In the Court of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata, 8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087. CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 274 / 2005 1) Sri Shyam Sundar Kayal and 2) Smt. Anu Koyal both resides at 6B, Clive Row, Kolkata-700001. ---------- Complainant ---Verses--- 1) ABN AMRO Bank, Smart Gold Card Section, 4, Russel Street, Kolkata-71. ---------- Opposite Party Present : Sri S. K. Majumdar, President. Sri T.K. Bhattachatya, Member. Order No. 2 5 Dated 1 0 / 1 2 / 2 0 0 9 . 1. The instant case arises of the complaint u/s 12 of C.P. act, 1986 filed by (1) Sri Shyam Sundar Koyal and (2) Smt. Anu Koyal against ABN AMRO Bank, Smart Gold Card Section, 4, Russel street, 4th floor, Kolkata-71 with a prayer to direct o.p. (a) not to send any further statement of accounts to the complainants, (b) to pay to the complainants Rs.2 lakhs only for causing harassment and mental agony to the complainants for no reason and (c) cost of litigation. Later, on 9.6.08 the complainants filed an application for amendment of the complaint to the effect that (a) cancellation of the bill dt.12.11.04 for Rs.8062.10 and all subsequent bills with regard to credit cards viz. 5425 0513 0181 1013 and 5425 0513 0181 1047 and (b) the existing prayer (b) & (c) be changed to as prayer (c) & (d). 2. Specific case is that the complainants being approached by one Nilanjan who identified himself as authorised agent of o.p. and on his oral assurance to him that “Smart Gold Card” would be provided to the holders of the accounts maintained with ABN AMRO Bank free of any service charge since the petitioners had an account no.154224 (INR) with ABN AMRO Bank, the petitioners applied for the said credit cards in the month of February, 2004 and the same was sanctioned by o.p. which was evident from the statement of account dt.12.3.04 issued by the o.p. (annexed in the affidavit of examination-in-chief of the complainant). 3. But in the first billing statement of account dt.12.3.04 it was found that the o.p. charged Rs.2160/-. On receipt of the bill when the petitioners asked the o.p. about charging of the said bill, the o.p. replied that the said entry was mistakenly made in the statement of account and that would be shown as credit/adjustment in the next statement of accounts and the complainants were requested to deposit the same within the due date to keep the record straight. The complainants accordingly, paid the said amount to the o.p. on good faith. But the o.p. did not credit or adjust the said amount in the subsequent bill or thereafter. 4. Thereafter, the complainants paid the subsequent bills and lastly issued an account payee cheque bearing no.985570 for Rs.3000/- dt.31.5.04 drawn on ABN AMRO Bank in pursuant to the bill dt.12.5.04. But the complainants became astonished when the o.p. sent a message in the petitioner’s mobile telephone no.9831172689 that the said cheque was returned from the bank for insufficient fund in the complainants’ account. The complainants then enquired in their bank for debit, but the said bank informed that no such cheque was presented for clearing, which was also confirmed from the bank statement issued subsequently (statement of ABN AMRO Bank for the period from 1.1.04 to 30.6.04 annexed with affidavit of evidence of complainant). 5. Surprisingly enough that the o.p. issued a computer generated letter dt.9.6.04 alleging that the said cheque being no.985570 had been dishonoured from the bank and the said cheque was returned with the said letter. But no cheque was enclosed with the said letter (o.p’s letter dt.9.6.04 addressed to the complainant no.1 annexed with A/E of complainant). 6. The complainant no.1 then talked to the o.p. over phone and visited the o.p’s office on 14th and 15th June, 2004 when the o.ps. assured to look into the matter and call back the complainant no. 1. But the o.p. no.1 did not call back the complainant no.1. Then the complainant no.1 wrote a letter dt.24.6.04 to the o.p. stating all aforesaid facts and grievances and requested to cancel the said Smart Gold Cards (letter annexed in the A/E of complainant). But no reply was given by the o.p. The complainant again wrote another letter dt.25.7.04 repeating his grievances and sent back the credit cards after cutting the same (affidavit of evidence along with letter dt.25.7.04). 7. Finally, Mr. Tapas Kumar Manna, Advocate of the complainant issued a letter dt.27.4.04 to the o.p. stating all the above fact indicating their deficiency of service (letter annexed in the A/E of complainant). But they did not respond. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances it appears that the entire game plan made by the o.p. in order to entrap and entangle the subscriber/petitioners in the web of additional charges, viz. membership fees, late fees, finance charges, service taxes and to extract money from this complainant unduly and without any basis, since at the time of introducing the credit card the o.p’s Sales Executive Mr. Nilanjan bearing channel code no.DIS-F001, SF code – AF 63 as stated by him and noted in the application form (annex1 of evidence of chief of the petitioner) represented that the credit card was free of charge. 9. Hence, this case was filed against the o.p. by the complainant. 10. Decision with reasons :- (a) Perused the pleadings, evidence of examination-in-chief of the complainant, WNA of the complainant and the o.p. The o.p. in their w/v on oath reiterates that there is no such executive (representative) in the name of Mr. Nilanjan. If that be so, then how they issued Smart Credit Card in the name of the complainants, viz.(1)Shyam Sundar Koyal and (2) Smt. Anu Koyal, when in the application from the name of Nilanjan having channel code no.DIS-F001, SF code-AF 63 was mentioned. So the contention of the o.p. does not stand on its own feet. (b) Again it may be kept in mind that if any customer/customers wants/want to surrender his/their credit card/cards, no terms and conditions prevent them from doing so. Moreover, the o.p. has not mentioned the procedures for cancellation of credit card in their w/v, which are to be complied with by the customers. Rather they remain silent on this score. (c) Since the complainants surrendered their credit cards on 25.7.04, they are to pay the outstanding dues upto the statement dated 12.7.04. Thereafter, the complainants have no liabilities to make any payment to the o.p, though the o.p. has continued to send statement of accounts up to 12.10.05 demanding Rs.9065.29 only without any basis and just cause and it is highly unethical. 11. Hence, ordered (a) that the o.p. is directed to (1) stop sending statement of accounts any further and reverse all the alleged outstanding dues as on and from 12.9.04 to 12.10.05, (2) pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only as compensation for causing harassment and mental agonies to the complainants within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the aforesaid amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery and (3) pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within thirty days from the date of communication of this order and in default, the above amount will carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till its full recovery. (b) The complainants are also directed to make payment of the bill from 13.7.04 to 25.7.04 to be raised by the o.p. Fees paid are correct. The case is thus disposed of from this forum. Supply certified copy of this order to the parties on receipt of prescribed fees. _____Sd-_____ ______Sd-______ MEMBER PRESIDENT | 
