State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Chamundeshwara Nath Vankina vs 1.Rbl Bank Ltd., on 2 June, 2022
1
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.63 OF 2019
Between:
Chamundeshwara Nath Vankina,
S/o. Late Sri V.V.R. Prasada Rao,
Aged about: 61 years, Occ: Business,
R/o. Villa No: A-78,
Boulder Hills, Beside Infosys,
Gachibowli,
Hyderabad - 500032,
Telangana. Complainant
And
1.RBL Bank Limited, Represented by its Manager Credit Cards Service, RBL Bank Limited, (Formerly: The Ratnakar Bank Ltd.) Cards Operating Centre - COC, JMDMegapolis, Unit No.306-211-3rd Floor, Sohna Road, Sector 48, Gurgaon, Haryana- 122018.
2. The Ratnakar Bank Limited, Rep. by its Branch Manager, D.No.6-3-865, Ground Floor, My Home Jupally, Opp: Green Park, Green Lands, Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016, Telangana. ..Opposite Parties Counsel for the Complainant M/s. Vankina Allu & Parasaram Counsel for the Opposite Parties: Sri M. Srinivas Reddy QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI K.RANGA RAO, MEMBER- (J) HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER (NJ) THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO k****** (Per Hon'ble Smt. R. Rajeshree, Member-Non -Judicial) Order 2
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Scction 17 (1) (a) (G) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties jointly and severally:
A). To grant an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) towards compensation for the complainant's mental agony, pain and the loss of time in attending to the calls and explaining hundreds of times about the non-existence of dues.
B). To grant costs of
this
complaint.
2. The brief facts of the case
are as follows:
The grievance of the
complainant is that he is a credit card user vide A/c. No.5243736000050042 of ABN Amro Bank which was subsequently taken over by Royal Bank of Scotland and again taken over by RBL Bank who is the present Opposite Party and that when he has availed credit card facility his address was A-6, Trendset Ville, Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. But later on he moved to Ville No.A78, Boulder Hills, Besides infosys, Gachibowli, Hyderabad and that he had been paying the credit card bills regularly from time to time without any delay, but he lost his credit card almost all 4 years back and had reported the same to the Opposite Party helpline number who had promptly blocked the said card and that after the said incident he never requested for any renewal of the credit card, nor the opposite party had sent any replacement card to him. Which is usually done by them and as he has never asked for renewal he has terminated his relationship with the Opposite Party Bank. But off late he has becn recciving several phone culls from the tele callers of the Opposite Purty Bunk lemanding payment of rencwal fec, but he Thad paticntly expluined all the tele callers thut, as hc did not receive any replacement card and as he is no longer interested in continuingK with the aclity of credit card he is not bound to pay the renewul fec. But time and again he is being harassed by the telc cullers of the Opposite Party.
The complainant flurther stutes that the Opposite partics are negligent in not muintaining the updated records or tract the phone calls for the customer benefit but kccp calling and harass the customers and thut he is rustrated with such calls which is adversely cllccting his business and he has lost his valuable time in attending such calls and which is not only disturbing but is also elfccting his mental pcacc, he being a high net worth individual receiving such calls is very upsetting, which has gone beyond limits. Vexed by the such attitude of the Opposite Parties he got issued a legal notice on 19.10.2016 to cease and desist from calling and hurassing him and also to stop such calls immediately and demanded a compensationi of Rs.50,00,000/-. For two years i.e., from October-2016 to January- 2019 he did not recçive any calls but again in February, 2019 again he started recciving calls and messuges and on 15.03.2019 he reccived a message from the Opposite Parties that they would proceed legally against him.
Being vexed by such attitude of the Opposite Parties and the harassment meted out by them, having no other alternative he is before this court seeking compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- and COsts The opposite party filed their written version and pleaded
4. that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or o n facts and stated that they were never informed about the change of address of the complainant and that they have never received any information from the Complainant that he has lost his credit card nor had received any request to block the same and they have not even received any request with regard to the discontinuation of the credit card facility and that as per terms and agreement of credit card the complainant has to make a written request to discontinue the credit card facility, until the same is done the card will be active and in the instant case of the complainant as they have not receive any cancellation request the card was in active mode as such he is liable to pay the renewal charges and the credit card account also shows the dues.
5. The Opposite Parties further pleads that, any demand to collect the valid dues doesn't amount to harassment and any calls that were made by the Opposite Parties were only to demand the dues from the complainant and not to harass him the complainant though being high net work individual has to honour the credit card agreement and pay the dues but the complainant is trying to falsely implicit a financial institution and has filed this false complaint and that he is bound to re-pay every single rupee due in the credit card until then the credit card account cannot be closed and since they had a personal threat from the complainant they were compelled to use the social platform mesenger to remind him of his due payments and that none of the messages filed by him disclosed any kind of harassment by the Opposite Parties and that the complainant should have given a formal request to the 5 Opposite Parties for closure of his credit card account but no sucn request is made by the complainant and prior to that he has choosen to approach this court on false and baseless allegations and that the Opposite Parties never harassed the complainant but had only demanded the dues that are payable by the complainant Demanding dues doesn't amounts to harassment as such prays that the complaint be dismissed.
6. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.Al to A5 and on behalf of the Opposite parties filed written version and got marked Ex.B1 to B6 on their behalf.
7. The points that arises for consideration are,
1. Whether the Opposite Parties were deficient/ negligent in their services?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought in the complaint ?
3. To what relief?
3. Point Nos.1 & 2:- The grievance of the complainant is that he had availed the facility of credit card from the Opposite Party Bank, but he lost the said card 4 years back and he had immediately informed the same to opposite party, who in turn blocked the card and that he neither used the credit card nor renewed the same since then, but is repeatedly getting call from the opposite party bank demanding the due amounts on the said card. Which is not only obstructing his work but is also causing stress as such for the harassment meted out by the opposite parties this complaint is filed claiming compensation for the harassment caused by the opposite parties. In support of his case the complainant filed Ex.A1 to A4. 9 On the other hand opposite parties opposed the complaint stating that they never blocked the credit card nor had received any request to cancel the card as such the credit card is in active mode and as there are dues against the said card they have only demanded the due amounts and since the card is in active mode it reilects renewal charges until it is cancelled (as per the terms and conditions) On perusal of Ex.A1 to A4 it is observed that Ex.A1 is the legal notice, Ex.A2 is the Postal track report, Ex.A3 & A4 are Telephonic messages not even a single scrap of paper is filed to prove that the complainant, has received any calls from the opposite parties nor any call record is placed before this commission. Similarly the complainant is silent as to when the credit card facility was availed and when the same was lost nor a proof to show that the said fact was informed to the opposite parties.
10. Moreover in the very beginning of the complaint the complainant had stated that he has changed his address from Banjara Hills, Hyderabad to Gachibowli, Hyderabad in such case the burden is on the complainant to inform his change of address to the Opposite Party in writing, but no such proof is filed by complainant to show that his change of address was intimated to the Opposite parties.
11. The complainant counsel had vehemently argued that due to the repeated calls from the tele callers of the opposite parties, he being a high net worth individual was losing his valuable time and losing his mental peace which was not only eifecting his business but also caused lot of mental stress. But we fail to understand as 1 to what restricted the complainant in addressing a mail or letter to the higher authorities or the grievance cell of the opposite parues rather than patiently answering the tele callers and the strange thing is the complainant had taken pain to address a legal notice rather than a request to cancel the credit card. The complainant has an obligation to inform the Opposite Party that he does not need the credit card facility but he failed to do so by any written communication.
12. And Ex.A3 tract report of legal notice does not disclose a s to whom the said notice was addressed as the same is not accompanied with any postal slip to conclude that the same was delivered to the opposite parties and when the opposite parties have denied the receipt of any legal notice the burden is on the complainant to prove that the same was properly served on the opposite parties with an acknowledgment.
13. Similarly the Telephonic Messages under Ex.A4 do not disclose the year in which the same were exchanged. Rather than approaching the Opposite Party with a request to cancel the credit card facilities the complainant had knocked the doors .of this Commission. It is not the case of the complainant that he had addressed several letters, or mails to opposite party to cancel the Credit Card but opposite party failed to do so. Mere informing the tele-callers will not suffice and same is also not proved. In the absence of any proof to show that the complainant had received any phone calls or mails from the opposite party's.
Opposite parties cannot be made liable on mere statements the complainant had failed to substantiate his contention with sufficient proofs as such no liability can be fastened upon the opposite parties on mere statements. The complainant had utterly failed to prove his case. As such the points are answered against the complainant.
14. Point No. 3 :- In the result, the complaint is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.