Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/149/2006

T.Ramnath - Complainant(s)

Versus

ABN AMBRO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.Suresh

15 Dec 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   07.03.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :   15.12.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT 

                 TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                  : MEMBER I           

                DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

 

C.C.NO. 149/2006

THURSDAY THIS  15^TH  DAY OF DECEMBER 2016

 

Mr. T.Ramnath,

No.65, Panchali Amman Koil Street,

Arumbakkam, Chennai 600 106.                               ..Complainant

 

             

                                        ..Vs..

 

The Manager – Credit Card Division,

M/s. ABN AMBRO Bank,

No.18,  Haddows Road,

Chennai 600 006.                                                    ..Opposite party

 

 

Counsel for the Complainant         :  M/s. S.Suresh & Bernadsha

Counsel for the opposite party       : M/s. R. Balaji & K. Ezhilmurugan

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party  under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service to the complainant.

 

1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant became a Smart Gold Card holder during the year 2002 and his card number is 5425 0513 0074 8091.  The credit limit to the complainant was fixed as Rs.2,50,000/-. Considering the complainant’s past records, he was offered a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-that can be paid in easy installments of Rs.6,239/- per month.  Further it was represented by the opposite party that no processing  fee would be charged towards the said loan and the monthly repayment EMI will commence after one month from the date of issuance of the loan amount.  The complainant believed the promise made by the opposite party and agreed to accept the loan of Rs.1,00,000/-.  

2.     According to the telephonic conversation, the complainant was given a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.9.2005.  The problem started from this date onwards.   The statement of account dated 7.10.2005 for the period 8.9.2005 to 7.10.2005 did not only reflect crediting Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.9.2005, but also the repayment of first EMI for a sum of Rs.6239/- dated 7.10.2005.   This is totally against the promise given by the opposite party.   Though the opposite party had promised that the first EMI should be paid one month after the date of issuance of the loan, the opposite party, by mistake, had debited the first EMI within 23 days from the date of issuance of loan.   Further the opposite party charged Rs.100/- towards processing fee once again against the promise made by them.   

3.     When the complainant pointed out the above mistake committed by the opposite party, they did not even care to listen to the grievance of the customer, but rudely refused to consider his plea of commencing the EMI from the next month onwards.   The complainant was cheated in a white collar manner and therefore decided to return the entire loan amount of rs.1,00,000/- immediately.  When the complainant informed about the preclosure of loan due to their poor service and misleading statements, the opposite party showed scant respect to the satisfaction of customer and did not make any attempt to correct the communication level of their employees.  

4.     After repeated phone calls, on 19.11.2005 the field executive of the opposite party came and collected the said sum of Rs.1,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 19.11.2005, bearing No.993989, drawn on Indian Bank, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai towards preclosure of the Easy Pay loan.  Thus the Easy Pay loan of Rs.1,00,000/- collected on 13.9.2005 by the complainant, was repaid in full and final on 19.11.2005 and the loan was closed within two months time.  In spite of closing the loan, the opposite party sent statements reflecting high and inflated amount as due as if the loan amount was not paid and charged fee under the following heads:

i       Financial charge – Retail

ii       Financial Charge – Cash

iii      Education cess

iv.     Rate of interest charged for late payment.

5.     The complainant sent a letter dated 14.10.2005 requesting the opposite party to explain the charges they have fixed under certain heads and also to send proper statement of accounts.  The opposite party did not respond to his letter and therefore the complainant was constrained to issue a legal notice dated 7.11.2005 asking for production of clear statement.   The opposite party after receiving the legal notice without bothering to redress the grievance of the complainant, indulged in threatening, humiliating and intimidating the complainant by engaging hence men in the name of recovery agents.   Specifically, the calls from the telephone numbers 42132919 and 42132902 using abusive languages were recorded by my client and the complainant reserves his right to take criminal action against those agents.      In the mean time the statement of account with false figures on the face of it were being sent by the opposite party periodically.   The clause (a) to (g) in para-11 are the negligent act in calculating the balance due mentioned in the statement.   

6.     The opposite party has rendered poor service and the above explanations will clearly prove the deficiency in service rendered by them.  Without rectifying their mistakes even after repeated demands, the opposite party engaged the services of recovery agents who are humiliating the complainant.   The complainant has incurred monetary loss and suffered mental agony because of the deficiency in service and the opposite party is liable to compensate him.  Hence this compliant.

 

7. Written Version of  opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

        The opposite party denies all the allegations except  those that are specifically admitted herein.   In this context, the complainant  was highly irregular in his payments and was often defaulting the payment which was meant to be paid on due dates and almost every month he had never paid in time resulting in accrual of charges that are applicable under the terms and conditions of the card usage.   Since the complainant felt it uneasy to make the payment legitimately due to the bank, he was given the option to treat his card dues as a loan and accordingly the bank converted the same into a loan which was repayable in equal monthly installments.    However it is incorrect for the complainant to allege that the bank had promised him waiver of processing charges and so also that he will not be billed the first installment on the same month of the conversion of the credit card dues as loan.   Even it is an admitted case of the complainant as stated by him in para 4 of the complaint, that only orally he was informed about the same, which on any account cannot be considered as it is not supported with any document.

8.     The card dues were converted into loan on 13.9.2005 and the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited to his account.   However it is strange that the complainant has alleged that in the statement of account from 8.9.2005 to 7.10.2005 his first installment had been claimed, obviously the bank has to claim the same since the installment commenced from date of the disbursal of the loan which is a rewrite of his credit card dues.   It is submitted that the bank had taken all this strenuous efforts to ease out the complainant from his credit card dues which was approximately a sum of Rs.2,20,000/- during September 2005 and however the complainant refunded the rewrite loan of Rs.1,00,000/- during November 2005 resulting in the balance outstanding of  Rs.1,20,000/- and odd being still legitimately due to the bank.  

9.     Hence the allegations that despite the complainant closing his loan account, statements have been reaching him is false and the complainant is attempting to confuse this Hon’ble forum as if the credit card dues and the rewrite of such dues as loan are different transactions, but the fact remains that they are of the same origin.   The complainant has not suffered any monetary loss and the entire complaint is abuse of the process of this Hon’ble Forum and deserve to be dismissed.

10.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party field and there is no documents marked on the side of the opposite party.   

11.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

 

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

    Opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

 

12. Point No.1

        Regarding this point, on perusal of the averments of the complaint and the evidence of the complainant with due care and caution, it is learnt that the complainant is holding a Smart Gold Card during the year 2002 with credit limit as Rs.2,50,000/- and during September 2005 the opposite party offered a personal loan under a scheme called Easy Pay Loan based on the regular payment made by the complainant.    All these transactions in this regard was made over phone orally and thereby a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited in his account on 13.9.2005 and the statement of account dated 7.10.2005 for the period in between 8.9.2005 to 7.10.2005 did not reflect the said credit loan of Rs.1,00,000/- on 13.9.2005 but repayment of first EMI for a sum of Rs.6,239/- dated 7.10.2005  has been mentioned which is totally against the promise given by the opposite party and also charged Rs.100/- towards processing fee.  The statement of account from 7.1.2005 to 7.2.2006 which is marked as Ex.A1 series, by the complainant by pointing out of the above mistake.  The opposite party did not care and refuse to consider the plea of the complainant about the commencing of the EMI from the next month onwards.   Therefore, the complainant decided to return the entire loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/-  immediately and issued the Indian Bank Cheque bearing No.993989, dated 19.11.2005 along with the letter dated 19.11.2005  addressed  to  the  Manager, Easy Loan Division, ABN AMBRO Bank the opposite party herein and the same was received by one  Mr. Suresh Kumar, Collection Field Executive and issued the receipt for repayment dated 19.11.2005 bearing receipt No.19708 which are marked as Ex.A2 series.   

13.    It is further stated that even after the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-  in full for closing the Easy Pay loan, the opposite party sent  subsequent statements reflecting high and inflated amount as due.   Therefore, the complainant sent a letter dated 14.10.2005 which is marked as Ex.A3, requesting the opposite party to explain the charges and also to send proper statement of accounts, but the opposite party did not respond.    Hence the complainant had issued a legal notice dated 7.11.2005 asking for clear statement which is marked as Ex.A4 and the acknowledgement of the receipt of the same is marked as Ex.A5.    Even after receipt of notice, the opposite party did not bother to redress grievance of the complainant, indulged in threatening and intimidating the complainant by engaging hench men in the name of recovery agents and thereby the opposite party has rendered poor service which is clearly proves the deficiency in service.  

14.    While being so on going through the evidence of the opposite party it is narrated that the allegation made in the complaint are all baseless and in fact it is incorrect that the bank had promised the complainant waiver of processing charges and also he will not be billed the first installment on the same month of conversion of the credit card dues as loan and even it is an admitted case of the complainant that only orally he was informed about the same, which on any account cannot be considered as it is not supported with any document.  It is further elicited that as per the terms and conditions the processing fee of Rs.100/- and the first installment amount has been claimed and the card dues were converted into loan on 13.9.2005 and the said amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited to his account and therefore the statement of account from 8.9.2005 to 7.10.2005 is perfectly correct one and the statement of account also no way fault one and currently the complainant is due a sum of Rs.1,41,135/- on the card account as of September 2006 and in order to confuse this forum as if the credit card dues and the rewrite of such dues as loan are different transactions, but the fact remains that they are of the same origin. 

15.    At this juncture, on careful perusal of the rival submissions put-forth on either side, it is crystal clear that it is an admitted fact that the complainant is the holder of the Smart Gold Card with the opposite party and by means of telephonic conversation given by the opposite party and accepted by the complainant the Easy Pay loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was credited on 13.9.2005 in the credit card account of the complainant.  In such circumstances whether the credit of processing charge of Rs.100/- and the mentioning about the first EMI for the above said loan amount of Rs.6239/- in the statement of account dated 7.10.2005  against the promise given by the opposite party is correct  or not has to be taken into consideration.   In this regard, it is very clear that both are admitted that there was a telephonic conversation between them in respect of the credit card account and other acceptance of the “Easy Pay loan” amount of Rs.1,00,000/-.   Therefore, it goes without saying that there is no documentary evidence found to be available on both of them, they cannot be acceptable.   In this situation on going through the version filed by the opposite party it is clearly stated as follows:

“Even it is an admitted case of the complainant as stated by him in para-4 of the complaint, that only orally he was informed about the same, which on any account cannot be considered as it is not supported any document. “

From the above reference and read it along with the contents submitted in para-4 of the complaint, it is learnt that it is correct that the opposite party has charged of Rs.100/- towards processing fee and debited the first EMI within 23 days from the date of issuance of loan which are against the promise made by the opposite party as narrated by the complainant.     So, as already pointed out that, in this aspect there is no possibility of having documentary proof.   The averments made in the complaint is true and therefore the charging of Rs.100/- towards processing fee and the debit of first EMI for the Easy Pay loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- within 23 days clearly amounts to  unfair trade practice which leads to deficiency of service.

15.    Furthermore, as per Ex.A2 series the letter of the complainant dated 19.11.2005 to the opposite party clearly reveals the facts that the return of Easy Pay loan amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and also specifically mentioned that in future there shall not be any claim regarding this issue and the same was accepted by the opposite party and issued receipt bearing No.19708, dated 19.11.2005.  While being so  unfortunately without any prior information or obtaining any consent for the due  concerned from the complainant, the opposite party converted the card dues into a loan on 13.9.2005 and the said mount of Rs.1,00,000/- sanctioned as Easy pay loan was credited to his account which are also clearly amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Similarly in respect of the statement of accounts Ex.A1 series there is some error in calculating the balance due which are not clearly mentioned by the opposite party through documentary evidence. 

16.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances and the observation made above, the complainant has clearly proved the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party by  means of cogent, concrete and consisting evidence.  Thus the point No.1 is answered accordingly.

17. Point No.2

As per decision arrived in point-1 this  Forum can easily come to the conclusion without any hesitation that the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party along with cost.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony due to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.

 The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till the date of payment.

           Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  15^th   day  of  December   2016.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  7.1.2005   - Copy of Statement of accounts issued by the opposite

          to 7.2.2006    party.

Ex.A2- 19.11.2005 – Copy of receipt dated for making repayment of

                               Rs.1,00,000/-

Ex.A3- 14.10.2005 – Copy of letter sent by the complaint.

Ex.A4- 7.11.2005  - Copy legal notice.

Ex.A5- 8.11.2005  - Copy of Acknowledgement.

 

Opposite party’s side documents:  .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.