BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.492 OF 2011 AGAINST C.C.NO.815 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-I HYDERABAD

Between:
Krishna Reddy S/o late Venkat Subba Reddy
aged about 48 years, Occ: Pvt Service
R/o Plot No.196, Vasant Nagar Colony
KPHB Kukatpally, Hyderabad-072
Appellant/complainant
A N D

1. SBI Cards & Payments Pvt Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager, Branch Office at 103,
1st Floor, Ashok Bhoopal Chambers
Begumpet, Secunderabad-013
2. SBI Cards & Payments Pvt Ltd.,
rep. by its Manager, Head Office
at 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-1
Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant         Sri Mohd Muneeruddin
Counsel for the Respondent     M/s Hari & Associates

QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
    AND
SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

FRIDAY THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST
   TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

***
1. The complainant is the appellant. Feeling dissatisfied by the award for compensation of `10,000/- and costs of `2000/-, the complainant has filed appeal contending that the District Forum has not awarded appropriate amount as compensation and it has not followed the decision relied upon by his counsel and it failed to see that even after payment of amount as per the terms of one time settlement, the respondent harassed the appellant and that the District Forum ought to have granted a sum of `1,75,000/- instead of `10,000/- and an amount of `25,000/- towards punitive damages instead of `2000/-.
2. The appellant availed credit card facility with credit card bearing number 0004317575504273112 annexed to account bearing number 00043175503164080 for a maximum credit limit of `26,000/-.In the month of October, 2005 the respondent demanded for a sum of `16,000/- without furnishing statement and the appellant and the respondent reached an amicable settlement whereof the total claim was settled for `9,000/- towards full and final settlement of credit card account claim. The respondents issued settlement letter dated 25.10.2005 and the appellant paid the amount of `9,000/-on 26.10.2005.
3. Even after the one time settlement, the respondent continued to issue statements and send their recovery agents to the appellant whereon the appellant lodged complaint on 3.01.2006 with the respondents. The respondents through letter dated 12.01.2006 assured the appellant that they would look into his grievance and on 14.02.2006 informed him that his grievance was forwarded to the department concerned. The matter is not resolved even as per the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India.
4. The respondents resisted the claim on the premise that the appellant has been using the credit card and the statements are generated on the basis of usage of credit card in possession of the appellant .Full and final settlement of the claim was mentioned in the letter dated 25.10.2005 and the letter was forwarded to the head office of the respondents and the head office of the respondents accepted the proposal for one time settlement. All the cards will be terminated on the basis of written request of the card holder and termination will be effective from the date of payment of outstanding amount due.
5. The appellant had to clear the outstanding due and he has not informed the help-line of the respondents about the termination of the card and until the credit card is in his possession, the appellant is responsible for use and misuse of the card.  As per the rules, the respondents demanded for a sum of `42,380.64/- from the appellant for the use and enjoyment of the card and in order to cover up his misdeed, the appellant has filed the complaint before the District Forum.
6. The appellant has filed his affidavit and the documents, ExA1 to A15 and on behalf of the respondents, the Senior Executive of respondent no.1 filed his affidavit and no documents. 
7. The District Forum allowed the complaint on the premise that the respondents cannot charge the amount after one time settlement on the premise of deemed possession of the card.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant has filed written arguments.
9. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation?

10. The appellant and the respondents arrived at settlement for the amount due under credit card account number 431757550427  for `9,000/- on 25.10.2005. As agreed , the appellant paid the amount of `9,000/- on 26.10.2005 to the respondents. The settlement letter dated 25.10.2005 reads as under:
This has reference to the discussion you had with us regarding full and final settlement for Rs.9000/- of your above mentioned SBI Credit Card Account.  We can offer you the following repayment schedule in order to facilitate liquidation of your outstanding in full & final.  Keeping in view the special circumstances surrounding your Card Account. 

11. In terms of the settlement letter, the outstanding amount under the credit card account bearing number 431757550427   was agreed to be liquidated in full and final in view of the settlement.  Thereafter, the respondents had obtained permission of their head office and got approval for the one time settlement. As per the settlement letter, the settlement comes into force from the time the appellant paid the amount. The appellant paid the amount on 26.10.2005. Thus, for all purposes, the amount was paid in full and final satisfaction of the claim. The respondents fell back on terms and conditions of the SBI Card Members Agreement to demand for the amount on the premise that the appellant is liable to pay the charges for retention and utilization of the card. The respondents addressed letter dated 17.06.2010 which reads as under:
12. The settlement of the claim on the basis of one time settlement would show that the agreement would supersede all the previous agreements entered into between the parties . The respondents cannot claim that the appellant is liable to pay charges for the deemed possession of the card irrespective of the fact whether he uses or misuses it .We do not accept the contention of the respondents that the appellant is bound by the terms and conditions of the card agreement even after they expressly agreed under one time settlement scheme for full and final settlement of the amount due under the credit card account.
13. After receiving the statement from the respondents the appellant informed them that he had paid the outstanding amount as per the one time settlement and there cannot be any other amount due as demanded by the respondents. The appellant requested the respondents to look into his grievance which had not been attended to, by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellant has referred to the guidelines of the RBI in circular no. RBI/2007-2008/32 DBOD FSDBC 17/24.01.011/2007-08 dated 2.07.2007. Para 4of the guidelines deal with wrongful billing and para 7 with rederessal of grievance which read as under:
4(a) The card issuing bank/NBFC should ensure that wrong bills are not raised and issued to customers.  In case, a customer protests any bill, the bank/NBFC should provide explanation and, if necessary, documentary evidence to the customer within a maximum period of sixty days with a spirit to amicably redress the grievances. 

7.  Redressal of Grievances
(a) Generally, a time limit of sixty (60) days may be given to the customers for preferring their complaints/grievances.
(b) The card issuing bank/NBFC should constitute Grievance Redcressal machinery within the bank/NBFC and give wide publicity about it through electronic and print media.  The name and contact number of designated grievance redressal officer of the bank/NBFC should be mentioned on the credit card bills.  The designated officer should ensure that genuine grievances of credit card subscribers are redressed promptly without involving delay. 

14. The respondents cannot resort to demand for the amount invoking clause 6 of the agreement to contend that the acceptance of letter is part of termination procedure which would be completed on written request from the appellant. When the appellant and the respondents settled the amount once for all, the respondents cannot issue statement of account demanding charges for the period during which the card is deemed to have been in possession of the appellant. The respondents can seek for possession of the credit card or they can deactivate it in order to see that it is not used or misused by the appellant. In any view of the matter, the demand for the charges on the premise of deemed possession of the credit card by the appellant is not justifiable.
15. The District Forum awarded an amount of `10,000/- towards compensation in favour of the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the amount awarded is inadequate and the amount awarded as costs is also not adequate. He has relied upon the decision of the Delhi State Commission in “Aravind Jain vs HSBC Bank Ltd” in F.A.No. 8 of 2010 decided on 6.10.2010. In that case the appellant obtained loan from the bank and cleared the loan amount. The bank had contended that though the payment was collected from the appellant, inadvertently the same could not be uploaded and as such the outstanding in the loan was not reversed as a result of which the system kept on sending ECS to the banker of the appellant and as the error was rectified the account was closed as settled.
16. In the aforementioned case, due to mistake on the part of the staff of the bank, the account was not closed and the ECS was kept on sending to the banker of the appellant. The mistake was rectified as soon as the same was brought to the notice of the bank. In the instant case, the appellant had not submitted request in writing requesting for termination of the card account and he had not returned the card to the respondents. Equally, the respondents had not deactivated the credit card not did they seek for its surrender by the appellant. Both parties are equally negligent and contributed to the situation where the card remained active and in a position to be used or misused.  The appellant has been given benefit of reversal of the entries in respect of the outstanding amount due as on 6.6.2010 besides being awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation as also Rs.2,000/- towards costs. 
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court  “State of Gujarath vs Shantilal  Mangaldas” AIR 1969 SC 634. held the compensation to mean”…..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation  is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.
18. The Supreme Court  held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.  In “Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others” 2000SAR(Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer l and the  change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held “While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”. 
19. Taking into consideration of the totality of circumstances of the case, we are inclined to enhance the amount awarded as compensation from `10,000/- to `12,000/-.  As such the order of the District Forum is liable to be modified.
20. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is modified. The opposite parties are directed to reverse the entries of the amount due as on 6.6.2010 and to pay an amount of `12,000/- and costs of `2,000/-. The parties shall bear their own costs in the appeal. Time for compliance four weeks.

MEMBER

MEMBER
     Dt.31.08.2012
KMK*