State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
S. Kasinathan S/O. Sivasamy No.C/502, ... vs The Branch Manager K.K.W. Associates ... on 17 June, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE : Honble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru A.K. ANNAMALAI, M.A.B.L., M.Phill JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt. VASUGI RAMANAN MEMBER II F.A.NO.69/2009 (Against order in CC.NO.167/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Trichy) DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE 2011 S. Kasinathan S/o.
Sivasamy No.C/502, 9th Cross Street Dheeran Nagar, Karumandapam (P.O) Trichy-
620 009 Appellant/ Complainant Vs.
1. The Branch Manager K.K.W. Associates Collection Agency of HDFC Bank Ltd., (Credit Card Division) No.22, S.V.V.Complex 3rd Floor, Shastri Road, Trichy- 620 018
2. The Manager K.K.W. Associates HDFC Bank Ltd., (Credit Cards Section) Post Box No.399, Anna Salai Chennai- 600 002
3. The Cluster Head HDFC Bank Ltd., Prince Kushal Towers, FirstFloor 96, Anna Salai, Chennai- 600 002 Respondents/Opposite parties The Appellant as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to issue the cash receipt for RS.35,000/-, alongwith compensation of Rs.50000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.12.1.2009 in OP.No.167/2008.
This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 01.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsels on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:
Counsel for the Appellant/ Complainant : M/s. V. Srinivasan 1 & 2 Respondents/ 1 & 2 Opposite parties:
Called absent Counsel for the 3rd Respondents/3rd Opposite party : M/s. S. Vidhya M. THANIKACHALAM J, PRESIDENT
1. The complainant having failed before the District Forum, complaining deficiency, has come before this commission, as appellant, claiming same relief.
2. The complainant/ appellant, was having a credit card, issued by the 2nd opposite party from 25.10.2005, and the card No.4346772000681543. As per the demands, the complainant was paying the dues, by way of cheques, through ICICI Bank. But, the opposite parties have not credited the amount in time, crediting belatedly, claimed penal interest, and other charges, which was questioned on several occasions, for which there was no reply. Finally, the 2nd opposite party sent a legal notice on 3.6.2008, claiming a sum of Rs.59,834/-,as if the complainant is liable to, which was negotiated and settled at Rs.35000/-, which amount was paid by the complainant. The opposite party had not issued the receipt, for the above said payment, for which a legal notice was issued, and the deficiency committed by the opposite party, not rectified, even then, thereby compelling the complainant to come before the consumer forum, seeking direction, as well as compensation.
3. The opposite parties, admitting that the complainant was a credit card holder, resisted the case, contending that the complainant was a chronic defaulter in the payment of the dues, that giving a cheque do not mean that payment was made forthwith, unless it is realized or otherwise agreed, that if the cheque given is not being encashed on or before the due date, late payment charges will be imposed, that had happened in this case, which cannot be termed as negligent act, or deficiency in service, that there was no negotiation or collection of any amount, as claimed by the complainant, and as such since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. The District Forum, considering the payments made by the complainant, even as admitted by him, came to the conclusion, that there was delayed payment, and the complainant failed to prove that he discharged the amount payable for the credit card, and in this view, since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency, the complainant is not entitled to any relief, thereby dismissed the complaint, without cost, as per the order dt.12.1.2009, which is sought to be set aside, seeking the relief as prayed for in the complaint.
5. The complainant availed the credit card facility, from the 2nd opposite party bank, and the credit card No. was 4346772000681543. As per the agreement between the parties, as per the demand, amount should be paid on or before the date mentioned for the payment, in the statement of account. The complainant accusing the opposite parties, though he had issued cheques in time, were not credited in time, and that should be construed as deficiency, for that he is not liable to pay penal charge, or anyother charge, as claimed by the opposite parties. Thus giving table in the complaint, further contending that paying a consolidated sum of Rs.35000/-, on the basis of later negotiation, he settled the amount account, closed the credit card account, and despite the opposite parties have not issued receipt, thereby caused mental agony etc., On that basis, no due certificate was sought of,r claiming a compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant, though urged that the opposite parties alone have committed deficiency in service, in not encashing the cheque in time, before the due date, for which the credit card holder cannot be held responsible, as did by the opposite parties, which should be construed as deficiency, which is opposed. By going through the statement of accounts, as well the payment made by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that, as rightly contended on behalf of the opposite parties, the complainant was a chronic defaulter, inviting penal charge, and therefore he cannot attribute deficiency, against the opposite parties, who acted as per the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement.
7. Ex.A1 to A9 are the account Statement, pertaining to the credit card of the complainant. In all the account copies, payment due date is given, total due is also given.
As seen from Ex.A1, total due was Rs.13,603.53/-, and the payment due date was 25.1.2007, for which even as per the note made by the complainant in this document, he issued a cheque on 24.1.2007, just one day prior to the due date, only for RS.700/-. Similarly, the last date for payment under Ex.A2 was 25.2.2007, and amount payable was Rs.15,899.01, whereas the complainant has paid only Rs.800/- on 22.3.2007. Thus it is seen more or less, just prior to the due date, cheques were issued, that too not to the entire amount, thereby, allowing the balance to remain and enhance periodically, which reached the stage of RS.50,261/- as per the demand dt.5.2.2008. Therefore, a chronic defaulter is not entitled to accuse the opposite parties, as if they have committed deficiency.
8. An attempt was made to say, that there was negotiation and the complainant paid a sum of RS.35000/-, in full quit of the claim, for which receipt was not given. As rightly held by the District Forum, it is highly unbelievable, for the amount due, when the opposite parties were issuing demand notices, prescribing the dates, and therefore the complainant who was paying the amount throughout, by way of cheque, if at all should have paid the amount, so if there was a settlement by way of a cheque, or if cash had been paid, should have obtained receipt, for which we do not have any materials. The District Forum, considering the fact, that as per the demand, the complainant has not paid the amount, as well as he has also failed to prove the settlement, as well as payment of Rs.35000/-, has reached a just and correct conclusion, that the complainant failed to prove the case, and therefore question of compensation also does not arise, be it Rs.5 lakhs or Rs.5/-, as the case may be. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits, vexatious, and liable to be dismissed with cost.
9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with cost of Rs.2000/-, confirming the order of the District Forum in CC.No.167/2008 dt.12.1.2009.
VASUGI RAMANAN A.K.ANNAMALAI M. THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT INDEX : YES / NO Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/bank