BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD

FA NO.1308 OF 2013 AGAINST CC NO.282 OF 2013

ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-I, HYDERABAD

Between:

M.Nehemaiah

Flat No.29, Block-III,

Janapriya Shelters, Deveton,

Bollaram, Secunderabad-10.

…Appellant/Complainant

And

1)       The Officer-in-charge,

          HDFC Credit Card Division,

          HDFC Complex, Begumpet,

          Hyderabad  16.

2)       The Officer-in-charge,

          HDFC Credit Card Division,

          No.8, Lattice Bridge Road,

          Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041.

…Respondents/Opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant           :         Party-in-person

Counsel for the Respondents     :         M/s Lotus Law Associates.

Coram                  :

Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla   …      President

and

Sri Patil Vithal Rao … Member

Wednesday, the Thirtieth day of November

Two thousand Sixteen

Oral Order : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B.N.Rao Nalla, Hon’ble President)

***

1)       This is an appeal preferred by the unsuccessful Complainant party against the orders of the District Forum-I, Hyderabad dated 21.08.2013 made in C.C.No.282 of 2013 dismissing the complaint without costs

2)       For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint.

3)       The case of the complainant, in brief, is that the complainant is credit card customer of the Opposite parties from the past 7 years and he is paying the bills regularly from the beginning.  Recently, on 24.03.2013, three persons from HDFC collection department made a terrible attack on him at his residence to collect money.  They forcibly entered into the house and obstructed him to move freely and asked the payment.  On his request to wait for few days, they discarded and started shouting at him to sell away his articles or property and pay the amount.  Even they did not allow him to contact his neighbours, however, he could collect Rs.5,000/- and could pay to them.  Thereafter, the Complainant stated to have moved towards bus stop but they followed him again and pulled him down from the bus and again started shouting to insult him in the neighbourhood. 

4)       The said three persons forced the Complainant to sit on their vehicle to meet somebody who is in the bank.  Persons gathered on the spot and the Complainant could collect some more amount and gave them Rs.9050/- for which, Mr.A.N.Satyanarayana passed the receipt.  This continued for about two hours.  They behaved in such a manner as if they are executing the decree of the court with an intent to insult, defame and bring damage to his reputation and goodwill in public and neighbourhood.

5)       The bank had collected surcharges and surcharge on surcharge, which he has been paying since seven years.  The damage is in the form of collecting surcharge and sometimes extra amount.  Hence prayed to order the HDFC bank credit card division to stop contacting the Complainant and not to collect the money till the dispute is settled; to order to produce the bills generated from the past five years so as to verify about the surcharge; to pay Rs.2,00,000/- or more from the bank.

6)       Opposite parties resisted the claim by way of written version on the premise that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the allegations do not constitute any deficiency in service to bring it within the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.  There are no facts and evidence or documents to support the allegations.  The complainant has not made out any case.  All the averments are made only to purchase time or to delay the payments to be made to the Opposite parties. 

7)       The Opposite parties are not charging any extra amount and all charges are in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement.  Charges applicable are being printed over-leaf of the credit card statement which are being sent to all the credit card holders including the complainant, who is well aware of the same.  Complainant defaulted in making payments.  Instead of making payment, he filed the complaint with false and baseless allegations.  The Ops never harassed the complainant.  The Ops never went to the premises of the complainant on 24.03.2013 and there arose no cause of action for filing the complaint.  In order to evade payments and to deceive the Ops with a pre-emptive move and to avoid the legitimate payments to the Ops, the Complainant filed the present complaint.  Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs.

8)       During the course of enquiry before the District Forum, in order to prove his case, the complainant filed his evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.A1 to A5.  

9)       The District Forum after considering the material available on record, dismissed the complaint with costs.    

10)     Aggrieved by the said orders, the Appellant/Complainant preferred this appeal contending that the forum below failed to (a) appreciate the facts in right perspective.  (b) see that the persons who had come to the Appellant’s house and made forcible entry are not the bank employees; (c) to see that Appellant was not put on notice that the persons from the bank are coming for collection of the dues; (d) see that the bank is charging illegal interest and interest above interest and high surcharges, hence prayed to allow the appeal by setting aside the orders of forum below.

11)     The point that arises for consideration is 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?  To what relief ?

12)     Both the parties filed their written arguments reiterating the contents of the complaint and the written version.

13)     It is not in dispute that the Appellant is the credit card holder of the Respondents and it is also not in dispute that the Appellant is served with the monthly statement of account.  The Appellant would only contend that three persons came to his house and forced him to make payment of the amount due in respect of the credit card and they did not allow to move from home and on making payment of certain amount, they left and again they caught him when he came out and made galata outside, resulting which, he again paid the amount of Rs.9,050/- and that they insulted, defamed and created nuisance.  Even they pulled him down from the bus and that the Respondent are collecting surcharge over and above the existing rates. 

14)     No evidence is brought on record to show that the Respondents have collected over and above surcharge and excess charges from him.  The allegations of creating nuisance, insult, defamation and damage to reputation are concerned, the same amounts to criminal acts, which the Appellant could have sought his remedies elsewhere but not before the Fora established under Consumer Protection Act.  From the documents exhibited by the Appellant, no deficiency is proved nor any negligence on the part of the Respondents. 

15)     The Respondents would fairly contend that they never deputed any persons to the house of the Appellant nor they resorted to such practice at any point of time much less on the alleged date of 24.03.2013.  The burden lies on the Appellant to prove that the Respondents charged extra amount and surcharge over surcharge.  When the Appellant is utilizing the credit card and making purchases on the same, it is obligatory on his part to make payment of the dues regularly. 

16)     Ex.A1 is the provisional credit card payment for Rs.9,050/- dated 25.03.2013 against the credit card No.4050282002993306.  Ex.A2 is the statement of account of the Appellant’s credit card bearing No.4050282002993306, dated 03.04.2013 for a sum of Rs.1,47,997.21 ps, wherein the due date is shown as ‘immediate’.  Ex.A3 is the original platinum plus credit card issued by the Respondents on the name of the Appellant.  Ex.A4 is the statement of account dated 03.01.2011, wherein the amount due is shown as Rs.86,851.02 and the payment due date is shown as ‘immediate’.  Likewise, Ex.A5 is statement of account dated 03.01.2013 for Rs.1,29,100.65 and the payment due date is shown as ’23.01.2013’.  His own documents filed by the Appellant himself falsifies his statement.  Instead of paying the amounts on time, the Appellant has resorted to file the present complaint which is under challenge in this appeal.  There is no single allegation to the effect that the calculations shown thereon are not correct.  The burden lies on the Appellant to prove that the calculations are incorrect by way of cogent evidence.  Nothing is brought on record to believe the version of the Appellant.  The allegation of using force, insult, defamation and damage to reputation are beyond the purview of the fora constituted under the Consumer Protection Act and outside the jurisdiction of this Commission.  Instead of sorting-out his remedies elsewhere, the Appellant had chosen wrong forum.

17)     It is also not in dispute that the amount shown in the exhibits are incorrect.  It is not the case of the Appellant that the amount shown under the documents exhibited are not spent by him and that the calculations made thereof are incorrect.  Without there being any record and without there being any consumer dispute, the Appellant has chosen to file the complaint which is under challenge in this appeal.  The forum below has rightly dismissed the complaint with due reasoning.  In the above facts and circumstances, we do not find any error or irregularity in the findings rendered by the District Forum in CC No.282/2013, dated 21.08.2013 and hence the same is not liable to be set aside, modified or interfered with, in any manner.  The point framed for consideration in paragraph No.11, supra, is answered accordingly.

18)     In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but under circumstances, no costs.  Time for compliance four weeks.

PRESIDENT                  MEMBER

Dt. 30.11.2016

​