A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 759/2011 against CC 140/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad.
Between :
Between
Kolluru Satish, S/o Perayya Sastry,
Aged about 378 years, Occ: Pvt. Employee,
R/o MIG 171, Bharathnagar,
Hyderabad. …… Appellant/Complainant
And
1. The Officer, Debt Management,
HDFC Bank Cards Division,
Ceebros Building, No.110,
Nelson Manickam Road,
Aminjikarai,
Mumbai- 600 029.
2. The Regional Manager,
HDFC Bank Credit Cards Division,
Plot No. D-24, Ranigunj,
Secunderabad. …..Opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. V. Gourisankara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. L. V. Vijaya Shankar
Coram ;
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
And
Sri T. Ashok Kumar .. Hon’ble Member
Friday, the Twenty Third Day of November
Two Thousand Twelve
Oral Order : ( As per Sri T. Ashok Kumar , Hon’ble Member )
****
1. This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful complainant as against the orders dated 08.06.2011 in CC 140/2010 on the file of the District Consumer Forum II, Hyderabad . For convenience sake, the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to as under :
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant was issued a Credit card bearing No. 5243681100570558 in the year 2004 by the OP Bank initially for a limit of Rs.one lakh and subsequently the said facility was enhanced to Rs.3 lakhs over a period of time and the complainant was paying the balances regularly. While the things thus stood, without following the rules and regulations issued by RBI from time to time, Ops were charging excess interest without any basis they did not send the agreement conditions in respect of the interest credit nor charged the interest as per the guidelines of RBI. Since the Ops were charging excess interest the complainant questioned the disturbances crept in the monthly bills and the officials of the OP have given answers in a strange manner and they have pressurized the complainant to pay the outstanding due without any solutions to the said disturbances crept in the bills. In spite of several reminders, the Ops did not sort out the disturbances in the bills to rectify the defects and reverse the amounts of Rs.11,452/- charged towards the yearly premium and block the card to as to stop the payments to M/s. Royal Sundarams Insurance co. they did not settle the same and therefore the complainant filed CC 257/2009 on the file of the District Forum II, Hyderabad. The Ops without appealing before the Forum have adopted illegal and unfair trade practices by sending their personnel to the Office of the complainant and they have created nuisance there. The complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the OP stating that the credit card was suspending and is invalid and then the Credit Card Account history has been shared with other banks, credit information company and statutory bodies etc. on account of referring the complainant to credit information bureau the complainant has lost his reputation, image in the banking and financial sectors and his status was lowered subjecting him to mental agony without there being any fault on his side he is highly respectable person working in financial institution’s in a pivotal post . The action of the OP is illegal and amounts to unfair trade practice and hence the complaint to award damages of rs. 5 lakhs and to reverse the excessive interest which is unnecessarily debited by the Ops in the Account of the complainant and also to withdraw the information shared with the other banks institutions credit information companies and statutory bodies.
3. OPs filed counter opposing the claim of the complainant and denying the allegations made in the complaint and the brief facts of the counter are as under :
It is true that CC 257/2009 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad was filed. the Ops did not adopt any illegal and unfair trade practices by sending their personnel to the office of the complainant and they did not create any nuisance as alleged. The OP bank has suspended the credit card and is invalid and that the Credit card Account history has been shared with other banks, institutions , credit information companies and statutory bodies. It is the procedure laid down by the all the National Banks and statutory bodies and that if any person defaulted the loan amounts, credit card amounts and also credit facilities evading to pay the said amounts their names will be kept in the credit information bureau. The complainant has already filed CC 257/2009 and it was made over to the District Forum III, Hyderabad under the same cause of action and the same was disposed of. In spite of it the complainant has filed the present complaint mentioning the same cause of action hence the proceedings are barred by resjudicata and thus prayed to dismiss the complain.t
4. Ex. A`1 to A8 were marked on behalf of the complainant and Ex. B 1 to B3 were marked for the OP.
5. Having heard both sides and considering the evidence on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint observing that the complainant is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for redressasl.
6. Feeling aggrieved with the said order the complainant filed this appeal on several grounds and mainly contended that CC 257/2009 was filed against the Ops for debiting Rs.51,452/- into his Credit Card Account without the knowledge and consent towards yearly premium to M/s. Royal Sundaram Insurance co. and that the complaint was allowed awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- by te District Forum III, Hyderabad and that as against the said order Ops ;filed appeal and it is pending before this Commission and that the present CC was filed for wrongly declaring the complainant as defaulter and placing the details of the complainant in Cibil ( Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd ) and for sharing the wrong information with other financial institutions for causing loss of reputation and mental agony and that the District Forum did not appreciate the said aspect and that erroneously dismissed the complaint without any discussion on flimsy grounds and therefore the impugned order is not sustainable.
7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued with reference to the grounds of appeal and no arguments were advanced for Ops.
8. Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is sustainable ?
9. There is no dispute that the complainant filed CC 257/2009 dt. 13.11.2009 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad with regard to the Disputed pertaining to his Credit card issued by OP. 1 and that the said Forum passed Ex. A7 order dt. 13.11.2009 directing recording deficiency of service on the part of Op.1 and 2 awarding compensation of Rs.20,000/- for mental and harassment caused to the complainant so also costs of Rs.2,000/- giving four weeks’ time for compliance. There is no dispute that appeal was filed by the Ops as against the said order and the result of the appeal is not on record. In the present complaint, the main grievance of the complainant is that since the credit card account of the complainant has been referred to Credit Information Bureau he lost his reputation and that his image in the banking and financial sectors is lowered and thus he was subjected to mental agony without there being any fault on his side and therefore he claimed compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs in the said context and also a relief for withdrawal of the information shared with other banks institutions, Credit Information companies and statutory bodies. The District Forum in the impugned orders did not discuss anything in the said context and answer the same but simply observed that in view of the orders in CC 257/2009 dt. 13.11.2009 if the complainant has any grievances with regard to the execution of the above order and any other related matters concerning to the credit Card under consideration the appropriate forum is the District Consumer Forum III, Hyderabad and not by way of fresh complaint which will be appreciated in the circumstances of the case. Therefore in the circumstances of the case and larger interests of justice, we are inclined to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and remit back the consumer complaint 140/2010 to the District consumer forum II, Hyderabad for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to both sides keeping in view of the points agitated by the complainant and the oPs assigning reasons .
10. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the order of the District Forum and the matter is remitted back to the District Forum II, Hyderabad for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both sides. no order as to costs in the appeal. The parties shall appear before the District Forum II, Hyderabad on 14.12.2012 without insisting for any fresh notice.
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED : 23.11.2012.
