Date of Filing:30/09/2020 Date of Order:07/10/2021 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:7th DAY OF OCTOBER 2021 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Retd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M., B.A., LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.713/2020 COMPLAINANT: | | SRI. ELESHA.N.S Aged about 57 years So Sri Yesu Dass, Residing at No.8/19-5, 8th Cross, 3rd Main, Venkatapura, Koramangala 1st Block Koramangala Bengaluru 560 034. Mob: 9986367055 (Sri M.Mahesh Adv. For complainant) | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY : | | HDFC BANK Head Office at No.8/24, Salco Centre, Richmond Road, Opposite Baldwins College, Bengaluru 560 025. Represented by its officer Authorized Signatory. | | | | |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainants against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in charging exorbitant interest and not giving deduction to the payments made in respect of the dues towards SBI cards, for damages of Rs.1,00,000/- for harassing and causing mental agony to him and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; the complainant is a credit card holder bearing No.4854 9808 0222 3315 with OP. OP has charged exorbitant interest on the balance of account. He has paid Rs.8,35,264/- from March 2017 to October 2018 whereas the interest charged on the balance of account for the said period is Rs.6,21,189/-. His credit limit is only Rs.6,00,000/-. Since he has some personal problems as well as deduction from his salary from his employer, he could not able to make the full payment of the credit transaction. He was paying only the minimum amount as instructed by the OP. OP has demanded to pay Rs.6,21,189/- as due and sent a demand notice. The act of OP in charging the interest is unethical beyond preview of law and charged over rate interest. It has calculated wrongly without giving deduction to the payments made by him which is illegal and against to the RBI guidelines. Further OP used forces to collect the amount which has caused him huge loss and damage to his reputation. Hence this complaint.
3. After the service of notice, OP remained absent, hence placed exparte.
4. In order to prove the case, complainant has filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
5. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 & 2 : In the Negative
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1 & 2:-
6. We have perused the documents produced and also the affidavit evidence adduced by the complainant. From the very document it becomes clear that the complainant is a credit card holder of the OP bank. OP bank has issued demand notice for due payment of the arrears. It is in the very complaint itself that due to his cut in the salary he could not pay the dues towards the credit card usage and he was paying only the minimum of the due.
7. It is the contention of the complainant that OP has charged excessive rate of interest. No document and the account statement pertaining to charging of excess interest has been produced. In fact to say no iota of evidence has been produced to substantiate the allegation of excess amount claimed and excess interest charged.
8. It is the duty of the complainant having used the credit card facility to pay the entire amount utilized by him for the said month. He has an option to pay the minimum of the claim made for the particular month which also envisages that the balance of the amount carry the interest as agreed. The credit card dues are charged with 24 to 36% per month, for which, the complainant has agreed at the time obtaining the credit card which is binding on him. Hence on these ground the complainant has miserably failed to prove the allegation and hence we answer POINT NO.1 IN THE NEGATIVE and in the result complainant is not entitle for any of the reliefs claim. We impose cost of Rs.2,000/- to be paid by the complainant to the OP. Hence we answer POINT NO.2 ALSO IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed with cost.
2. Complainant is hereby directed to pay cost of Rs.2,000/- to the OP towards the cost of this litigation.
3. Complainant is hereby directed to comply the above order within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and submit the compliance report to this commission within 15 days thereafter.
4. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 7th day of October 2021)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Sri Elesha NS – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of the Company ID card.
Ex P2: Copy of the SBI credit card.
Ex. P3: Copy of the demand notice.
Ex P4: Copy of the Adhaar card.
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: - Nil -
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
- Nil -
MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
712/2020
VERSION
Upon the service of notice, Op appeared through before the advocate and filed version
