State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Avtar Singh Of M/S Azad Industries vs Citibank Card Centre on 17 December, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
S.C.O. NO. 3009-10, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.1543 of 2005
Date of institution : 2.12.2005
Date of decision : 17.12.2010
Avtar Singh of M/s Azad Industries, 6440, Street No.3, New Janta Nagar, Near
Gill Market, Behind A.T.I., Ludhiana-141 003.
.......Appellant
Versus
1. Citibank Card Centre, PO Box # 4830, Anna Road, Fort Office, Chennai-
600 002, through its Manager Credit Citibank Cards.
2. Citibank Card Centre, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch
Manager.
......Respondents
First Appeal against the order dated 6.9.2005 of the
District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,
Ludhiana.
Before :-
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.N. Aggarwal President.
Mrs. Amarpreet Sharma, Member.
Mr. B.S. Sekhon, Member.
Present :-
For the appellant : None. For the respondents : None. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT:
The appellant had Citibank Credit Card No.5425 5694 3757 6002 with the credit limit of Rs.49,000/- which was issued by the respondents.
2. It was further pleaded that the appellant had not enrolled himself as a member of Ashok Platinum Card. However the respondents had debited a sum of Rs.5394.10P in the account of the appellant as membership fee of Ashok Platinum Card of M/s Pride Gold. The respondents not only not deleted that entry but also cancelled the credit card of the appellant issued by them. Hence the complaint. First Appeal No.1543 of 2005. 2
3. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellant was issued Citibank Master Card bearing No. 5425 5694 3757 6002 with effect from 1.1.1997 with the credit limit of Rs.49,000/-. It was further pleaded that on the basis of a Transaction Detail received from MasterCard Association, the appellant was charged with an amount of Rs.4,500/- for a charge under Merchant M/s Pride Gold on 6.3.2002 on the basis of charge incurred by the appellant on 1.3.2002. The first representation was made by the appellant on 21.6.2002. The respondents vide letter dated 27.6.2002 had advised the appellant to fill up the Cardmember Declaration Form in order to enable the respondents to take up the dispute on priority with Mastercard and HSBC Bank through whom the Merchant M/s Pride Gold had processed the transaction.
4. It was further pleaded that the dispute could have been raised within a period of 30 days as per the terms and conditions but the form filled by the appellant was received on 9.7.2002 and therefore, it was beyond the cut-off date. The charges above Rs.4,500/- were the service charges and since the appellant was making representations all the time, therefore, the Citibank Credit Card was cancelled. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents. Dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
5. The appellant proved documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-18 and his affidavit as Ex.C-19.
6. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of M.S. Bhatia, Authorised Signatory of the respondents dated 15.12.2003 and also proved documents Ex.RW-1/A to Ex.RW-1/F.
7. Learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 6.9.2005.
8. Hence the appeal.
9. Record has been perused.
First Appeal No.1543 of 2005. 3
10. The admitted facts are that the appellant was holding the Citibank Credit Card No.5425 5694 3757 6002 with the credit limit of Rs.49,000/- with effect from 1.1.1997.
11. Although the appellant alleges that he had not enrolled himself as a Member of the Ashok Platinum Card and that he had not purchased any item against the Citibank Credit Card but the respondents have alleged in the written statement that they had received the Transaction Detail from the Master Card Association for Rs.4,500/- on 6.3.2002 on the basis of charge incurred by the appellant on 1.3.2002. The respondents have proved the agreement between the Master Card Association as Ex.RW-1/D.
12. The respondents have also proved the expenditure statement of Rs.4,500/- received by them against the Citibank Credit Card of the appellant bearing No.5425 5694 3757 6002 issued by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, Mumbai Ex.RW-1/B. If the appellant had not purchased the Ashok Platinum Card of M/s Pride Gold then the Citibank Credit Card number of the appellant would not have been known to a third party and they would not have raised the demand of Rs.4,500/- from the respondents in the account of the appellant.
13. It is, therefore, clearly proved that the appellant had incurred the expenditure of Rs.4,500/- which was debited in his account.
14. However the respondents had debited a sum of Rs.5394.10P while in fact the demand was raised by the third party from the respondents to a sum of Rs.4,500/-. Therefore the respondent had no right to debit more amount than the amount demanded by the third party from the respondents in the account of the appellant. The debiting of an amount of Rs.894.10P, therefore, is totally illegal nor it has been explained as to how the alleged processing charges have been debited.
15. The respondents had also cancelled the Citibank Credit Card of the appellant without giving him any notice. Therefore that is also a deficiency in First Appeal No.1543 of 2005. 4 service committed by the respondents qua the appellant. The appellant is certainly entitled to compensation on this account which is assessed to be Rs.20,000/-.
16. In view of the discussion held above, this appeal is partly accepted with costs of Rs.5,000/-.
17. The respondents are directed to reverse the entry of Rs.894.10P (rounded to Rs.894/-) and make the payment of the amount of compensation/costs within a period of two months after the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the respondents would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the amounts of Rs.20,000/- and on Rs.894/- with effect from today till the date of payment.
18. The arguments in this case were heard on 8.12.2010 and the order was reserved. Now, the order be communicated to the parties.
19. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL)
PRESIDENT
(MRS. AMARPREET SHARMA)
MEMBER
December17 , 2010 (BALDEV SINGH SEKHON)
Bansal MEMBER