State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Ajesh Kumar Tandon vs Citi Bank on 28 January, 2020
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.288 of 2019
Date of Institution : 21.05.2019
Reserved on : 09.01.2020
Date of Decision : 28.01.2020
Ajesh Kumar Tandon S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash Tandon,
resident of 1427, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar City,
Punjab-144022.
.....Appellant/complainant
Versus
1. Citi Bank N.A., through its Manager at the office situated
at Mail Room No.2, Club House Road, Chennai-600002.
2. Citi Bank N.A., through its Branch Manager at the office
situated at 36, G.T. Road, Gobind Niwas, Jalandhar City,
Punjab.
3. Vikas Kalra, Branch Manager, Citi Bank, 36, G.T. Road,
Gobind Niwas, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144001.
.....Respondents/opposite parties
First Appeal against order dated
10.04.2019 passed by the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal
Forum, Jalandhar.
Quorum:-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal, President
Mr. Rajinder Kumar Goyal, Member
Ms. Kiran Sibal, Member Present:-
For the appellant : Sh. Krishan Singla, Advocate For the respondents : Sh. Sorabh Sharma, Advocate ............................................ Kiran Sibal, Member:
This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 10.04.2019 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar (in short, "the District Forum"), whereby the complaint filed by First Appeal no.288 of 2019 2 appellant/complainant, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, was dismissed.
2. It would be apposite to mention that hereinafter the parties will be referred, as have been arrayed before the District Forum.
Facts of the Complaint
3. Brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that complainant has been availing the Credit Card facility of OPs- Bank nearly for the last about 18 years by making the payment of the invoices (outstanding amount) regularly generated by OPs-Bank. The complainant never on defaulted any payment of the invoices. For not delivering the invoices for various months to the complainant, he made representation to OPs, who rendered their apologies for the inconvenience caused to him and assured that there would be no such problem in future, but they failed to keep their promise and made repeatedly defaulted. Feeling aggrieved, the complainant opted for the delivery of the invoices through registered post. The OPs marked the same in their record and assured him that the invoices would be delivered in time by the registered post only at his mailing address, but to no effect. It was further averred that he purchased three mobile handsets and made the payment through the said card. He got astonished to perceive from the bills that 2% extra charges were levied. He approached OPs and informed them regarding the said unfair First Appeal no.288 of 2019 3 charges levied by the vendor and requested for refund of the same to him and to take a strict action against the vendor. OPs failed to do so and gave a false and frivolous reply. The complainant visited the OPs-Bank many times and also sent reminders, but to no effect. As per the guidelines issued by the RBI, the OPs are under the obligation to dispatch the bills well in time so as to deliver the bill/statement, promptly before the date of payment and also to give the customer the sufficient time to examine the bills and to make the payment, but the OPs have failed to deliver the statements with regard to the above said card. Aggrieved by the delayed dispatch of the statements, he again approached OPs, who informed him that the statement for the period of June 2015 has already been sent through registered post on 25.06.2015. The complainant went to the post office as per directions of the OPs for enquiring the status of the said letter. He came to know that letter was posted on 08.07.2015 i.e. on due date for the payment and the same was delivered to him on 13.07.2015 i.e. after the due date for the payment. The OPs intentionally provided the wrong information, which amounts to deficiency in services. New Branch Manager Mr. Vikas Kalra of OP-Bank had joined at Jalandhar, who adopted a vindictive stance towards the customers. The complainant approached him for redressal of his grievances, but to no effect. He did not receive the statement for the period of August 2015. He approached OP no.2 on 07.09.2015 First Appeal no.288 of 2019 4 in this regard, but staff misbehaved with him and used derogatory language and made him to wait for long time. He moved a complaint in this regard to the OP no.2, but the OPs took no action. The OPs had issued letter dated 16.09.2015 received on 30.09.2015, levelling false allegations on the complainant and gave a notice to close the card unilaterally. The card earlier issued by the OPs to the complainant beared the photo of the card holder, but the current card so issued was having his unclear photograph. The complainant also made complaint in this regard and also supplied two photographs to OPs, but to no effect. He alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for acceptance of complaint by directing OPs as follows:
(i) not to deactivate/close the credit card of the complainant and further to supply the statement/bills immediately after the bill period and to deliver the bill prior to the last date of payment;
(ii) to refund the charges levied by the vendor and directing the OP to initiate legal action against the vendor;
(iii) to pay Rs.4,95,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum;
and
(iv) to pay cost of proceedings.
Defence of the Opposite Parties
4. Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply.
OPs contested the complaint raising certain preliminary objections that the relief claimed by the complainant by way of First Appeal no.288 of 2019 5 present complaint has become infructous because the credit card of the complainant has already been deactivated on 20.10.2015 prior to filing of the instant complaint by giving prior intimation to him in this regard, vide letter dated 16.09.2015. Even after closing/deactivating the credit card again intimation was sent to him, vide letter dated 27.10.2015 and thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. No cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant against the OPs. OP Bank regularly provided the monthly statement of account to the complainant through post. The statement of account was sent to the complainant on his mailing address, through registered post on his request. The credit card relationship with the complainant is governed by the terms of the card member agreement between the parties. As per clause 15.2(a) of the same, the complainant is liable to make payment towards the total outstanding on his credit card account even in the event that he has not received the monthly statement of account. It is the sole discretion of the bank to deactivate services of credit card, as and when it deems appropriate, as per clause 26 of the card member agreement. The present complaint has been filed with an intention to harass the OPs and is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act. It was also submitted that despite best efforts to understand and resolve the concerns of the complainant he had engaged in attributing to false statement, offensive language, First Appeal no.288 of 2019 6 expression and tone aimed towards employees of the bank. This was one of the main reason for discontinuing the credit card service due to his misbehaviour and use of derogatory language with the staff and officials of the bank. The complainant was charged fees by other bank (POS), which is not managed by Citi Bank. The complaint was contested by OPs even on merits. The OPs admitted that the complainant was availing the services of Credit Card facility from the OP, but it was denied that there was any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. It was further submitted that the complainant has given no basis for claim a sum of Rs.4,80,000/- towards compensation. The OPs controverted the other averments of complaint regarding deficiency in service and unfair trade and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Evidence of the parties and finding of the District Forum
5. In support of his case, complainant tendered in evidence tendered in evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and then again tendered documents Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-42.
6. In rebuttal, OPs tendered in evidence tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaspreet Singh as Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/7.
7. The District Forum, after going through the record and hearing learned counsel on their behalf, dismissed the complaint, vide impugned order. Hence, this appeal. First Appeal no.288 of 2019 7 Contentions of the Parties
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case.
9. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that the District Forum failed to appreciate the material facts of the case and wrongly held that the dispute is only between vendor/mechant-complainant and OP bank has nothing to do with the said transaction, whereas in such kind of transactions, the customer-vendor-merchant-credit card bank has interest directly. The District Forum wrongly observed that as per guidelines 15.2(a) non-supply of statement or late supplying of statement will not give any concession to the complainant for depositing of the charges and as per guidelines 26.1 of this card member terms and conditions, the card of the member can be closed at any time. Whereas the said terms and conditions were not supplied to complainant at the time of issuance of the credit- card, as such the OPs cannot take advantage of the same. The District Forum failed to appreciate Ex.C-16, issued by RBI, which is an authority that regulates the banking and the circular issued by the RBI supersede any terms and conditions of the bank. As per this guidelines of RBI, respondents/OPs are duty bound to dispatch the statements/bills before 15 days from the due date of the bills. The District Forum committed grave error while setting aside the plea of complainant with regard to apparent photo on the card due to which complainant met with First Appeal no.288 of 2019 8 harassment at the time of using it. The District Forum wrongly held that the complaint was filed on 28.10.2015 and last transaction made by complainant was prior to filing of complaint. Vide letter dated 16.09.2015, he was given one month time for the closure of the card, which ended on 16.10.2015, hence his card was closed before filing of the complaint. Through letter dated 27.10.2015, the appellant/complainant was intimated that his card has been closed on account of his bad behavior with the bank-staff. The counsel for appellant contended that in this regard OPs have not produced on record any evidence. The complainant went to OP bank with a complaint of non-regularization of the statements, but OPs instead of resolving his grievances closed down his credit card by making above referred allegations. Learned counsel for appellant further argued that initially the District Forum ordered the interim relief to complainant directing OPs not to close his card on 30.10.2015. The complainant approached OPs with copy of interim order on 30.10.2015 and handed over the same to representative of the bank, who acknowledged the same and asked him to wait for a while. After discussing the matter with OP bank's legal cell, he came back and destroyed the receiving on the interim order. Thereafter OPs had written a letter in back date i.e. 27.10.2015 with the averments that his card has been closed on 20.10.2015, but on inquiry from post office, complainant came to know that actual First Appeal no.288 of 2019 9 date of dispatch of said letter was 31.10.2015, which was after passing the interim order and as well as date of institution of the complaint. Averring on similar lines as pleaded in the appeal, the counsel prayed for acceptance of the appeal.
10. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents/OPs contended that the District Forum has rightly passed the order on merits. The counsel for respondents strongly contended that complainant used abusive and derogatory language with the bank employees, due to that reasons the OP Bank had given him one month prior notice for closing his credit card. He further argued that there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of the appeal.
Consideration of Contentions
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case.
12. First of all, we would like to deal with the contention raised by the appellant that the OP Bank had failed to issue invoices/monthly statement of credit card to him within time. It has been submitted by the appellant that he was availing the credit card services since 18 years and there was no default in making the payments. The invoices for various months were not delivered to him for which he had made representations to the OPs to dispatch him the bills through registered post, so that he First Appeal no.288 of 2019 10 could verify the same and make the payment accordingly in time, but the OPs failed to do so, due to which he had to face difficulties in arranging the bills against the credit card. To determine this controversy, a reference may be made to clause 5.6.5 of RBI Circular dated 01.07.2014 and the relevant portion is reproduced as under:
"5.6.5. providing monthly statement of accounts
(i) Banks may ensure that they adhere to the monthly periodicity while sending statement of accounts.
(ii) The statements of accounts for current account holders may be sent to the depositors in a staggered manner instead of sending by a target date every month.
The customers may be informed about staggering of the preparation of these statements.
(iii) Further, banks should advise their Inspecting Officers to carry out sample check at the time of internal inspection of branches to verify whether the statements are being despatched in time.
As per the guidelines issued by the RBI, the OPs are under the obligations to dispatch the bill well in time, so as to deliver the bill/statement promptly before the date of payment and also to give the customer, sufficient time to examine the bill and to make the payment, but the OPs had failed to deliver the statements with regard to the above said credit card.
13. It has further been pleaded by the appellant that he had specifically asked the OP bank to deliver the statement First Appeal no.288 of 2019 11 through the registered post. Although it has been submitted by the OP bank that they also gave option to complainant several times to sign up for the statement on E-mail service or to contact 24x7 citiphone banking and get details of balance outstanding, vide Ex.C-3, C-4 and C-33, but the complainant did not wish to avail those services and opted for registered post service instead. During the course of arguments, counsel for respondent bank contended that all the letters/statements were sent to him in time. Upon this, he was asked by this Commission to show the entry in the dispatch register for sending the letters/statements, through registered post to the complainant, but he failed to show us any evidence in this regard before us and there is no evidence on record also. This act and conduct of the OP bank for not supplying the credit card bills/statements to the complainants within time is act of deficient service, for which the complainant had suffered harassment.
14. The appellant has further contended that the District Forum has rejected his plea for refund of 2% extra charges charged by vendor-merchant from complainant on using of credit card of OP-bank for making the payment of the mobile sets. We have perused the order of the District Forum, wherein it has observed as under:-
"the complainant has not brought on the file any documentary evidence that 2% extra charges were levied First Appeal no.288 of 2019 12 on the purchase bill. So, in the absence of any documentary evidence, we cannot accept that there is any unfair trade practice on the part of OP and moreover, charging of excess amount of 2% is not on the part of the OP bank rather such type of deduction of charges may have been agreed between the member bank and the merchant for offering card transaction services, but in the instant complaint, nothing has been proved on the file in regard to excess charges of 2%."
The above finding of the District Forum is reasonable as we are also unable to find any bill issued by vendor to complainant showing the excess payment of 2% charged by vendor from him, except one letter Ex.C-8 written by complainant to OP- bank on 04.11.2013, which is not sufficient evidence to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP-bank. Moreover, the complainant had not impleaded the said vendor as a party in original complaint. In view of the above, the District Forum rightly rejected this contention of complainant.
15. Another grievance of the appellant/complainant at the appeal stage is that card member's terms and conditions had not been supplied to him by OP-bank. To decide this point, we have gone through the record and find that the complainant did not take up this plea before the District Forum with regard to non-receipt of card members' terms and conditions nor has he placed any cogent evidence with this appeal that he protested First Appeal no.288 of 2019 13 this issue with OP-bank before filing the complaint. Moreover, it is his own averment that he has been using the credit card facility of the OP bank for the last over 18 years. As such, it is deemed that he is well aware of the terms and condition of card member due to prolong usage. Hence, this contention of appellant is rejected.
16. The complainant/appellant is aggrieved that the District Forum dismissed the complaint while setting aside the plea of the appellant that his credit card had been closed without any reason though he was paying the bills within time. The counsel for OP bank contended that OP-bank closed the credit card services of complainant under clause 26.1 of the Card Member's terms and conditions, which is reproduced as under:-
"26.1 The privileges of the Credit Card may be withdrawn and the Credit card cancelled by Citibank at any time, including on the occurrence of an Even of Default (in its absolute discretion and without giving notice thereof to the Cardmember or assigning any reason therefore) either temporarily or permanently."
From the perusal of the above clause an inference can be drawn that the card can be cancelled in the event of default of payments, which is not the case of OPs, as there has been no default alleged in making the payments. The OP-bank has First Appeal no.288 of 2019 14 failed to supply any copy of complaint made by staff members of OP-bank to the higher authorities with regard to misbehaviour and using of abusing language by complainant to OPs. The OP- bank has also failed to disclose the name of the employees with whom the complainant misbehaved and used the abusive language in their written reply. Moreover, OP-bank has not filed any affidavit of any of the employee in support of letter dated 16.09.2015 with regard to misbehaviour on the part of complainant and using of abusive language by him. Even notice of misbehaviour with employees of the bank warning the complainant of the consequences was not given. No CCTV footage showing the alleged behaviour has been placed on record, due to which it can be presumed that the entire story of OPs is an afterthought. The allegations are vague and general in nature. Without any cogent evidence in this regard, as discussed above, it is presumed that OP-bank had made false allegations against complainant just to cover the case of complainant under clause-26.1, under the heading 'Closing of Account' of cardmember terms and conditions Ex.OP/6. Some altercations between consumers and services providers always happen on some issues, but it does not mean that services of the consumers be stopped by bank/institutions/traders/supplier, being service provider, without showing any proper justification and proof/evidence or without giving reply to the questions raised by the consumers in their defence. In this case, the OPs First Appeal no.288 of 2019 15 failed to produce on record any cogent evidence against the misbehaviour of complainant, as discussed above. The bank and its officials cannot act in a whimsical and arbitrary manner. The minimum principles of natural justice are required to be followed. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that OP- bank is deficient in service in closing the credit card account of complainant without affording opportunity of hearing and supplying him proper documents in support of allegations made by it against him or without giving the reply of letter of complainant, wherein he denied the allegations.
17. As a corollary of our above discussion, we partly allow the appeal and set aside the order of the District Forum Jalandhar dated 10.04.2019. Resultantly, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed with a direction to OP-bank to make the credit card of complainant operational or issue a new credit card in case the old credit card cannot be activated without any charges within 15 days of receipt of certified copy of this order. The OP-bank is further directed to pay Rs.50,000/- as composite compensation for mental harassment, deficiency in service and litigation expenses to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, failing which, this amount will carry interest @9% per annum from the date of complaint till its realization. The bank will be at liberty to receive the amount from the defaulting official. First Appeal no.288 of 2019 16
18. The appeal could not be decided within the prescribed time due to heavy pendency of cases.
(JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL) PRESIDENT (RAJINDER KUMAR GOYAL) MEMBER (KIRAN SIBAL) MEMBER January 28, 2020.
MM