STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION OF TELANGANA :
At HYDERABAD
FA 683 of 2014
AGAINST
CC No302 of 2013, DISTRICT FORUM -1, HYDERABAD.
Between :
M. Nehemiah, Flat No. 29,
Block III, Janapriya Shelters,
Doveton, Bollaram,
Secunderabad – 500010 .. Appellant/complainant
And
- The Office Incharge, HSBC Credit Card Division,
HSBC Building, Rajbhavan road, Somajiguda,
Hyderabad – 500 082.
- The office Incharge, HSBC Credit Card Services,
No. 96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Sala Mylapore,
Chennai – 600 004. .. Respondents/Opp. parties
Counsel for the Appellant : Sri K. Venkateswarlu
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. J. Sivanesan
Coram :
Honble Sri Justice B. N. Rao Nalla … President
And
Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member
Wednesday, the Second Day of May
Two Thousand Eighteen
Oral order : ( per Hon’ ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President )
***
1) This is an appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act by the complainant praying this Commission to set aside the impugned order dated 25.02.2014 made in CC 302 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM-1, Hyderabad.
2) For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as arrayed in the complaint before the District Forum.
3). The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he received HSBC Card bearing No. 4476 9299 8968 5786 in the year 2007 from the opposite party and it collected amount including TATA-AIG Health Policy amount in the bills ranging from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- without his permission and the credit limit was enhanced to Rs.56,000/- and the bills were not sent properly. There was no reply from the opposite party despite many requests to stop putting TATA-AIG Healthy policy amount. After collecting money in the form of TATA-AIG health policies to the maximum extent, they have reduced the credit limit of the card to Rs.37,000/-. Apart from 42% rate of interest of Credit Card and also various other charges in the form of TATA-AIG Health Policies, he lost more than Rs.60,000/-. The OP issued nearly eight TATA-AIG Health policies since the Credit Card was issued. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to stop collecting money from him, statement of collection of money from him towards deductions of policies and to claim the money that the complainant has lost which is taken away TATA AIG which may become more than Rs.60,000/-.
4). The opposite party opposed the above complaint by way of written version contending that the policies have been issued after the complainant has given consent. The policy bearing No. 1900058446 has expired on 17.07.2009, under which, no amount was collected. On the request of the complainant the policy bearing No. BTM01000071263 was cancelled on 05.05.2010, under which, no amount was collected. The letter is dated 17.07.2008 issued by them relating to the policy bearing No. 1900058446. As per the request of the complainant, his old card was blocked on the ground that it was lost and new card bearing No. 447692996099 1377 was issued. The complainant received all the statements regularly and has made the payments regularly towards the premium of the policies till the cancellation of the policy on 05.05.2010. The complainant used the credit facility and made part payments towards the outstanding and legitimate charges and thus charges accrued on the card. Due to delinquency, the credit limit was reduced to INR 37000/-and subsequently in January, 2013 it was reduced to INR 27,000/-. The complainant has to pay Rs.24,184.63 ps by the due date on 26.12.2012, but, received only INR 1300/- in December, 2012,thus, incremental charges have been levied. The complaint is barred by limitation. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.
5). During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to A4. The opposite party has filed their Evidence affidavit and got marked Ex. B1 to B-37..
6) The District Forum, after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint.
7) Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal before this Commission.
8). Both sides have advanced their arguments reiterating the contents in the grounds of appeal, rebuttal thereof along with written arguments by the appellant.
9) The points that arise for consideration are,
(i) Whether the impugned order as passed by the District Forum suffers from any error or irregularity or whether it is liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner?
(ii) To what relief ?
10). Point No. 1 :
The contention of the appellant/complainant is that he is the Credit Card holder of the respondents/opposite parties since 2007 and without his consent it had issued TATA AIG Health Policies along with the Credit Card and it collected amount including TATA-AIG Health Policy amount in the bills ranging from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.3,000/- without his permission and the credit limit was enhanced to Rs.56,000/- and the bills were not sent properly. The policies were not cancelled despite many requests and imposed higher rate of interest and collected excess amount of Rs.60,000/-.
11). On the other hand, the respondents Bank rebutted the same contending that the policies bearing Nos. 19000584446 and 1000071263 were expired on 17.07.2009 and 05.05.2010 respectively and no payments were collected for the said policies. Further, the appellant/complainant paid only part payments and hence they levied charges on the outstanding due amount and due to delinquency they reduced the credit facility to Rs.37,000/- and thereafter to Rs.27,000/-.
12). The District Forum observed that the respondents” Bank has not collected any amount towards TATA AIG policies, but, levied charges for service tax and finance service charges and as per the instructions of the appellant/complainant the policies were cancelled on 17.07.2009 and 05.05.2010 and since then no payments were collected towards the policies and further since part payments were paid by the appellant/complainant, charges were levied on the outstanding due amounts and that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents” bank.
13). Counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the District Forum failed to observe that the respondents” opposite party Bank issued two policies without his knowledge and consent and collected excess amount by way of charges, high rate of interest. After knowing the said polices, at the request of the appellant/complainant, though the policies were cancelled, but, the respondents’ Bank failed to refund the premium amount.
14). Perusal of Ex.A1 andEx.A2 letters show that the appellant/complainant has knowledge of the TATA insurance policy and Ex.A3 with regards to deduction of the premium amount of the insurance policy. Further, there is no evidence on record to show when did he make request for cancellation of the same, however, the respondents/ opposite parties cancelled one of the two policies on 5.4.2010 at his request and another policy was expired on 17.07.2009 as per their written version. It is not known as to why the Insurance policies were not placed before this Commission for perusal on either side. It is not known as to why the appellant/complainant did not give complaint in writing immediately after coming to know of the deduction of the policy amount. When he came to know that they are collecting excess amount, higher rate of interest and levying charges fraudulently, why did not he cancel the credit card immediately. When there are outstanding dues, the respondents/opposite parties are levying charges on the due amounts as per their business rules. It is not the case of the appellant that he is not liable to pay any due amount. When there are due amounts, he cannot claim the amount paid by way of premiums. The appellant failed to file statistics to show as to how the respondents collected huge amount fraudulently and higher rate of interest, and hence it is not possible to come to a definite conclusion, without filing any statistics, that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents/opposite parties. The appellant failed to prove that there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.
15). After considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and also having regard to the contentions raised on both sides, we do not want to interfere with the impugned order. The point framed at para 9, supra, is answered accordingly.
16). Point No. 2 :
In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the impugned order dated 25.02.2014 made in CC 302 of 2013 on the file of the DISTRICT FORUM-1, Hyderabad. There shall be no order as to costs.
PRESIDENT MEMBER Dated : 02.05.2018.
