State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Shailendra Asthana vs Sbi, Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. on 23 February, 2024
First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024
67 of 2019 Versus
SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 01.03.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 09.02.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 23.02.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 67 / 2019
Sh. Shailendra Asthana aged about 73 years S/o late N.P. Asthana
R/o 9, Matawala Bagh Colony, Lakshman Chowk
Dehradun, currently residing at
43, Star Homes, Rohit Nagar, Bawadiyakalan
Bhopal - 426039
(Through: Sh. Shashank Asthana, Advocate)
...... Appellant
Versus
1. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.
DLF Infinity Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2
Building 3, DLF Cyber City
Gurgaon - 122002, Haryana
(Through: Sh. Mohd. Aslam, Advocate)
2. State Bank of India
Rajpur Road Branch
Dehradun through its Branch Manager
(Through: Sh. Ashish Chakravarty, Advocate)
...... Respondents
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, Judicial Member II):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Dehradun (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 89 of 2016, styled as Sh. Shailendra Asthana Vs. SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., whereby the consumer complaint was allowed, directing the respondent 1 First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 to pay sum of Rs. 2,997.57/- to the appellant / complainant together with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. December, 2008, besides to pay Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 3,000/-
towards litigation expenses. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 was also directed to unblock the credit card of the appellant / complainant. It was further directed that the aforesaid amount be paid within a period of 30 days', failing which the appellant / complainant shall also be entitled to interest @9% p.a. on the aforesaid sum from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, relevant for the disposal of the present appeal, are that the appellant / complainant is having a Savings Bank Account No. 30097477476 with respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 - State Bank of India, Rajpur Road Branch, Dehradun. In the year 2007, the complainant intended to have a credit card. After completing requisite formalities, credit card No. 5264685324390309 was issued to the complainant, billing cycle of which, commenced from November, 2007. The complainant received a bill dated 23.04.2008 for Rs. 3,504.92/-, wherein the due date of payment was mentioned as 13.05.2008. The complainant made the payment of the aforesaid bill through cheque dated 06.05.2008. However, the next bill dated 23.05.2008 wrongly included charges of Rs. 488.07/- under various heads were shown. In order to rectify the mistake, the complainant immediately contacted credit card desk in the branch, where he was directed to contact the concerned authorities on telephone, which he did and stated that there was no delay in payment of the previous bill. The complainant was assured of quick action on his complaint, but the corrected bill was not received by him. After waiting till 15.06.2008, the complainant made payment of actual expenses incurred by him amounting to Rs. 671.88/- on 16.06.2008 by way of cheque.
2First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another
3. It was also stated that the next bill dated 23.06.2008 showed receipt of Rs. 3,504.92/- on 11.06.2008, which was more than a month later than the actual date of payment. There were additional levies and certain illegal demand was also made. The process of sending incorrect bills by respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 continued for further two months'. Through letter dated 24.11.2008, the complainant was informed that his credit card has been blocked by the issuing authority due to non-payment of alleged dues. Certain correspondence was made with opposite party No. 1, but to no avail. During scrutiny of the earlier bills, the complainant gathered that on 27.11.2007, his credit card was debited by Rs. 49.44/- towards insurance premium, which was an illegal act on the part of opposite party No. 1. On objection by the complainant, the aforesaid amount was credited to his credit card account in January, 2009, but the same was never refunded to him. In December, 2008, sum of Rs. 2,948.13/- was credited to complainant's credit card account by the Railways towards refund of cancelled tickets, but the said amount was illegally appropriated by opposite party No. 1 towards alleged penalties. Since then, an amount of Rs. 2,997.57/- of the complainant has been illegally withheld / retained by opposite party No. 1. The complainant received a letter dated 23.06.2009, wherein demand of Rs. 4,093.67/- was made from him. Through letter dated 20.02.2014, the opposite party No. 1 offered to settle the due on one time payment of Rs. 3,630/-. Inspite of taking up the matter with opposite party No. 1, no suitable action was taken at their end. In February, 2016, Canara Bank, T.T. Nagar Branch, Bhopal refused to grant loan to a company, wherein complainant is a Director, on account of complainant's low CIBIL rating because the opposite party has wrongly classified the complainant as a defaulter. Thus, with the above allegations, consumer complaint was filed by the complainant before 3 First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another the District Commission, claiming the relief, as mentioned in the prayer clause of the consumer complaint.
4. The respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that as per record, in the month of April, 2008, the complainant had purchased items worth Rs. 3,504.92/-, which amount was not paid by him till due date. In May, 2008, the complainant made purchase of items costing Rs. 671.88/- and against the due amount of Rs. 4,712.87/-, made part payment of Rs. 4,176.80/-, hence charges were levied in his account. The complainant was given offer for settlement of the dispute.
5. The respondent No. 2 / opposite party No. 2 (bank) appeared before the District Commission and vide order dated 03.03.2017 passed by the District Commission, the bank was exonerated / absolved from any liability.
6. After hearing the parties and taking into consideration the material available on record, the consumer complaint was allowed by the District Commission vide impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2019 in the above terms. Feeling dissatisfied with the relief awarded by the District Commission, the complainant has come up in this appeal as appellant, seeking enhancement of compensation.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record available before us. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that nothing has come on record to show the respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 has preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2019. Thus, finality has been attached to the impugned judgment and order dated 31.01.2019. Therefore, in the 4 First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another instant appeal, we have only to see whether there is any scope for enhancement of compensation or not.
8. A perusal of the consumer complaint shows that by prayer No. (a), the complainant sought refund of Rs. 2,997.57/-, which was illegally retained by opposite party No. 1 together with monthly compounding interest @3.35% per month. The District Commission has awarded the amount of Rs. 2,997.57/- in favour of the complainant together with interest @6% p.a. w.e.f. December, 2008, which can not be faulted with and the interest awarded by the District Commission is perfectly justified. There is no question of awarding monthly compounding interest and only simple interest can be granted, which has already been done.
9. In addition to above, it is well settled that compensation awarded should commensurate to the actual loss suffered / sustained. As is stated above, the main claim of the complainant was for refund of Rs. 2,997.57/-, which was awarded in his favour along with interest. For illegally withholding the said amount, the District Commission has awarded Rs. 15,000/- towards mental agony, which is quite reasonable and does not warrant any enhancement. The District Commission has also granted litigation expenses of Rs. 3,000/- and further directed that the complainant's credit card be unblocked. Thus, it can safely be said that the District Commission has properly considered each and every aspect of the matter and awarded the relief to the complainant, taking into consideration the actual loss suffered by him / actual claim of the complainant.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has cited the following case laws:
5First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another
(i) Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta;
1994 AIR 787 = 1994 SCC (1) 243.
(ii) Judgment dated 29.09.2003 passed by Hon'ble National Commission in Revision Petition No. 604 of 2003; Chandrakant Mahadev Kadam Vs. Asstt.
Engineer, MSEB, Atpadi and others.
(iii) Judgment dated 10.10.2019 passed by Goa State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panaji - Goa in F.A. No. 39 of 2018; Dr. Fernando Aluisio Das Angustias Fernandes and another Vs. Delta Airlines and another & F.A. No. 05 of 2019; Air France Vs. Dr. Fernando Aluision Das Angustia and others.
11. We have gone through the above cited case laws. In the case of Lucknow Development Authority (supra), it was held that when the Commission has been vested with the jurisdiction to award value of goods or services and compensation, it has to be construed widely, enabling the Commission to determine compensation for any loss or damage suffered by a consumer. There can not be any dispute with regard to the above law. In the case in hand, the District Commission has adequately compensated the complainant. In the case of Chandrakant Mahadev Kadam (supra), the electricity connection of the complainant was disconnected, which was restored after 65 days'. It is to be noted that electricity is an essential commodity for livelihood and one can not live peacefully without electricity. There is no such eventuality in the present case. In the case of Dr. Fernando Aluisio Das Angustias Fernandes and another (supra), the baggage of the complainants went missing and one bag was received on 24.09.2017 and other on 26.09.2017 at Goa Airport. The facts of the said case were totally different from those of the present case. Thus, the net result is 6 First Appeal No. Sh. Shailendra Asthana 23.02.2024 67 of 2019 Versus SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. and another that no benefit can be extended to the appellant / complainant of the case laws cited on his behalf by learned counsel.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by learned District Commission and we are of the considered opinion that there is no scope for any enhancement in compensation. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. However, the respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1, having admitted its unfair trade practice, should upgrade the CIBIL rating of the appellant / complainant.
13. Appeal is dismissed. However, the respondent No. 1 / opposite party No. 1 is directed to upgrade the CIBIL rating of the appellant / complainant. No order as to costs of the appeal.
14. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
15. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) Judicial Member II (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 23.02.2024 7