the nominee with respect to the said policy and the credit card. On 14.9.2007 she gave specific consent for Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies No.HE-00117303000100 and CE00038759000100 after she was duly informed about the features of those policies. Those policies were duly sent to her at her address. The entries reflecting the same in the statement of account were well within her knowledge and she never raised any objection regarding the non-receipt of the statement of the account. Every act was done by it legally and as per the norms of the Bank. There was no deficiency in service on its part. The allegations raised by the complainant are false and frivolous. She has no locus-standi to file this complaint and the same has been filed by suppressing the material facts. The District Forum has no jurisdiction to try and decide the complaint as the complainant does not come within the category of 'consumer'. She has no cause of action. It prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with special costs; being false and frivolous.
4. Both the parties produced evidence in support of their respective averments before the District Forum, which after going through the same and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, allowed the complaint, vide aforesaid order.
First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 5
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and have carefully gone through the records of the case.
6. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party that the District Forum while recording the findings in favour of the complainant totally ignored the evidence produced by the opposite party for proving that the complainant herself had applied for the issuance of the Credit Card by submitting application Ex.R-1 and had been giving instructions on the telephone for the issuance of the Insurance Cover and the Policies mentioned in the complaint and that conversation was duly recorded on the C.D., which was proved on the record as Ex.R-2. From that evidence, it stands proved that she had given her consent for the issuance of the insurance cover and the insurance policies mentioned in the complaint and the deductions in respect thereof were correctly made by virtue of the use of the credit card, from her savings bank account. The insurance policies were sent to her at her residential address and she never came forward to get the same cancelled during free-look period. That itself shows that she obtained those policies with her consent. The District Forum committed an illegality while ignoring all these facts and evidence and recording a finding in favour of the complainant.
7. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the evidence produced before the District Forum by the parties was duly considered by the District Forum and it came to correct conclusion that it was the evidence produced by the complainant, which was more reliable and accordingly recorded First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 6 the findings in her favour. Even if such a credit card was issued, the complainant had been making requests to the opposite party to cancel the same by writing her letters, which were duly proved on the record and have been admitted by the opposite party. Thereafter no such deductions could have been made from her savings account on the basis of that credit card. There is no ground to set aside the well reasoned order of the District Forum.
8. The evidence produced by the complainant herself negatives her plea that she never applied for the credit card and that such a credit card was never issued to her. No doubt, she deposed about the facts, as stated in the complaint, in her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A but at the same time proved on record letter dated 7.6.2008 Ex.C1/Ex.C12. The receipt of that letter has been admitted by the opposite parties in their written reply. She never mentioned in that letter that she never applied for the credit card but mentioned therein that she had not used the same and made a prayer to get the charges cancelled and her account be corrected accordingly. The opposite party proved on record the Application Form Ex.R-1 submitted by the complainant for obtaining that credit card. The same bears her signature. From all this evidence, it stands proved that she applied for the credit card and the same was duly issued to her.
9. The next question arises for decision is as to whether she had been using this credit card and had given her consent to the opposite party for deducting of the amounts on the basis of this credit card in respect of the Platinum Repayment Cover Policy and to Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies detailed in the written reply of First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 7 the opposite party. In her affidavit Ex.CW-1/A she specifically deposed that she never applied for the Platinum Repayment Cover Policy nor made any request for Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies and the opposite party without her instructions and on its own debited the amount of the expenses of those facilities from her account and misappropriated the amounts. The deposition as made in her affidavit was duly rebutted by the deposition of Amandip Singh Walia made in his affidavit Ex.RW-1/A. The opposite party also tried to rely upon the conversation as contained in the C.D. proved on the record as Ex.R-2. That evidence was correctly discarded by the District Forum on the ground that the transcript of the conversation as contained in the CD was never proved on the record and that there was no proof that the conversation recorded therein actually took place between the complainant and the officials of the opposite party. Merely on the basis of the production of the C.D., it cannot be held that the complainant had given her consent for the payment of the amounts in respect of the above said insurance coverage and insurance policies from her account. The finding on the basis of the conversation contained in the CD could have been recorded only if the opposite party had not only placed on the record the transcript of that conversation but also has produced evidence to the effect that the conversation contained therein was in the voice of the complainant and that she had conversation with the officials of the Bank. This could have been done only after sending the sample voice of the complainant to some expert, who could have come forward with the report that the voice as contained in the First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 8 conversation forming part of the CD resembles with that specimen voice. In the absence of that evidence, this CD Ex.R-2 is a waste piece of evidence and the opposite party cannot make any use thereof.
10. It is to be seen whether from the other evidence produced on the record it can be inferred that the consent as alleged in the written reply by the opposite party was duly given by the complainant for the Platinum Insurance Cover Policy and the Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies. It cannot be said that the conduct of the complainant is above board as she came up with the plea in her complaint that she never applied for the credit card but the application for the issuance of that credit card so submitted by her before the Bank was duly proved as Ex.R-1 and she herself stated in her letter Ex.C-1 that the credit card issued in her name was never put to use; which clearly implies that she admitted that such a credit card was issued in her name. That letter was written by her on 7.6.2008, in which she had asked for the cancellation of the credit card. She has not proved on record any letter which was written by her prior to that letter. It is very much clear from the contents of the written reply and the evidence produced by the opposite party that the expenses in respect of the Platinum Insurance Cover Policy and the amount in respect of the two Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies had already been deducted from the account of the complainant before the issuance of that letter dated 7.6.2008. The complainant had the opportunity to produce evidence that she never received the insurance policies as mentioned in the written reply. Before she was First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 9 called upon to produce her evidence, detailed facts had already been disclosed by the opposite party and it had come to her knowledge that according to the opposite party, the insurance policies were sent to her in the month of September 2007 and December 2007. She never deposed in her affidavit that these policies were not received by her and, as such, the evidence produced by the opposite party that these policies were sent to her on the dates mentioned in the written reply has remained unrebutted. From that evidence, it is to be concluded that those insurance policies were received by her in the above said months of 2007. Even after the receipt of those policies, she remained silent and never made any offer to get the same cancelled during free-look period. From all these facts, which have been proved by the opposite party, it can safely be concluded that she had given her consent for the deducting of expenses of those policies from her account on the basis of the credit account.
11. The District Forum by referring to different columns of the Application Form Ex.R-1 came to the conclusion that the complainant never sought the insurance policies. The reasoning given by it in para no.9 of the impugned order is that in the column titled as 'Primary Card (Free for Life)' and 'Multi Card' were struck off and thereafter the words were written thereon N.A. (not applicable); which means that the primary card governing the Gold Policy (free for life) and Accident Protector Plus were not sought by the complainant from the opposite party. It also observed that in the column pertaining to 'Nominate a Beneficiary to your personal First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 10 accident insurance' name of Amarjit Singh, spouse of the applicant, was recorded and the declaration was signed by the complainant but the column of the person, nominating Amarjit Singh as nominee, was left blank and was unfilled; which meant that the complainant never sought for the insurance policies. This is the misinterpretation made by the District Forum. The column 'Multi Card' was struck off and there was no cutting in the primary card column. As per that column, the complainant had applied for the Gold Credit Card, which was free for life. The name of Amarjit Singh was duly mentioned in the nomination column. Merely on account of the omission of the name of the applicant in that column does not mean that she did not intend to nominate him as her nominee. Rather it becomes clear from that nomination column that the complainant intended to purchase the insurance policies for which she wanted to make her husband Amarjit Singh as nominee. The findings recorded by the District Forum by misinterpreting the different columns of this application form are liable to be set aside in view of the findings already recorded by us above; which are supported by the evidence produced on the record.
12. In view of our above discussion, the appeal is hereby accepted and the order of the District Forum is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed.
13. The sum of Rs.6,000/- deposited at the time of filing of the appeal along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the registry to the appellant/opposite party by way of a crossed cheque/demand draft after the expiry of 45 days. First Appeal No.1536 of 2009. 11
14. The arguments in this case were heard on 23.1.2014 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
15. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH) PRESIDENT (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON) MEMBER (MRS. SURINDER PAL KAUR) February 07, 2014 MEMBER Bansal