Citi Bank Credit Card

adminadmin Administrator

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MYSORE

No.845, 10th Main, New Kantharaj Urs Road, G.C.S.T. Layout, Kuvempunagar, Mysore - 570 009

consumer case(CC) No. CC/09/30

Dr. S.P. Thirumala Rao
...........Appellant(s)
Vs.

Citi Bank Credit Card Centre & one another

Citi Bank Card Services Unit
...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
1. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi
2. Sri D.Krishnappa
3. Sri. Shivakumar.J.


ORDERORDER Complainant Dr.S.P.Thirumala Rao, 93, 9th Cross, Gokulam 1st Stage, Mysore-570002. (INPERSON)

Vs.

Opposite Parties

1. Manager, Citi Bank Credit Card Centre, P.O.Box No.5496, GPO, Bangalore.
2. Regional Collection Manager, CIti Bank Card Services Unit, Citi Bank Card Centre, 766, Annasalai, Chennai-600002. (By Sri.P.T.Ponnappa, Advocate) Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service Date of filing of complaint : 24.01.2009 Date of appearance of O.P. : 25.02.2009 Date of order : 24.03.2009 Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER Sri.D.Krishnappa, President

1. The grievance of the complainant who has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite parties is, that he was lured by the opposite parties to obtain a credit card from them offering certain benefits to medical professionals who purchase credit cards, he obtained a credit card from opposite parties. That he had been to USA during June to November 2008, and during that period he had told one Smt.N.Ashwathamma to make the payments as and when the opposite parties send bills on any purchases. That he had made certain purchases in USA and on receipt of the statement of opposite parties dated 30.07.2008 for Rs.3,803/- that amount is debited to the account on 30.08.2008 accordingly on receipt of another statement dated 29.09.2008 a sum of Rs.9,206.72 has been debited to the account on 29.08.2008. On his return from USA on receipt of statement dated 27.10.2008 paid Rs.1,406/- and stated that all the payments are made through cheques amounting to Rs.14,416/-. On perusal of the statements sent by the opposite parties, he noticed from the above statements that the opposite parties have charged him for Rs.165.21 towards interest at 17.9 p.a., Rs.300/- as late payment fee and Rs.57.50 as service taxes and thereby the opposite parties claimed Rs.1,270/- in excess though he had paid Rs.3,803/- as demanded. Then he questioning the opposite parties in charging him for the above charges sent a letter to the opposite parties on 05.12.2008 to correct statements, but they instead of revising statement sent a letter on 22.12.2008 from second opposite party to make the over due payment and intimating that the matter has been referred to recovery agencies. Then he approached the second opposite party through E-mail to recall the said letter and stated that statements of the opposite parties are erroneous and their letter dated 10.12.2008 has been issued as a threatening one. That on 22.12.2008 when he received the threatening letter who was in the midst of arranging the National Consumer Day on 24.12.2008 with other dignitaries he was very much worried and got about threatening letter and therefore has contended that the opposite parties have received Rs.1,277/- in excess and is liable to be refunded and therefore has prayed for awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- for mental agony, punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- and to direct the opposite parties to remit a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum and to award cost.


2. The opposite parties have entered appearance through their advocate and filed version and contended as if this is a commercial transaction do not come within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act and therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further contended by them that when the complainant disputed certain charges, they considered and reversed all the disputed charges, such as late payment fee, service charges and services taxes and issued monthly statement on 28.12.2008 and therefore the grievance of the complainant has been properly addressed despite that has come up with this false complaint and stated that the complainant delayed making payments.

The complainant if at all aggrieved by the correctness of the statements would have filed report to them within 30 days, but has not done so and further justifying their action of charging the customers as charged above as per the guidelines of the RBI and denying all other allegations have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.



3. During the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Narendra Singh for opposite parties have filed their affidavit evidence re-asserting what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced the statements issued by the opposite parties and copy of the letter he had addressed to opposite parties on 05.12.2008 and replies of the opposite parties dated 12.12.2008 and 10.12.2008. Opposite parties have also produced copies of statements. Heard the complainant who is in person, counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.


4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise. 1. Whether the complainant proves that the opposite parties have indulged in Unfair trade practice in the course of their business? 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?



5. Our findings are as under:- Point no.1 : In the Affirmative. Point no.2 : See the final order.


REASONS 6.



Point no. 1:- As there is no dispute with regard to this complainant availing the credit card of opposite parties and using it on three occasions for purchase of certain articles. Further there is also no dispute with regard to the actual amount of Rs.14,416/- paid by the complainant to the opposite parties after receipt of the statements. As could be found from the statements produced by both the parties, statements for the month of July 2008 till December 2008 besides containing the purchases made and the value of the purchase have also contain the particulars of interest charge, late payment fee, and service tax levied by the opposite parties. The complainant questioning the correctness of these levies submitted that the opposite parties had assured him of giving concession to the medical practioner and he being a medical practioner, he should have been given concession whereas the opposite parties by sending statements by levying those other charges has adopted Unfair trade practice and therefore argued that the opposite parties as against the actual amount due by him to them have collected Rs.1,277/- in excess and thereby has prayed for a direction to refund that amount besides granting other reliefs.

7. As canvassed by the complainant, these statements sent by the opposite parties though contain several other charges besides the actual purchases, the opposite parties responding to the grievance of the complainant in para 3 of that complaint have conceded to had told the complainant of giving certain concession and they after considering the claim of the complainant reversed all the disputed charges that is late payment fee, service charges, and service taxes and they have further specifically stated they have issued a monthly statement on 28.12.2008 redressing the grievance of the complainant. The opposite parties have also in their affidavit evidence admitted to have extended concession to the complainant.

On perusal of the statement of opposite parties dated 28.12.2008, it is found that the opposite parties have waived services charges of Rs.237.38, late payment charges of Rs.900/- and also reversed service tax and thereby shown that Rs.530.25 as due. The differences between the parties and the grievance of the complainant could be conveniently understood and the same can be resolved by simple method.


8. As could be seen from the contention of the opposite parties, they have admitted to have given concession to the complainant regarding other charges and reversed levy of all other charges by confining their claim to the actual purchases made by the complainant. As evident from the statements, the complainant under all these statements has made total purchase of Rs.13,956.96 and admittedly he has paid Rs.14,416/-.
If the amount due by the complainant to the opposite parties for purchases is deducted from the total amount collected from the complainant by the opposite parties, the complainant undoubtedly has paid Rs.459.04 in excess that is the opposite parties have collected excess amount of Rs.459.04 from the complainant and thus the complainant in our view is entitled for refund of Rs.459.04 and not Rs.1,277/- from the opposite parties. Since, this excess amount paid by the complainant he is entitled for refund of the said amount.


9. The complainant has referred to a recovery letter issued by the opposite parties for recovery of the amount if outstanding and pleaded the embracement he had faced by this demand of the opposite parties and he also invited our attention to the letter of the second opposite party dated 10.12.2008 and also another letter dated 12.12.2008. In this letter, the opposite parties have admitted that the complainant has paid the bill amount within due date, but there has been delay at the opposite parties end in not crediting those amounts to their account on time. The contention of the opposite parties reveal as if they are guided by the RBI guidelines with regard to levying of late payment charges, interest and service taxes and therefore what they have done is in accordance with law.
If the opposite parties had really done that act of levying charges on the complainant in accordance with the guidelines of the RBI and if there is any discretion for them to waive it, they will be at liberty and as a right they can do so and that cannot be questioned by the borrower or card holder.

If they had really done that in accordance with law, they could not have agreed for total waiver. It is noticed that the opposite parties have indiscriminately and repeatedly imposed these three charges irrespective of the amount due some times, they have imposed the charges at the same rate even when a small amount was outstanding. It is further noticed that the opposite parties have committed error even in not crediting the cheques issued by the complainant to their account and for that they have alleged as if the complainant paid the bill amounts after expiry of the period fixed. All these materials placed before us indicate that the opposite parties are not strictly adhering to the guidelines if any or to certain principles and on the other hand are acting arbitrarily and it appears that the opposite parties are routinely go on imposing this extra charges and whenever a customer gain guts to question their act, they will budge to such persons and waive of those charges by giving total immunity, but the customers who have no such capacity of questioning them or cannot approach them for the redressal have to suffer by paying these uncalled for and arbitrary charges.


This should not be the attitude of the opposite parties and we observe that they should follow uniform and established principles or method in all the cases irrespective of the status of the person or persons. Therefore, the facts we have narrated above lead to an irresistible inference that the opposite parties are adopting this kind of Unfair trade practice in their day to day business and that is causing un told suffering to the bonafide customers resulting in injury and financial loss. Therefore, in order to mitigate such temptation, we propose to impose punitive damages against them besides granting partial relief to the complainant. As the result, we answer point no.1 in the affirmative and pass the following


order:-

ORDER 1. The Complaint is allowed in part.

2. The first and second opposite parties jointly and severally are directed to refund Rs.459.04 within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.

3. The first and second opposite parties jointly and severally shall also pay compensation of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and embracement within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.

4. The first and second opposite parties jointly and severally shall also remit a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 30 days from the date of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of this order till the date of payment.

5. The first and second opposite parties jointly and severally shall also pay Rs.500/- to the complainant. 6. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.



«1

Comments

  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    M.Jayaram,
    19, Nanjappa Thevar street,
    Marudur, Ramanathapuram Post,
    Coimbatore 641 045. --- Complainant
    Vs.
    1. The Manager, (Customer Care)
    M/s.Citi Bank Cards, Annasalai,
    Chennai 600 002.
    2. The Manager, M/s.Citi Bank Cards,
    Avinashi road, Coimbatore 641 037 --- Opposite Parties

    This case coming on for final hearing before us today in the presence of Mr.J.V.George, Authorised representative for complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:
    ORDER
    Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction against the opposite parties to refrain from claiming any more amount after breaking the credit card, to issue No Due Certificate, to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and hardship and to pay Rs.2000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
    The case of the complaint are as follows:
    1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]The Complainant is a customer of the opposite parties bank and utilized the credit card facility through his card No.5425 5697 1425 1014. During the month of 27.5.06 the complainant had received the statement of account from the 1st opposite party for the period ending 26.5.06 stating that the complainant owes a due of Rs.15,783.22 after remitting 27th instalment of the credit availed by him. Totally the complainant has to remit 36 instalments for the loan of Rs.49,000 at Rs.1675 per month at 30% interest. Accordingly the complainant has to pay another 9 instalments. Meanwhile the complainant desired to preclose the loan account and on receipt of the latest statement as on 26.5.06, the complainant sent a cheque for Rs.15,788.45 with details of various heads of account vide letter dt.20.6.06 and also broken the card, this has been duly acknowledged by the 1st opposite party and fresh statement dt.26.6.06 was sent to the complainant stating that after credit of all dues, the total amount due as Rs.2160.77.
    2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]After closing the account the complainant received another statement for the period from 26.6.06 to 28.7.06 mentioning that the complainant owes a sum of Rs.14,706.22 enhancing from the earlier claim. The opposite party sent a letter acknowledging the closer of the credit card from 1.7.07 as per their letter dt.7.6.07 belatedly sent to the complainant with regret for the delayed response. In this letter the opposite party had acknowledged the receipt of Rs.15,788.45 vide cheque No.693070 sent on 20.6.06. In the same letter as a pre closer amount as Rs.9,932.69 is raised. As per the terms after 6 months of availing the credit pre closer charge is 3% which the complainant mentioned in his letter dt.20.6.06. The complainant sent another letter on 22.7.06 explaining the total closer of the credit card and warned the opposite party to refrain from sending any more statement. Consequently the opposite party sent another letter dt.9.8.06 mentioning various details of charges and going back from their own letter dt.17.6.06. So the complainant once again on 8.12.06 sent a letter explaining “No due” on his part. The complainant sent a legal notice on 17.2.07 explaining his earlier stand. As per Apex Court Verdict they cannot charge more than 30% interest. The claim of the opposite party is illegal and nothing but an unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint.

    3. The complainant has filed Proof Affidavit along with documents Ex.A1 to A12 was marked on the side of the complainant and the opposite parties remained absent and set exparte.

    The point for consideration is
    1.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?
    If so to what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    ISSUE 1:
    4. The complainant was a member availing the credit card No.5425 5697 1425 1014 with the opposite party, availed a loan of Rs.49,000 payable in 36 instalments of Rs.1675 as EMI. The case of the complainant is that even after settling the entire dues in one lumpsum the opposite party is sending bills one after another adding interest, service charge etc.
    5. The complainant vide letter dated 20.6.06 namely Ex.A2 surrendered the credit card enclosing cheque for Rs.15,888 towards full and final settlement of credit card account. The details mentioned in Ex.A2 are as follows:

    1. EMI Rs.1675 x 9 months = Rs. 15,075.00
    Preclosure charges @ 3% = 452.25
    2. Thangam Service Station bills =
    (Rs.474.20+491) 965.20
    2.[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]Less: Turbo points earned as per
    Your statement dt.27.5.06 = 704.00


    Balance payable 15,788.45



    Vide letter dt.7.7.06 namely Ex.A1 the opposite party accepted the payment of Rs.15,788.45 and as per this letter the loan account has been closed with immediate effect. But the opposite party repeatedly adding service charges etc. month by month increasing the figures this has been reflected in the subsequent bills namely Ex.A4, A7 and A8 etc. The complainant has proved his case, the claim of the opposite party is illegal, and the complainant was put to severe mental agony. Hence the complainant is entitled to get necessary relief from this Forum.
    6. In the result, we direct the opposite party a)not to claim any more amount from the complainant for his credit card No.5425 5697 1425 1014, b) to direct the opposite party to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant, c) to direct the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5000 towards mental agony and d) to pay cost of Rs.1000 within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
  • edited September 2009
    Hi,

    My name is Madhavi Borade I am having citi bank credit card on which i have down a settelement and converted entire amount into 24months EMI. Now this EMI gets cleared on every months 3rd and till date i have never defaulted even a single payment, but still everyday i get these calls from citi bank credit card department to pay my bill I have even communicated to them several times but still they wont stop. I wish to register a complaint against them of mental harassment.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    Amita Vatsa NA-3/21, Vijaya Enclave Vijaya Bank Colony Billekahalli Bangalore 560077 Complainant

    V/S

    Citi Bank Card Member Services No. 766, Anna Salai Chennai 600002 Opposite Party


    ORDER By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale This is a complaint filed by the complainant praying to grant compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for mental agony and torture.

    The facts of the case are that complainant while shopping at Shopper’s Stop at Bangalore during February 2008, she was asked whether she will be interested in taking up a card which will enable her in availing discounts based on the points. After few weeks she was sent a card which was bearing a joint logo and name of Shopper’s stop and Citi Bank. She found her name appearing in the card was totally incorrect. She called up Citi Bank and told that she do not want any credit card which has been sent to her.

    She was traveling between Bangalore and Calcutta. During journey this card was misplaced or stolen. The card was blocked on her request but she shocked to know that the card has been misused for an amount of Rs. 54,195/- on June 26, 2008.
    She was shocked and told that this is a fraudulent use and no payment to merchant should be given unless it is investigated. Complainant stated that she received letter from Citi Bank stating that the disputed charge has occurred prior to the report of loss of the card.


    Therefore, they regret their inability to help in this regard. Complainant received the card statement from the Citi Bank on 27.07.2008 stating that details of purchases made using the card and also confirming that a payment of Rs. 48,000/- has been received against purchases. However, the fact that neither the complainant has made any purchase nor has made any payment. The series of events shows inaction and irresponsible behaviour on the part of opposite party. Complainant states that she was very upset with the entire episode, mentally tired and frustrated with the way the entire issue has been handled by Citi bank.

    This has resulted completely ruining of family life. The complainant has gone through series of mental agony. This has wasted several working hours of complainant’s husband.

    Complainant is a person who has no income. Therefore, complainant prayed that she may be compensated to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/-.


    2. Notice issued to opposite party. Opposite party put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that complaint is false and liable to be dismissed. Opposite party had issued credit card with a credit card limit of Rs. 60,000/- as per application. Complainant could have returned the card to the opposite party for rectification. If the complainant had reported the loss of card immediately, the opposite party could have blocked the card and use of the card by unauthorized person could have been avoided. Card member is responsible for wrongful use of the card. Complainant was negligent in handling the card. Complainant reported opposite party about the loss of card on 28.06.2006. As per the card member agreement, Card holder is bound to pay all the charges prior to the intimation. Opposite party immediately blocked the card on receipt of the complaint. Therefore, opposite party has not committed any deficiency in service.

    It is the duty of police to investigate and nab the culprit. The allegation that she was harassed to pay the bill amount is false. Opposite party has demanded the legitimate dues. Complainant is not entitled for any relief. For all these reasons opposite party has prayed to dismiss the complaint.



    3. Affidavit evidences are filed. Arguments are heard.


    4. In the light of arguments advanced by the learned advocates the following points arise for consideration: “1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for compensation? If so what would be the quantum of compensation? REASONS 5. This complaint is in respect of misuse of credit card. The Credit card is a piece of plastic about 85 mm by 54 mm bearing name of the issuing Bank, the name, number and the photograph of the card holder, the period of validity, the logo and the hologram on the face of the card and on the other side a magnetic strip and a signature panel. A credit card enables the holder to obtain the goods and services on credit up to agreed maximum amount, payment being made monthly to the issuer of the credit card.

    Providing credit card facility is a service and the person availing it is a consumer. Therefore, failure to perform any obligation that falls on the Bank may be treated as deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act. During the course of argument the complainant submitted that she has not at all applied for the issue of credit card to the opposite party Bank and she has not signed application or form for issue of credit card to the Bank.

    She submits that that the signature found on the form submitted by the opposite party is a forged signature. Therefore, the complainant argued that the opposite party has committed a fraud on her and forging signature amounts to a criminal offence. To prove her point that she has not signed on the alleged form, she pointed out her signature found on the pass port and also her various signatures on the complaint and correspondence and other documents and argued that the signature found on the form relied on by the opposite party on the face of it is forged one. We have looked into the signature of the complainant found on the pass port and other documents and by comparing her signature with the signature found on the form said to have been submitted to the Bank appears to be not of one and the same person. There is lot of difference between the admitted signature of the complainant and the signature found on the form. Therefore, there is considerable force in the argument advanced by the complainant that her signature has been forged.

    It is the case of the complainant that she never applied for credit card. When she had gone to shopper stop for shopping they collected her address under the guise that she will be given discount card and to her surprise she received the credit card for which she never applied. In the credit card the name of the complainant has been wrongly mentioned as Anita instead of Amita. The spelling of her husband’s name is also wrongly mentioned in the form. The correct name of the complainant is Amita Vatsa whereas in the form it is mentioned as Anita Vasta. Therefore, the complainant argued that the form never filled up by the complainant and the said form is a manipulated document. On the said manipulated document the opposite party issued credit card without soliciting the same. Therefore, the complainant argued that she is not at all responsible for any transaction that had taken place under the disputed credit card. The complainant further argued that the opposite party had violated RBI guidelines.


    The Banks have been advised by the RBI not to issue unsolicited credit card. It is further argued that the card had been activated without the consent of the complainant. This is again a violation of the RBI guidelines. The complainant submitted that she never consented for the activation of the card. The opposite party Bank in this case has not produced any record or document or proof to show that the complainant had consented to activate the card. Therefore, the argument of the complainant shall have to be accepted. As per the RBI guidelines if the card is activated without the consent of the recipient and latter is billed for the same, the card issuing Bank shall not only reverse the charges forthwith, but also pay a penalty without demur to the recipient amount twice the value of the charges reversed. This is an instance wherein unsolicited credit card issued had been misused thereby, the complainant was put to mental agony, tension, harassment and loss of her valuable time and incurred expenses in unnecessary correspondence and visits. As per the RBI guidelines the Banks are not supposed to issue credit card to the person who has no independent financial means or income.

    In this case, the complainant admittedly is having no independent income. In the form the column annual income it is mentioned as nil. Therefore, it is clear that the complainant was having no independent income. So again the Bank has committed mistake and violated the RBI guidelines in issuing credit card to the person who has no income. As per the RBI guidelines it is clarified that any loss arising out of misuse of unsolicited cards will be the responsibility of the card issuing Bank only and the person in whose name the card has been issued cannot be held responsible for the same. As per the RBI guidelines it has been clarified that consent of the person for getting card has to be explicit and should not be implied. In this case the opposite party Bank has failed to establish and show that the complainant given her free consent for getting card.


    Opposite party Bank had also failed to establish that card has been activated with the consent of the complainant. So under these circumstances, there is definitely a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. It is the interesting point of the case is that from the disputed card three transactions were made. The complainant has disputed the transactions. She has submitted that she never used the card. It is again interesting to note that opposite party submitted that payment of Rs.48,000/- has been received against the purchases. However, the complainant categorically submitted that she has not made payment of Rs.48,000/- to the Bank at any time. So, under these circumstances, it is clear that the card was misused by unknown person.


    During the course of argument the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that whatever the amount due at present in respect of the said credit card the Bank is ready to forego and write-off the balance outstanding. As per the latest statement a balance Rs.12,918/- has been shown as due amount. The counsel for the opposite party has fairly and rightly submitted that the Bank is ready to close the account and write-off balance if the complainant comes for settlement.


    During the course of hearing of the matter the case was set for amicable settlement and during the hearing the complainant demanded compensation for mental agony, harassment and inconvenience caused to her apart from writing off the balance due. However, the counsel for the opposite party did not agree for payment of any compensation amount to the complainant. So, under these circumstances the matter was heard and case was taken up for disposal on merits.

    Taking into consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents and the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the opposite party and also the complainant it has been very clear that a credit card has been issued to the complainant unsolicited. Secondly, it is also clear that card had been activated without the consent of the complainant. Thirdly the card had been issued to the person who had no income. All these things are in violation of the RBI guidelines. Another aspect of the case is that the name of the complainant has not been correctly mentioned. The signature found on the form appears to be forged one by the bare eye, lot of difference can be found with the admitted signature and the signature that is found on the form.

    Under the RBI guidelines and circular Banks have been advised that unsolicited credit cards should not be issued and that in case an unsolicited card is issued and activated without the consent of the recipient latter is billed for the same. The card issuing Bank shall not only reverse the charges forthwith, but also pay penalty without demur to the recipient amounting to twice the value of the charges reversed. In addition the person in whose name the card is issued is also entitled to be compensated for loss of time, expenses incurred, harassment and mental anguish suffered.


    The complainant has claimed Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation in her complaint for mental agony and harassment. There is no basis to claim such an exorbitant amount of compensation. Therefore, the complainant’s request for grant of compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- is unreasonable and unjustified. Taking into consideration of all these things and the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel the ends of justice will be met in awarding compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant in addition to the reversal of the charges or the amount due in respect of the credit card account. In the result I proceed to pass the following:


    ORDER 6. The Complaint is allowed.

    The opposite party is directed to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- to the complainant and also reverse the charges or write-off due amount in respect of the credit card amount. 7. The opposite party is directed to comply the order within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the compensation amount carries interest at 10% p.a from the date of this order till payment/realization.
  • adminadmin Administrator
    edited September 2009
    G. Viswanathan,
    4/53, Dr.Ambedkar Salai, complainant
    Nanmangalam,
    Chennai – 600 117.

    Vs

    Citi Bank N.A.
    Rep. by its Chief Manager, opposite party
    Personal Loans,
    Post Box 4830,
    Anna Salai Post Office,
    Chennai – 600 002.

    Date of Complaint 16.04.2008

    M/s.K.P.Kiran Rao & Bhawani Rajendran :Counsel for the complainant

    Mr. R. Balaji & Mohan Babu : Counsel for the opposite party
    O R D E R
    THIRU. P. ROSIAH, PRESIDENT

    Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

    1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:

    The complainant had availed personal loan from the Opposite party for Rs.1,20,000/- on 27.12.2002 repayable in 48 monthly installments of Rs.3716/-. The complainant paid 32 monthly installments regularly and only left to repay Rs.1088/-. On 07.06.2005, the complainant informed the Opposite party to settle the principal amount of Rs.1088/- in one installment land requested to close the account. As informed by the Opposite party, the complainant contacted M/s. Shirpa attached to M/s. Serve International Limited for settlement of the claim. But nothing has been done to close the account. The Opposite party had requested the complainant to pay Rs.2500/-, Rs.5000/- and Rs.5000/- for three installments for final settlement. The complainant immediately paid the amounts. But the account was not closed. In spite of settling the amount in April 2006, the opposite party referred the matter to Tamil Nadu Legal Service Authority and also filed a complaint before the Lok Adalat. The opposite party included his name in the CIBIL website which caused damage to his reputation. On 23.04.2007, the Opposite party informed the complainant that his loan account was closed. Even after settling the amount, his name was included in CIBIL website. This act of the opposite party is nothing but deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and to remove his name in the defaulters list land another sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for loss of reputation and cost.


    2. The opposite party neither appeared before this Forum nor filed version. Hence, he was set exparte. The complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A28 were marked on the side of the complainant. No documents were filed on the side of the opposite party.


    3. The points that arise for consideration are
    (1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the
    opposite party?
    (2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?



    4. Point No.1: The complainant would submit that he availed loan from the opposite party and repaid the same and a sum of Rs.1088/- was remained to be paid. He had requested the opposite party to settle the amount. But the opposite party did not respond to the request of the complainant. The opposite party referred the matter to Lok Adalat unnecessarily. The complainant was made to appear before the Lok Adalat. The complainant’s name was included in the defaulters’ list though he has paid and settled the loan amount. At last, on 23.04.2007, the opposite party informed the complainant that his loan account was closed. But his name was not removed from the defaulters’ list. The opposite party has not denied the averments of the complainant. The documents,Exs A1 to A28 would show that there were correspondences between the complainant and the opposite party. The complainant has written several letters to the Opposite party that he had settled the amount under Ex A9 dated 13.03.2006. Though the complainant had settled the loan amount, the opposite party had not issued closure statement but his name was included in the defaulters’ list. The documents would go to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.


    5. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to remove the complainant’s name from the defaulters’ list on CIBIL website and also directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- as costs of the complaint to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
  • SidhantSidhant Moderator
    edited September 2009
    Complainant:
    Mr. Y.N. Raju

    No.11, 1st Cross

    Bhuvaneshwari Nagar

    C.V.Raman Nagar Post

    Bangalore- 560 093
    /vs/


    Opposite Parties:


    1. Citi Bank

    E-Serve International

    1, Primpark

    Primrose Road

    Bangalore



    2. Citi Bank

    Card Centre

    Anna Road

    Post Office

    Chennai - 600 002


    O R D E R

    This is a complaint filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Opposite parties (Ops in short) for the compensation of Rs.1.00 lakhs.



    The brief facts of the case are that since Citi Bank’s interest rate of 36% p.a was very high, complainant refers to close the credit card A/c No.4568 2291 0647 6014. During discussion with the bank, Citi Bank executive suggested that they would close the card A/c, if he paid Rs.18,000/- in 5 installments of Rs.3,600/- each. Accordingly, complainant handed over 5 post dated cheques No.862510 to 862514 on 22/07/2003. Due to saving Bank A/c transfer, the last cheque No.86214 got returned and immediately it was replaced by cheque No.862521 dated 21/11/2003 with penalty of Rs.150/- for an amount of Rs.3,750/- vide repayment receipt No.40333 dated 21/11/03 of Globe link Executive Centre, an agent of Citibank. Thus the settlement was done on one time settlement basis completely and all the cheques were realized by Citi bank.



    When complainant demanded A/c closing letter, the bank did not respond. Instead, Citibank started harassing his family by sending their staff to his residence and threatening, by continuous telephone calls and by sending irrelevant bills. The latest bill No.Nil dated 26/10/2008 for Rs.93,146.66 in enclosed. Hence the complainant approached this forum.



    Notices were sent to the Ops under RPAD and they appeared through their counsel, after the appearance of the Ops, several adjournments were granted for their version and affidavit. But they failed to submit their statement of objection or affidavit even though the cost was awarded, the cost of Rs.500/- was also not paid. Complainant gave his evidence by way of affidavit. Heard the arguments of the complainant. As no one appeared on behalf of Op to submit their arguments, counsel was permitted to submit their written arguments within 3 days, but even the said written arguments was also not filed.



    Complainant specifically on oath stated about the statement of credit card account. When we peruse the last receipt dated 21/11/2003 for Rs.3,715/- the Op specifically mentioned in the receipt as final settlement. By submission of 5 cheques, the complainant closed his credit card account and last cheque was dated 21/10/2003 and the OP has also endorsed as final settlement in the said receipt. After receipt of entire amount as final settlement it is the bounden duty of the Ops to issue closing certificate instead, the Ops went on issuing the statement demanding the amount inspite of several letters written by the complainant. This sort of an act on the part of the Ops definitely amounts to deficiency in service.



    These facts have not been specifically denied by the Ops, even though Ops appeared through their counsel, they failed to submit their statement of objection or evidence in spite of awarding the cost and inspite of granting several adjournments. In the absence of specific denial by the Ops, the evidence given by the complainant is unchallenged.



    In view of the discussions made above, we are of the opinion that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Ops. Accordingly, we pass the following order.



    O R D E R



    Complaint is allowed. Opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable.



    The statement dated 26/10/2008 issued by the Ops is hereby quashed.



    Opposite parties 1 and 2 are directed to pay an amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation to the complainant with cost of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) and this amount is to be paid to the complainant within 60 days from the date of this order.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited September 2009
    C.Muralidhar,

    S/o Late Shri.N.Chinnakannan,

    Aged about 45 yrs,

    R/at F # 101, Grulakshmi Residency,

    #185, 6th Main, Grulakshmi Layout,

    II Stage, Kamala Nagar,

    Bangalore – 560 079.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s



    Citi Bank,

    Global Consumer Bank,

    102-104, Prestige Merdian 2,

    30, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001.

    …. Opposite Party







    -: ORDER:-



    The complainant has claimed the following reliefs from the Opposite Party:-

    1. Direct the Opposite Party to give credit of Rs.1,16,408/- and Rs.1,09,038/- respectively in respect of the loan account of the Complainant, which have been paid by the complainant or in the alternative award these amounts as compensation to the complainant.

    2. Direct the Opposite Party to give credit of Rs.23,179.91/- to the Complainant’s loan account, which has been wrongly debited for closing the Card loan or in the alternative award this amount as compensation to the Complainant.

    3. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant Rs.49,000/- towards the wrongfully deducted amount from the Complainant’s account, for the amount drawn under some other Card, which is not pertaining to the Complainant.

    4. Direct the Opposite Party to compensate the Complainant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards harassment and metal agony.

    5. Award Costs of Rs.10,000/- towards this complaint.



    2. The case of the complainant is as under:-

    He had a credit card bearing No.5546379220661019 issued by the Opposite Party Bank. On the basis of the said card, the Opposite Party granted a loan of Rs.3,00,000/- in January – 2007 and the same was to be repaid in equated monthly installments of Rs.10,628/-. Up-to November – 2007, he paid eleven installments aggregating to Rs.1,16,908/- . In November 2007 the Opposite Party re-worked the loan schedule and also granted a top-up loan of Rs.2,24,642/-. As per the communication, the outstanding amount towards the loan obtained in January-2007 was Rs.2,58,010/- and therefore it is clear that the Opposite Party has not given credit to the sum of Rs.1,16,908/- paid by him. The Opposite Party has not issued receipts for the payment of Rs.1,16,908/-. In spite of repeated requests and calls, the Opposite Party failed to issue either the acknowledgements of the payment made or account statement showing the specific payment of installments received.


    In May-2009, the Opposite Party issued a consolidated account statement claiming to include the sum of Rs.1,16,908/- as also a sum of Rs.1,09,038/- towards the payment of six EMI’s at Rs.18,173/-. This statement claiming to incorporate the payment of Rs.1,16,908/- and Rs.1,09,038//- among others is unreadable and undecipherable. Furnishing such account statement without disclosing receipts of specific installments but causing confusion un-certainty and lack of clarity is itself deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. As per the communication issued in November-2007, the new principal amount was stated as Rs.4,82,652/- payable with interest at 29% Per Annum in 43 installments of Rs.18,173/- which comes to a total sum of Rs.7,81,439/-. In September – 2008, the Opposite Party again re-worked the loan schedule and issued communication dated 09/09/2008.


    As per this communication, the total outstanding in the loan account was taken as Rs.6,49,135/- and the same was to be re-paid with interest at 13% Per Annum in 36 monthly installments of Rs.21,878/- which comes to a total sum of Rs.7,87,608/-. Thus it is clear that the Opposite Party has not credited the sum of Rs.1,09,038/- paid by him while re-scheduling the installments in such a way that the total amount payable would be far more than what was to be paid as per earlier loan schedule. Even thereafter he paid Rs.16,296/- towards the loan account. But no credit is given to this payment. In spite of repeated requests, the Bank did not furnish the periodical statement of account pertaining to his loan account.


    Instead of furnishing the statement of account, the employees and officers of the Bank started calling the complainant over phone on every alternate day from November-2007 and started threatening him and intimidated his family members demanding payments. The recovery agents of the Bank started to come to his residence and threatened using abusive language and these coercive acts caused high blood pressure and severe health problems to the complainant. By the letter dated 12/02/2009 he brought these facts to the notice of the Bank and also pointed out that the Bank is not following the guidelines of the Reserve Bank and not following the directions issued by the Government of India in respect of interest on credit card payments and the method of recovery. To the said letter, the Opposite Party sent reply dated 18/03/2009 stating that they have closed the card and have issued a virtual card bearing No.5177008844610005 for only the purpose of repayment of the outstanding. In the said letter, the Opposite Party has also referred to another card ending with 6016 which was neither allotted to him nor was used at any time.


    Therefore it appears that the Opposite Party has falsely included the amount drawn under the said card into the loan account of the complainant. The Opposite Party sent statement of account for the period from 21/02/2009 to 22/03/2009 charging Rs.6,445-75 paise and Rs.16,734-16 paise towards pre-closure interest on the loan which has no basis at all. The statement of account issued by the Opposite Party is not understandable even by Chartered Accountants. However, it was noticed that the outstanding amount as on September – 2008 is shown as Rs.6,17,606/- and the rewritten amount has been taken as Rs.6,49,315/- which is more than the amount outstanding as per their own entry just above the said entry.


    Even the addresses and communication system of the Opposite Party are confusing and divergent, resulting in lack of clarity and confidence in the contact. Now the Bank has issued a legal notice giving its Delhi address for the first time demanding payment of Rs.6,70,781-84 paise within two days from 28/04/2009 the date of notice, whereas the notice was received on 02/05/2009. The notice itself is deficient in several aspects. There is likelihood of the Opposite Party filing the suit against the complainant at New Delhi instead of Bangalore as preferential jurisdiction just to cause harassment and to inflict unnecessary costs on him for defending the matter. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party such as:-

    (a) Failing to furnish periodical statements of accounts,

    (b) Failing to account/give credit to the payments made by the complainant

    (c) Faulty and deceptive rescheduling of the loan amount stating lower rate of interest, but claiming higher amount as due, which would be much more than the amount actually payable,



    (d) Over-charging towards obligatory services or no service,

    (e) Demanding and coercively collecting legally un-entitled interest and costs,



    (f) Not adhering to the Guidelines and directions issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India, on reducing rate of interest on loan,



    (g) Threatening the Complainant and his family members over telephone time and again and also for sending its recovery agents to the Complainant’s residence, and abusing the Complainant and his family members,



    (h) Claiming the amounts drawn from some other Card, which is not pertaining to the Complainant.





    Therefore, the Opposite Party is liable to pay the compensation as claimed. Hence, the complaint.





    3. In spite of service of notice, the Opposite Party has remained absent. In support of the claim, the complainant has filed his affidavit and has produced copies of documents. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the complainant.





    4. The points for consideration are:-

    1. Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party and therefore entitled to the relief prayed for?



    5. Our finding to the above point is in the NEGATIVE for the following:-



    -:REASONS:-

    6. From the averments in the complaint, it is clear that in the first instance, the complainant had availed loan of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Opposite Party Bank in January – 2007 agreeing to re-pay the same in EMI of Rs.10,628/- each and after making payment of 11 installments totaling to Rs.1,16,908/- he availed top-up loan in November-2007 and the communications issued by the Bank in that regard disclosed the new principal outstanding as Rs.4,82,652/-. This communication is produced by the complainant at document No.1. In this letter, the principal amount outstanding towards the original loan obtained in January-2007 is shown as Rs.2,58,010/-.


    It is in this regard the complainant contends that when the Bank has mentioned the outstanding principal amount of the first loan as Rs.2,58,010/-, it indicates that the sum of Rs.1,16,908/- paid by him in 11 installments has not been taken into account while granting the top-up loan. From the copies of the statement produced by the complainant, probably the monthly statements, it is seen that the Opposite Party Bank has given credit to the sum of Rs.10,628/- paid by the complainant towards the monthly installment in each statement. The complainant also contends that in the consolidated statement issued in May-2009, the Bank had shown payment of Rs.16,908/- paid towards the first loan and Rs.1,09,038/- paid towards the second loan namely the top-up loan. In that event, he cannot have any dispute with regard to the adjustment of the above amounts paid by him. That apart, the Bank sent the letter dated 09/09/2008 informing the complainant that he was unable to regularize the loan account and the total outstanding on his credit card account as on 09/09/2008 was Rs.6,57,748//-, as special offer was made to pay Rs.6,49,315/- with interest at 13% Per Annum in 36 EMI’s of Rs.21,878/-.


    When this offer letter was issued on 09/09/2008 taking into consideration the earlier transaction of the complainant, it only goes to indicate that after adjusting or giving credit to the sum of Rs.1,16,908/- and Rs.1,09,038/- paid by the complainant, the Bank had arrived at Rs.6,57,748/- as the amount outstanding in the credit card account of the complainant as on 09/09/2008 and the Bank made special offer to the complainant to pay Rs.6,49,315/- instead of Rs.6,57,748/-. By signing the customer declaration provided at the bottom of the letter, the complainant has accepted the offer made by the Bank and thereby admitted that his liability under credit card account as on 09/09/2008 was Rs.6,57,748/-. That being so, the complainant cannot be heard to say that the Bank has not given credit to the sum of Rs.1,16,908//- and Rs.1,09,038/- paid by him.


    In this view of the matter in our opinion, the complainant is not entitled to the first relief claimed in the complaint. After making special offer to the complainant as per the letter dated 09/09/2008, the Bank addressed another letter dated 18/03/2009 with regard to two credit cards of the complainant informing that the Bank has not received any payment towards the dues in the credit card account for considerable period of time and therefore the credit card ending with No.1019 has been closed w.e.f. 08/09/2008 and virtual card bearing No.5177008844610005 is issued to facilitate repayment of the outstanding amount under the credit card. It is also mentioned in this letter that the Bank understands that the complainant wishes to have settlement of his card ending with 6016.


    This letter does not disclose that the Bank had adjusted or deducted any amount from the account of the complainant towards some other card account particularly card ending with No.6016. No material is placed on record to show that Rs.49,000/- was deducted from the account of the complainant towards the amount drawn on some other card not pertaining to him. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to the third relief also as prayed for in the complaint. From the averments in the complaint, it is seen that the dispute raised by the complainant pertains to his accounts. The complainant disputes the account maintained by the Opposite Party with regard to his loan account and alleges that certain payments made by him have not been given credited.


    Therefore, it is a dispute pertaining to accounts which cannot be stated to be a Consumer Dispute. This view finds support from the decision of the Hon’ble GUJARATH STATE COMMISSION, in the case of ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTD V/S HIMANSHU S. THUMAR reported in 2005 CTJ 791, wherein the Hon’ble GUJARATH STATE COMMISSION has held that:- a dispute which pertains to accounts between the parties cannot be said to be a Consumer Dispute and it is essentially a Civil Dispute. In the decision reported in 2009 CTJ 165 in the case of RAJ CELLO CHEM PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., V/S PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ANR., the Hon’ble National Commission has also held that:- the proceedings before the Consumer Forums are essentially summary in nature. The adjudication of complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate court of law and not by the Forums.



    In this view of the matter if the complainant disputes the accounts maintained by the Opposite Party with regard to his loan account, he has to prove each and every transaction by adducing evidence. Thus, the dispute involves complex questions of facts and the same need to be resolved by a Competent Civil Court. Therefore, he has to approach the Competent Civil Court and such a dispute cannot be resolved in summary jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. For these reasons, we hold that the complainant has failed to make out any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party and therefore not entitled to the relief prayed for. The complainant is at liberty to approach Competent Civil Court if so advised. In the result, we pass the following:-



    -:ORDER:-

    1. The complaint is DISMISSED with liberty to the complainant to approach the Competent Civil Court if so advised.

    2. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

    3. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th Day of JULY 2009.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Ravi Kant Mangla age 36 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar, C/o. Mangla Agencies No.671/1-A, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

    ….Complainant.

    Versus



    1- Citi Bank, Citi Bank Card Centre, 766, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 through its Director/Managing Director.



    2- Citi Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Officer in Charge/Manager.

    ….Opposite parties.





    ORDER



    Complainant availed credit card faciltiy vide credit card no.4564 0700 9006 2012 from the OP. He in March,2008 requested OP to close his credit card alongwith another add-on credit card no.4564 0700 9006 2111 and was assured needful. But despite his 8/10 requests to the customer care of the OP his cards were not closed. Hence on 12.03.2008, again contacted customer care of the opposite parties to close his credit cards, they asked him to make request through fax No.0124-2856789 (Extention 1111) to the regional Manager,City Bank Limited,Gurgaon. Such request was made by the complainant by fax requesting to close his cards and duly intimating henceforth, would not be responsible for any kind of liabilities. But suddenly, thereafter received statement of account on 18.06.2008 ( for the period from 17.05.2008 to 17.06.2008) demanding Rs.73204.83 p.


    This claim being illegal, null, void and does not sustain in the eyes of law, so not liable to pay the same as credit cards were never used by the complainant after fax message dated 12.03.2007. It was clearly conveyed henceforth would not be responsible for use of the credit cards. So payment raised by opposite parties is arbitarary and illegal which deserves to be setaside, for deficiency in service, claimed compensation of Rs.70000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.11000/-.

    2. Opposite parties in reply admitted obtaining of credit card and add-on cards by the complainant from them. But they averred that they are governed by the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. Complainant had requested them to close his cards as his uses had increased. Consequently, it was suggested to the complainant to reduce his credit card limits to check expenses. But he was adamant to close the cards and then was suggested to fax a letter for card closure to the regional office, at Gurgaon. Complainant was intimated at that time he needs to pay Rs. 1194.70 before his credit card is cancelled. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant through credit card and add-on in the name of his father Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, has been making purchases. They had been using the card for online transactions of a company called “Net Banx-Subscripuk, UK”.


    Maximum online transcations of that company carried out by Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, holder of add-on card. Further claimed on 07.02.2008 complainant had requested not to sent physical statements, but be sent through E.mail, which was complied. E.mailed monthly statements were sent to the complainant every month since 07.02.2008. After 12.3.2008 had been using the cards and used approximately Rs.80000/- over a period of four months. Statements qua his accounts were made available to him. Even complainant have refused to entertain the officials of the Opposite parties so there is no deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. We have heard respective counsels and gone through the record.

    4. It is not in dispute that complainant vide communication dated 12.3.2008 Ex.C1 conveyed through fax to the opposite parties to close his credit card as well as add-on card facilities. That fax message conveyed to the OP that his cards if not closed then, he is not responsible for any kind of liabilities. Receipt of this fax message from the complainant is admitted by the Opposite parties., therefore apparent that opposite parties were bound to cancell and close his credit card alongwith add-on after receipt of request dated 12.3.2008. but despite making such request opposite parties sent him bill dated 18.07.2008 (Ex.C4) for the period 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008.


    Under this bill purchasing worth Rs.5338.24 as mentioned were affected during the period and claimed total amount of Rs.78543.07 including previous balance of Rs.73204.83. We have no material on record to which period balance of Rs.73204.83 pertained prior to 18.06.2008. But it appears that between 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008 purchases worth Rs.5338.24 were effected. Whereas complainant vide communication Ex.C1 dated 12.03.2008 had requested to cancel his both credit cards and conveyed specifically to opposite parties that henceforth would not be responsible for any use of laibilities qua these cards.


    Opposite parties should have bothered such request of the complainant, being their customer, if they failed to do so would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer. Therefore, the demand of Rs.5338.24 raised vide bill Ex.C4 qua purchases/uses for the period dated 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008 cannot bind the complainant, and he stand exonerated from responsibility to pay the same in view of his fax message Ex.C1.

    5. Opposite parties have taken plea passing statement to the complainant on his E.mail address as per his request. But except affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Jagdish Salwan, authorised signatory of the opposite parties, no material is brought on record, to sustain the allegations. Statements so sent on E.mail address of the complainant have not seen light of the day, so we have nothing on record that actually statements qua cards of the complainant prior to statement dated 15.7.2008 (Ex.C4) were sent to the complainant through E.mail. In absence of such statements there is no material before us to conclude that previous balance of Rs.73204.83 reflected in statement Ex.C4 pertains to which particular period prior to bill dated 18.07.2008.


    In other words, we have nothing to conclude whether such arrears are prior to 12.3.2008, On which date complainant conveyed cancellations of his cards. However, opposite parties have placed on record one statement dated 17.3.2008 for the period from 16.02.2008 to 16.03.2008 complainant had effected purchases worth Rs.14658.95 and a sum of Rs.1873.74 was shown due from him. Whereas Sh.Jagdish Salwan in affidavit Ex.RW1/A has stated on 12.3.2008 a sum of Rs.1194.70 was due from the complainant and he was asked to pay the same.

    6. In these circustances, we have to hold and conclude that on 12.3.2008 when complainant got his credit cards cancelled only an amount of Rs.1194.70 was due from him. So amount of Rs.78543.07 claimed from him in bill Ex.C4 dated 18.07.2008 would be illegal and complainant not bound to pay the same because on 12.03.2008 he had got his card cancelled.

    7. In view of the discussions we have found deficiency on part of the opposite parties. We allow the complaint and quash the demand of Rs.78543.07 raised by opposite parties from the complainant in bill Ex.C4. So, make it clear that complainant would be liable to pay Rs.1194.70 alongwith agreed rate of interest to OP. In pecular circumstances of the case, no order as to costs and compensation. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order. Copy of order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to the record room.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    owers-II, TSN Colony, Venkata Raju Nagar, Visakhapatnam – 16.

    … Complainant

    And:

    1. Citi Bank Credit Card Division, being rep. by its Managing Director, P.O. Box.No.5264, Anna Road Post Office, Chennai – 600 002.

    2. Citi Bank Credit Card Division, being rep. by its Branch Manager, Keerthana Consultants, D.No.50-49-42, Behind SFS School, Seethammadhara, Visakhapatnam – 13

    3. Citi Bank Credit Card Division, being rep. by its Manager, Customer Care, P.O.Box. No.4830, Anna Salai P.O, Chennai – 600 002..

    … Opposite Parties





    : O R D E R :



    1. The complainant is having credit card facility with the opposite party and according to him, he availed loan of Rs.82,000/- with EMI of Rs.5,687/- per month. He claimed that he has been regularly paying EMI and complains that though he asked for detailed account statement, the opposite party informed that the complainant availed a top up loan of Rs.1,73,194-29ps on 20-04-2006 and the outstanding amount is Rs.5.673-55ps. The complainant paid that amount also but the account statement was not sent.


    Further the opposite parties are sending details after lapse of due dates by adding interest, late payment and service tax, which are bad under law. The complainant issued a legal notice dated 30-10-2008, demanding for issue of no due certificate, for which on 24-11-2008 a reply with version that an amount of Rs.1,73,194-29ps was due under the debt balance of Rs.73,194-29 has been adjusted towards the earlier payable amount and asserted that an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- has been given to the complainant by way of Demand Draft.


    Infact the complainant never sought for the amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and it was chosen by the opposite parties to do so stating that he may take the amount in advance and repay in equated 24 monthly installments. He further complained that repeated demands were being made by the opposite parties for the payments to be made and even threats were also being given. Inspite of specific request to furnish the statement of account, the same was not furnished.


    This conduct of failure to furnish statement of account and demanding more amounts from the complainant amounted to deficiency in service. The complainant has suffered physically and mentally due to the unlawful claims by the opposite parties from time to time. Hence this complaint for an order in favour of the complainant awarding an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for loss and mental agony and costs.

    2. The opposite parties though entered appearance ultimately did not choose to file counter and remained exparte. The complainant filed affidavit and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.19 documents.

    3. Learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the contentions referring to the periodical bills received by him to substantiate his contentions. In view of his pleadings and contentions, the point that would arise for determination is:

    Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is entitled for the relief asked for?

    4. The complainant had credit card facility with the opposite parties and evidently he obtained cash advance from the opposite parties and making repayment of the same in equal monthly installments. Though he claims to have stopped using the credit card, actually when it was done is not clear from his complaint. His grievance is though he has been making payment as per demands in Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2, Ex.A.5, Ex.A.8 to Ex.A.10, Ex.A.13 & Ex.A.14 still due was being shown. It is clear on a perusal of them that only for Ex.A.1 , Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.5 notices the payments were made and subsequent bills from 27-08-2008, no payments were made by him.

    5. Further Ex.A.16 a detailed reply was issued by the opposite parties as to when the credit card was availed narrating a to when Visa Classic International Card was issued to him on 24th July 2001, which was converted into Visa Preferred International Gold Card in December 2003 and it further informs that in October 2004, he availed a loan of Rs.1,34,000/- with EMI Rs.4,980/-.


    Curiously it was further informed that when that loan was pre-closed in April 2006, he was given enhanced top-up loan of Rs.1,73,194-23ps in the April 2006 itself and the complainant was sent Rs.1,00,000/- demand draft. Curiously, this fact that he was sent Rs.1,00,000/- Demand Draft in the year 2006 by the opposite party is not disputed by the complainant, who asserts that he did not ask for it and the opposite parties voluntarily sent him the demand draft. As can be seen from this reply notice an amount of Rs.88,229-83ps was still due as on the date of notice dated 24th November 2008. Along with this reply notice the opposite party sent account extract right from year 2006 to 2008.


    A perusal of the statement of accounts Ex.A.1, Ex.A.2 & Ex.A.5 would show that the payments shown as due were only EMI, which were paid by the complainant and they did not reflect the actual amount due from the complainant and hence the contention of the counsel for the complainant that nothing was due from him, but still he is not getting bills cannot be accepted. His main grievance that he was not getting account of statement and unnecessary demands are made is concerned, along with Ex.A.16, account copy was furnished by the opposite party.


    When amount was due, naturally demands will be sent either orally or in writing. In these circumstances a complaint that he was not furnished with account statement and on the other hand demands were made amounts to deficiency of service cannot be sustained. Hence the complainant is not entitled for any relief.

    6. In the result, the complaint is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, no costs.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Anand K. Dinesh,

    S/o. A.K. Sathish,

    1st Floor, Door No.98,

    Ramaiah Layout, III Main,

    IV Cross, Kamanahalli,

    Bangalore – 560 084. …. Complainant



    Vs



    1. M/s. Citi Bank

    Rep.by its Manager,Customer Care,

    Citi Bank, Anna Salai,

    Chennai – 600 002 Opposite Party-1



    2. The Manager,

    Citi Bank, N.A.,

    102-104 Prestige Meridian II

    30 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001. Opposite Party-2







    ORDER








    1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



    The complainant is a ATM card holder f the opposite party bank. On 26.01.he tried to encash by using his ATM card in the ATM centre of the opposite party situated at Poonamalleel High Road near Sangam theatre but the card was returned without realizing money and the information d9isplaced in the screen was “ we cannot service you at this time. Please contact phone banking.


    The complainant immediately contacted the bank office at Chennai and he got information that his account is minus balance. In fact, a sum of Rs.19,524/- was credited in his account on 30..11.2005 and Rs.14,896/- on 31.12.2005. When contacted the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party replied that the account was maintained by the Head Office at Chennai. On 28.12.2006, the complainant was informed over phone that his account was closed for the reasons that his cheques were bounced. Later on 05.03.2006, the opposite party informed that due to mistake on the part of the opposite parties, his account was closed.


    After two weeks, the opposite parties repudiated the complainants account. The opposite parties unauthorizedly debited Rs.19,334/- from his account on various dates. He never authorized any withdrawal of money in ECS Scheme and in spite of that, various amounts have been debited and on account of that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. Therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs.14,221/- with interest at the rate of 18% and compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

    2. The 1st opposite party filed a version and it has been adopted by the 2nd opposite party. In the version, the opposite parties contended inter alia that the complainant was holding Savings Bank account with the bank branch at Bangalore and he was issued ATM card for using operation of his account. During the end of February 2006, the bank came to understand that there were erroneous debits from his account held by the complainant by way of ECS. The complainant was informed on 27.03.2006 was erroneously registered with ECS facilities since the September 2005 and that was the reason of his cheque being returned and the bank also recorded the same and the amount of Rs.19,228/- which was erroneously debited was credited into his account on 03.04.2006 and the entire amount has been credited into his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

    3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

    4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

    1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

    the opposite parties?.

    2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had savings bank account holder of the opposite parties bank at their Bangalore Branch and he was also issued ATM card by the Bank for operation of his account. The complainant used his ATM card on 26.01.2006 at Chennai and he could not get the money since his account was closed by the opposite parties erroneously. According to the complainant, several payments were made through ECS aunthorisedly which amounts to Rs.19,334/-. Further, the complainant would submit that the opposite parties illegally debited Rs.19,334/- in the account of the complainant through ECS Scheme and that amount has not yet been credited into his account and therefore there is deficiency in service. Ex A1 is the debit card. Ex A2 is the statement of account. Ex A4 is the letter of the opposite party bank dated 27.03.2006 to the complainant in which the opposite party has admitted erroneous registration of ECS to the payments of the complainant since September 2005 and apologized for the same.


    Ex B2 would show that the amount of Rs.19,228/- was credited into the account of the complainant on 03.04.2006. The documents filed by the complainant did not disclose that a sum of Rs.14,221/- was debited from his account and not credited in his account. But, admittedly there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since unauthorizedly made several payments through ECS without knowledge of the complainant. Even though, they were subsequently reversed and credited into the account of the complainant. The point is answered accordingly.

    7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Ravi Kant Mangla age 36 years son of Shri Vijay Kumar, C/o. Mangla Agencies No.671/1-A, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

    ….Complainant.

    Versus



    1- Citi Bank, Citi Bank Card Centre, 766, Anna Salai, Chennai-600 002 through its Director/Managing Director.



    2- Citi Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana through its Officer in Charge/Manager.

    ….Opposite parties.







    ORDER


    Complainant availed credit card faciltiy vide credit card no.4564 0700 9006 2012 from the OP. He in March,2008 requested OP to close his credit card alongwith another add-on credit card no.4564 0700 9006 2111 and was assured needful. But despite his 8/10 requests to the customer care of the OP his cards were not closed. Hence on 12.03.2008, again contacted customer care of the opposite parties to close his credit cards, they asked him to make request through fax No.0124-2856789 (Extention 1111) to the regional Manager,City Bank Limited,Gurgaon. Such request was made by the complainant by fax requesting to close his cards and duly intimating henceforth, would not be responsible for any kind of liabilities. But suddenly, thereafter received statement of account on 18.06.2008 ( for the period from 17.05.2008 to 17.06.2008) demanding Rs.73204.83 p.


    This claim being illegal, null, void and does not sustain in the eyes of law, so not liable to pay the same as credit cards were never used by the complainant after fax message dated 12.03.2007. It was clearly conveyed henceforth would not be responsible for use of the credit cards. So payment raised by opposite parties is arbitarary and illegal which deserves to be setaside, for deficiency in service, claimed compensation of Rs.70000/- alongwith litigation costs of Rs.11000/-.

    2. Opposite parties in reply admitted obtaining of credit card and add-on cards by the complainant from them. But they averred that they are governed by the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. Complainant had requested them to close his cards as his uses had increased. Consequently, it was suggested to the complainant to reduce his credit card limits to check expenses. But he was adamant to close the cards and then was suggested to fax a letter for card closure to the regional office, at Gurgaon. Complainant was intimated at that time he needs to pay Rs. 1194.70 before his credit card is cancelled. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part. Complainant through credit card and add-on in the name of his father Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, has been making purchases.


    They had been using the card for online transactions of a company called “Net Banx-Subscripuk, UK”. Maximum online transcations of that company carried out by Sh.Vijay Kumar Gupta, holder of add-on card. Further claimed on 07.02.2008 complainant had requested not to sent physical statements, but be sent through E.mail, which was complied. E.mailed monthly statements were sent to the complainant every month since 07.02.2008. After 12.3.2008 had been using the cards and used approximately Rs.80000/- over a period of four months. Statements qua his accounts were made available to him. Even complainant have refused to entertain the officials of the Opposite parties so there is no deficiency in service on their part.

    3. Parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. We have heard respective counsels and gone through the record.

    4. It is not in dispute that complainant vide communication dated 12.3.2008 Ex.C1 conveyed through fax to the opposite parties to close his credit card as well as add-on card facilities. That fax message conveyed to the OP that his cards if not closed then, he is not responsible for any kind of liabilities. Receipt of this fax message from the complainant is admitted by the Opposite parties., therefore apparent that opposite parties were bound to cancell and close his credit card alongwith add-on after receipt of request dated 12.3.2008. but despite making such request opposite parties sent him bill dated 18.07.2008 (Ex.C4) for the period 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008.


    Under this bill purchasing worth Rs.5338.24 as mentioned were affected during the period and claimed total amount of Rs.78543.07 including previous balance of Rs.73204.83. We have no material on record to which period balance of Rs.73204.83 pertained prior to 18.06.2008. But it appears that between 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008 purchases worth Rs.5338.24 were effected.


    Whereas complainant vide communication Ex.C1 dated 12.03.2008 had requested to cancel his both credit cards and conveyed specifically to opposite parties that henceforth would not be responsible for any use of laibilities qua these cards. Opposite parties should have bothered such request of the complainant, being their customer, if they failed to do so would be guilty of not rendering proper services to its consumer. Therefore, the demand of Rs.5338.24 raised vide bill Ex.C4 qua purchases/uses for the period dated 18.06.2008 to 17.07.2008 cannot bind the complainant, and he stand exonerated from responsibility to pay the same in view of his fax message Ex.C1.

    5. Opposite parties have taken plea passing statement to the complainant on his E.mail address as per his request. But except affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Sh.Jagdish Salwan, authorised signatory of the opposite parties, no material is brought on record, to sustain the allegations. Statements so sent on E.mail address of the complainant have not seen light of the day, so we have nothing on record that actually statements qua cards of the complainant prior to statement dated 15.7.2008 (Ex.C4) were sent to the complainant through E.mail. In absence of such statements there is no material before us to conclude that previous balance of Rs.73204.83 reflected in statement Ex.C4 pertains to which particular period prior to bill dated 18.07.2008.


    In other words, we have nothing to conclude whether such arrears are prior to 12.3.2008, On which date complainant conveyed cancellations of his cards. However, opposite parties have placed on record one statement dated 17.3.2008 for the period from 16.02.2008 to 16.03.2008 complainant had effected purchases worth Rs.14658.95 and a sum of Rs.1873.74 was shown due from him. Whereas Sh.Jagdish Salwan in affidavit Ex.RW1/A has stated on 12.3.2008 a sum of Rs.1194.70 was due from the complainant and he was asked to pay the same.

    6. In these circustances, we have to hold and conclude that on 12.3.2008 when complainant got his credit cards cancelled only an amount of Rs.1194.70 was due from him. So amount of Rs.78543.07 claimed from him in bill Ex.C4 dated 18.07.2008 would be illegal and complainant not bound to pay the same because on 12.03.2008 he had got his card cancelled.

    7. In view of the discussions we have found deficiency on part of the opposite parties. We allow the complaint and quash the demand of Rs.78543.07 raised by opposite parties from the complainant in bill Ex.C4. So, make it clear that complainant would be liable to pay Rs.1194.70 alongwith agreed rate of interest to OP. In pecular circumstances of the case, no order as to costs and compensation.
  • edited October 2009
    Quite relevant post on citibank credit card.
    adv.sumit wrote: »
    Anand K. Dinesh,

    S/o. A.K. Sathish,

    1st Floor, Door No.98,

    Ramaiah Layout, III Main,

    IV Cross, Kamanahalli,

    Bangalore – 560 084. …. Complainant



    Vs



    1. M/s. Citi Bank

    Rep.by its Manager,Customer Care,

    Citi Bank, Anna Salai,

    Chennai – 600 002 Opposite Party-1



    2. The Manager,

    Citi Bank, N.A.,

    102-104 Prestige Meridian II

    30 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001. Opposite Party-2







    ORDER








    1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



    The complainant is a ATM card holder f the opposite party bank. On 26.01.he tried to encash by using his ATM card in the ATM centre of the opposite party situated at Poonamalleel High Road near Sangam theatre but the card was returned without realizing money and the information d9isplaced in the screen was “ we cannot service you at this time. Please contact phone banking.


    The complainant immediately contacted the bank office at Chennai and he got information that his account is minus balance. In fact, a sum of Rs.19,524/- was credited in his account on 30..11.2005 and Rs.14,896/- on 31.12.2005. When contacted the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party replied that the account was maintained by the Head Office at Chennai. On 28.12.2006, the complainant was informed over phone that his account was closed for the reasons that his cheques were bounced. Later on 05.03.2006, the opposite party informed that due to mistake on the part of the opposite parties, his account was closed.


    After two weeks, the opposite parties repudiated the complainants account. The opposite parties unauthorizedly debited Rs.19,334/- from his account on various dates. He never authorized any withdrawal of money in ECS Scheme and in spite of that, various amounts have been debited and on account of that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. Therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs.14,221/- with interest at the rate of 18% and compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

    2. The 1st opposite party filed a version and it has been adopted by the 2nd opposite party. In the version, the opposite parties contended inter alia that the complainant was holding Savings Bank account with the bank branch at Bangalore and he was issued ATM card for using operation of his account. During the end of February 2006, the bank came to understand that there were erroneous debits from his account held by the complainant by way of ECS. The complainant was informed on 27.03.2006 was erroneously registered with ECS facilities since the September 2005 and that was the reason of his cheque being returned and the bank also recorded the same and the amount of Rs.19,228/- which was erroneously debited was credited into his account on 03.04.2006 and the entire amount has been credited into his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

    3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

    4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

    1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

    the opposite parties?.

    2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had savings bank account holder of the opposite parties bank at their Bangalore Branch and he was also issued ATM card by the Bank for operation of his account. The complainant used his ATM card on 26.01.2006 at Chennai and he could not get the money since his account was closed by the opposite parties erroneously. According to the complainant, several payments were made through ECS aunthorisedly which amounts to Rs.19,334/-. Further, the complainant would submit that the opposite parties illegally debited Rs.19,334/- in the account of the complainant through ECS Scheme and that amount has not yet been credited into his account and therefore there is deficiency in service. Ex A1 is the debit card. Ex A2 is the statement of account. Ex A4 is the letter of the opposite party bank dated 27.03.2006 to the complainant in which the opposite party has admitted erroneous registration of ECS to the payments of the complainant since September 2005 and apologized for the same.


    Ex B2 would show that the amount of Rs.19,228/- was credited into the account of the complainant on 03.04.2006. The documents filed by the complainant did not disclose that a sum of Rs.14,221/- was debited from his account and not credited in his account. But, admittedly there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since unauthorizedly made several payments through ECS without knowledge of the complainant. Even though, they were subsequently reversed and credited into the account of the complainant. The point is answered accordingly.

    7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Anand K. Dinesh,

    S/o. A.K. Sathish,

    1st Floor, Door No.98,

    Ramaiah Layout, III Main,

    IV Cross, Kamanahalli,

    Bangalore – 560 084. …. Complainant



    Vs



    1. M/s. Citi Bank

    Rep.by its Manager,Customer Care,

    Citi Bank, Anna Salai,

    Chennai – 600 002 Opposite Party-1



    2. The Manager,

    Citi Bank, N.A.,

    102-104 Prestige Meridian II

    30 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001. Opposite Party-2







    ORDER











    The complainant is a ATM card holder f the opposite party bank. On 26.01.he tried to encash by using his ATM card in the ATM centre of the opposite party situated at Poonamalleel High Road near Sangam theatre but the card was returned without realizing money and the information d9isplaced in the screen was “ we cannot service you at this time. Please contact phone banking.


    The complainant immediately contacted the bank office at Chennai and he got information that his account is minus balance. In fact, a sum of Rs.19,524/- was credited in his account on 30..11.2005 and Rs.14,896/- on 31.12.2005. When contacted the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party replied that the account was maintained by the Head Office at Chennai. On 28.12.2006, the complainant was informed over phone that his account was closed for the reasons that his cheques were bounced. Later on 05.03.2006, the opposite party informed that due to mistake on the part of the opposite parties, his account was closed. After two weeks, the opposite parties repudiated the complainants account.


    The opposite parties unauthorizedly debited Rs.19,334/- from his account on various dates. He never authorized any withdrawal of money in ECS Scheme and in spite of that, various amounts have been debited and on account of that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. Therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs.14,221/- with interest at the rate of 18% and compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

    2. The 1st opposite party filed a version and it has been adopted by the 2nd opposite party. In the version, the opposite parties contended inter alia that the complainant was holding Savings Bank account with the bank branch at Bangalore and he was issued ATM card for using operation of his account. During the end of February 2006, the bank came to understand that there were erroneous debits from his account held by the complainant by way of ECS.


    The complainant was informed on 27.03.2006 was erroneously registered with ECS facilities since the September 2005 and that was the reason of his cheque being returned and the bank also recorded the same and the amount of Rs.19,228/- which was erroneously debited was credited into his account on 03.04.2006 and the entire amount has been credited into his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

    3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

    4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

    1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

    the opposite parties?.

    2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had savings bank account holder of the opposite parties bank at their Bangalore Branch and he was also issued ATM card by the Bank for operation of his account. The complainant used his ATM card on 26.01.2006 at Chennai and he could not get the money since his account was closed by the opposite parties erroneously.


    According to the complainant, several payments were made through ECS aunthorisedly which amounts to Rs.19,334/-. Further, the complainant would submit that the opposite parties illegally debited Rs.19,334/- in the account of the complainant through ECS Scheme and that amount has not yet been credited into his account and therefore there is deficiency in service. Ex A1 is the debit card. Ex A2 is the statement of account. Ex A4 is the letter of the opposite party bank dated 27.03.2006 to the complainant in which the opposite party has admitted erroneous registration of ECS to the payments of the complainant since September 2005 and apologized for the same. Ex B2 would show that the amount of Rs.19,228/- was credited into the account of the complainant on 03.04.2006.


    The documents filed by the complainant did not disclose that a sum of Rs.14,221/- was debited from his account and not credited in his account. But, admittedly there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since unauthorizedly made several payments through ECS without knowledge of the complainant. Even though, they were subsequently reversed and credited into the account of the complainant. The point is answered accordingly.

    7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
  • adv.sumitadv.sumit Senior Member
    edited October 2009
    Anand K. Dinesh,

    S/o. A.K. Sathish,

    1st Floor, Door No.98,

    Ramaiah Layout, III Main,

    IV Cross, Kamanahalli,

    Bangalore – 560 084. …. Complainant



    Vs



    1. M/s. Citi Bank

    Rep.by its Manager,Customer Care,

    Citi Bank, Anna Salai,

    Chennai – 600 002 Opposite Party-1



    2. The Manager,

    Citi Bank, N.A.,

    102-104 Prestige Meridian II

    30 Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001. Opposite Party-2






    ORDER








    1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



    The complainant is a ATM card holder f the opposite party bank. On 26.01.he tried to encash by using his ATM card in the ATM centre of the opposite party situated at Poonamalleel High Road near Sangam theatre but the card was returned without realizing money and the information d9isplaced in the screen was “ we cannot service you at this time. Please contact phone banking.


    The complainant immediately contacted the bank office at Chennai and he got information that his account is minus balance. In fact, a sum of Rs.19,524/- was credited in his account on 30..11.2005 and Rs.14,896/- on 31.12.2005. When contacted the 2nd opposite party, the 2nd opposite party replied that the account was maintained by the Head Office at Chennai. On 28.12.2006, the complainant was informed over phone that his account was closed for the reasons that his cheques were bounced. Later on 05.03.2006, the opposite party informed that due to mistake on the part of the opposite parties, his account was closed.


    After two weeks, the opposite parties repudiated the complainants account. The opposite parties unauthorizedly debited Rs.19,334/- from his account on various dates. He never authorized any withdrawal of money in ECS Scheme and in spite of that, various amounts have been debited and on account of that the cheques issued by the complainant were dishonoured. Therefore, they have committed deficiency in service. The complainant has filed this complaint claiming Rs.14,221/- with interest at the rate of 18% and compensation of Rs.4,75,000/-for mental agony and cost of the complaint.

    2. The 1st opposite party filed a version and it has been adopted by the 2nd opposite party. In the version, the opposite parties contended inter alia that the complainant was holding Savings Bank account with the bank branch at Bangalore and he was issued ATM card for using operation of his account. During the end of February 2006, the bank came to understand that there were erroneous debits from his account held by the complainant by way of ECS.


    The complainant was informed on 27.03.2006 was erroneously registered with ECS facilities since the September 2005 and that was the reason of his cheque being returned and the bank also recorded the same and the amount of Rs.19,228/- which was erroneously debited was credited into his account on 03.04.2006 and the entire amount has been credited into his account. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

    3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainant and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the complainant. Exhibits B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

    4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

    1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

    the opposite parties?.

    2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

    5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had savings bank account holder of the opposite parties bank at their Bangalore Branch and he was also issued ATM card by the Bank for operation of his account. The complainant used his ATM card on 26.01.2006 at Chennai and he could not get the money since his account was closed by the opposite parties erroneously. According to the complainant, several payments were made through ECS aunthorisedly which amounts to Rs.19,334/-.


    Further, the complainant would submit that the opposite parties illegally debited Rs.19,334/- in the account of the complainant through ECS Scheme and that amount has not yet been credited into his account and therefore there is deficiency in service. Ex A1 is the debit card. Ex A2 is the statement of account. Ex A4 is the letter of the opposite party bank dated 27.03.2006 to the complainant in which the opposite party has admitted erroneous registration of ECS to the payments of the complainant since September 2005 and apologized for the same.


    Ex B2 would show that the amount of Rs.19,228/- was credited into the account of the complainant on 03.04.2006. The documents filed by the complainant did not disclose that a sum of Rs.14,221/- was debited from his account and not credited in his account. But, admittedly there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties since unauthorizedly made several payments through ECS without knowledge of the complainant. Even though, they were subsequently reversed and credited into the account of the complainant. The point is answered accordingly.

    7. Point No.2: In the result, the complaint is allowed. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as cost of the complaint to the complainant. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.
  • edited October 2009
    Hi,

    I have recently taken this deutsh Bank card and as of now got one bill and paid the same.

    Later on I was travelling a lot so didnt get time to make any payments, as a result i started getting collection calls which later on turned abusive and they just keep calling and calling.

    I have the money to pay the bill and close the card however I want to the bank to understan the way to do business you just cant go ahead and abuse customers.

    I get these calls from the delhi office at CP.

    Please help me with a solution.
  • edited November 2009
    Dear sir,

    I had a citi bank credit card bearing no - 5546199447293010 in year 2001 ,

    I paid the total amount due of Rs.14000/- through SBI cheque no 061130 on 19April2004.

    Even though total due paid ,I didnt got any NOC from Citi bank,

    and after the closure of the said credit card, I had tacken a personal loan of One lac rupees from same Citi Bank in year 2004 and the loan has been closed and I got Personal loan closing letter also.

    BUT STILL CITI BANK KEPT MY NAME IN CIBIL

    Please help me to get NOC from this Citi Bank.

    Thanks
    Malyadri.V
    ph-09736001266
  • RavidarRavidar Junior Member
    edited May 2010
    Hi Sir/Madom,
    Please note that I have cleared the total payment on this card in the year 2005 and got it closed. But suddenly last month after 5 years it has appeared in the CIBIL system with the status SETTLED because of which my home loan got struck. I tried calling the Citi bank collection team but there is no response at all and also they do not bothered to reply to the emails that I have sent to them.
    I am writing this to consumer forum after getting frustrated and losing hope on Citi bank.

    Please help me to get this case resolved as early as possible.
    Card Number: 4550 3877 5143 2003
    Regards,
    Ravinder
    Mobile:9701819998.
  • simpleamarsimpleamar Junior Member
    edited June 2010
    Hello Sir/Madam,

    Good Morning, 5 years back I had a Citibank Credit Card (Credit Card # 5425 5698 5019 0000) issued on October, 2005 with credit limit of Rs.14000/- which was linked with a Citibank salary account. I made so many transactions and paid outstanding so many times to Citibank. In 2006 my grandmother was very ill so I go back my home town with bag and baggage, unfortunately at that point of time I was not able to paid remaining outstanding of approx Rs.11,000/-. I came back to Delhi after 2 years in May, 2007 and got job in June, 2007 and opened another new salary account in Citibank (Citibank account# 5121104228), because previous account had been closed.

    Now, Citibank debited 10,607.65 from my Citibank salary account (account# 5121104228) on 31-May-2010 without any prior notice/information.

    Citibank made 11,000/- to 96,000/- includes very high interest rate and additional charges. I am a service class person and having family of 5 members including 11 months old baby girl, how I can pay back 96,000 to Citibank against 11,000. Since Citibank started to debit credit card’s outstanding from my Citibank salary account so, I am struggling to fulfill basic needs or bread and butter with remaining amount of my salary after deduction.Please help me to get this case resolved as early as possible

    I have not enclosed any documents as a proof, because I don't have any documents. I have taken all the information related to credit cards from Citibank customer service.

    Best regards,
    Amardeep Kumar
    9582079779

    My Address:
    A-742, Jahangir Puri, Delhi – 110033
  • edited June 2010
    i wanted a emi plans for my two credit cards as i m nt in the position to pay the whole amount in one shot.so i called up citibank.they offered me a plan took some post dated cheques and refused to give anmy settlement neither did they return my cheques.i have all the documents
  • edited August 2010
    1. C.Muralidhar,

    S/o Late Shri.N.Chinnakannan,

    Aged about 45 yrs,

    R/at F # 101, Grulakshmi Residency,

    #185, 6th Main, Grulakshmi Layout,

    II Stage, Kamala Nagar,

    Bangalore – 560 079.

    …. Complainant.

    V/s



    Citi Bank,

    Global Consumer Bank,

    102-104, Prestige Merdian 2,

    30, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

    Bangalore – 560 001.

    …. Opposite Party
  • edited September 2010
    Sir,
    I have taken credit card loan from your bank but till today I have no I have paid almost 3/4 of the premium i.e. EMI but till today I have not received any statment of loan account and the balance of loan. kindly send the same at your earliest. Thanking you, With Regards. Chandrashekhar B S
  • MaheshkhumarsMaheshkhumars Junior Member
    edited January 2011
    Hi Team ,

    I had a savings account with Citibank with Ready credit facility . 3 years back I closed the Ready credit account . the Rep from citibank offered me lesser amount for settlement , I thought that would be all and paid it . but after 3 years when I applied for a loan it got rejected saying that I have an outstanding of Rs 25808 with citibank that was a shocker for me . but even then some how found out the citibank recovery dept and paid the amount mentioned above full in cash. in October 2010 .

    In December when I requested CIBIL for my credit report .I see Rs 25808 is still showing as outstanding amount . Request you all to look int it and do the needfull

    Name :Maheshkumar S
    A/C Number :0762838807

    Regards

    Mahesh
  • ganshulganshul Junior Member
    edited September 2011
    This is Anshul Gupta(8147730747). I have a CitiBank suvidha salary account. I had applied for citibank rewards credit card via Citbanks telephonic channel Ref no-11090585466. These people, took 10 days for verification and rejected my application by saying that they have had found "particulars filled by me" to be not compliant. So, I called their so called 24x7 customer service center and asked them about the status. The guy told me that "Sir, your home address is in unsearchable area". I asked that smart guy to please forward my call to his very efficient manager Mr. Rajesh(Citi Credit Card Customer Service). I told him that, this is the problem, kindly help me to resolve it. He told me that I am living in a rented house, with my colleagues. We need you to have your family, to verify your home address. You cannot apply for a credit card for next 6 months because you are a bachelor. This means that being an employee of a premier corporate as well as being an graduate from premier institution ,IIT, and also after having an salary account with them, they considered me as a future defaulter. So , Is this is the way of treating your present account holder? Now, I am really exasperated. The funniest part in this complaint is that " A account holder is not getting a card". I don't know that how come in 6 month I am going to buy a property where I will be living with my family. Please throw some light on this issue or contact me with a solution.
  • ganshulganshul Junior Member
    edited September 2011
    With reference to appended complaint no one from citibank has tried to contact me. Please provide me wit the solution to the appended complaint.

    -Anshul
    Mobile-0091-8147730747

    "This is Anshul Gupta(8147730747). I have a CitiBank suvidha salary account. I had applied for citibank rewards credit card via Citbanks telephonic channel Ref no-11090585466. These people, took 10 days for verification and rejected my application by saying that they have had found "particulars filled by me" to be not compliant. So, I called their so called 24x7 customer service center and asked them about the status. The guy told me that "Sir, your home address is in unsearchable area". I asked that smart guy to please forward my call to his very efficient manager Mr. Rajesh(Citi Credit Card Customer Service). I told him that, this is the problem, kindly help me to resolve it. He told me that I am living in a rented house, with my colleagues. We need you to have your family, to verify your home address. You cannot apply for a credit card for next 6 months because you are a bachelor. This means that being an employee of a premier corporate as well as being an graduate from premier institution ,IIT, and also after having an salary account with them, they considered me as a future defaulter. So , Is this is the way of treating your present account holder? Now, I am really exasperated. The funniest part in this complaint is that " A account holder is not getting a card". I don't know that how come in 6 month I am going to buy a property where I will be living with my family. Please throw some light on this issue or contact me with a solution."
  • goyalneeraj86goyalneeraj86 Junior Member
    edited February 2012
    Hi,

    I was using Citi Bank Credit Card since 2008 and it was supposed to be expire on Feb, 2011. I was in Malaysia from Jun, 2010 till Sep, 2012. Citibank was sending statements to incorrect email ID so I used to refer their net banking for checking the statement and paid the amount. I paid the amount for Feb statement generated on Feb 21. However there was a transaction of 1014 on Feb 27 which realized in March first week. However net banking was stopped by Citibank on 1st March. So i missed that payment. After I came back to India, I applied for a personal loan with Citibank. It was rejected and they informed me about the pending payment. I made the payment on 1st Dec to collection officer sent by bank as suggested by Customer Care. They issued me a letter saying that CIBIL records will be updated within 60 days of payment. I sent them queries to make sure that my updated status is sent as committed by Citibank. Two scheduled updates have been sent by Citibank to CIBIL dated 21st Dec, 2011 and 21st Jan, 2012. However my details are still not updated by them. Please suggest me what action should I take.
  • kiran ravikiran ravi Junior Member
    edited February 2012
    FINANCIAL PROBLEMS? &
    CIBIL Clearance



    i can help u call me on 9916449783

    kiran
  • attorneyattorney Senior Member
    edited June 2012
    Greetings !!!!!!

    Hi,

    We are Financial Legal Advisors, have been located in Chennai. We render Financial Services to our clients regarding,

    · CIBIL Report Obtaining
    · CIBIL Report Clarification / Rectification
    · Bank Bebt Re-Consolidation
    · Bank Legal Problems
    · Liaison for one time settlement with bank
    · Deal with NPA
    · Handle DRT Cases


    Contact details:

    · Contact Person :Miss. P. Saranya (MA.,BL)
    · Office name : INNOVISION SERVISES
    · Contact number : 044-2031487, Mobile:9380167894
    · E-mail: attorney.innovision@ gmail.com

    NOTE:

    We do not work for CIBIL or any government body; we are private organization having legal advisors to tackle issues& secure proper remedy.
  • attorneyattorney Senior Member
    edited June 2012
    Greetings !!!!!!

    Hi,

    We are Financial Legal Advisors, have been located in Chennai. We render Financial Services to our clients regarding,

    · CIBIL Report Obtaining
    · CIBIL Report Clarification / Rectification
    · Bank Bebt Re-Consolidation
    · Bank Legal Problems
    · Liaison for one time settlement with bank
    · Deal with NPA
    · Handle DRT Cases


    Contact details:

    · Contact Person :Miss. P. Saranya (MA.,BL)
    · Office name : INNOVISION SERVISES
    · Contact number : 044-2031487, Mobile:9380167894
    · E-mail: attorney.innovision@ gmail.com

    NOTE:

    We do not work for CIBIL or any government body; we are private organization having legal advisors to tackle issues& secure proper remedy.
  • attorneyattorney Senior Member
    edited June 2012
    Greetings !!!!!!

    Hi,

    We are Financial Legal Advisors, have been located in Chennai. We render Financial Services to our clients regarding,


    • CIBIL Report Obtaining
    • CIBIL Report Clarification / Rectification
    • Bank Bebt Re-Consolidation
    • Bank Legal Problems
    • Liaison for one time settlement with bank
    • Deal with NPA
    • Handle DRT Cases


    Contact details:


    • Contact Person :Miss. P. Saranya (MA.,BL)
    • Office name : INNOVISION SERVISES
    • Contact number : 044-2031487, Mobile:9380167894
    • E-mail: attorney.innovision@ gmail.com


    NOTE:


    We do not work for CIBIL or any government body; we are private organization having legal advisors to tackle issues& secure proper remedy.
  • edited June 2012
    Dear Sir,

    My name is Sujeet Singh. I used one card of citibank in the year 2006 and the card number was 5546198061739019. I received my last statement in March 2009 with Zero outstanding balance as the bank reversed all the charges after seeing my representation over email. This year i applied for a credit card but my application got rejected due to my name in defaulter list at CIBIL.


    Kindly guide me how to get my name removed from CIBIL defaulter list.


    Regards,
    Sujeet Singh
    sujeetsingh.com@gmail.com
  • asishasish Junior Member
    edited July 2012
    Hi,

    Citibank without my knowledge has given me a new card ( as per the words of the cal center executive Mandiri ).

    I did not receive it and they cancelled my old card which had excess Balance.

    When I demanded to talk to the Superviser the Executive did cut the call.

    Please take necessary action on this fradulent service bunch for credit card.

    -
    Regards,
    Asish
Sign In or Register to comment.