COMPLAINT FILED: 26.08.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> 02nd DECEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1884/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT H.L. Rajshekar,<br /> Aged about 69 years,<br /> S/o. H.L. Lingappa,<br /> #28/28, I Floor,<br /> Kempanna & Brother’s Layout,<br /> Seshadripuram,<br /> Bangalooru – 560 020.<br /> <br /> Advocate (G.S. Prasanna Kumar)<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager,<br /> ABN-AMRO Bank,<br /> Card Excellence Services,<br /> B-148, Sector-10,<br /> Noida – 201 301. (UP)<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. The Manager,<br /> ABN-AMRO Bank,<br /> VII Floor, Mallya Towers,<br /> Vittal Mallya Road,<br /> Bengalooru – 560 001.<br /> <br /> Advocate (Meera Venugopal)<br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to furnish the statement of accounts and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant availed the credit card facility from OP. He was regular in making payment from 03.04.2007 to 27.01.2008 in all to the tune of Rs.97,525/-. With all that inspite of the repeated requests and demands made by the complainant, OP failed to give the details of statement of accounts. On insistence OP otherwise pressurized the complainant to make payment of the due which is not at all legally recoverable. The amount paid by the complainant was not accounted properly. He was forced to write a letter as well as issued the legal notice, but all his efforts went in vain. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP as and when they received the amount towards the credit card transaction they sent the statement of accounts, but the payment made by the complainant is highly erratic and inconsistent, he is not regular in payment. Hence as per the terms and conditions they are entitled to collect the respective bank charges, delayed payment charges, etc. The statement of accounts was dispatched every month as per the billing cycle. On the receipt of the so called legal notice OP sent the duplicate statement to the complainant. As per the records and documents maintained by them complainant is still in due of Rs.1,79,309/-. In order to avoid the said amount in due complainant has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of the OP. According to the complainant in between 03.04.2007 to 27.01.2008 he has paid the regular instalments to the tune of Rs.97,525/-, but unfortunately OP failed to give the correct statement of accounts. On insistence OP with ulterior motive pressurized him to make payment of the balance in due. Actually the amount that is paid by the complainant is not properly accounted. Hence he felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. He wrote a letter to OP on 18.07.2008 as well caused the legal notice earlier on 26.03.2008, there was no response. Hence he filed this complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is contended by the OP that complainant is highly erratic in making payment of the amount in due. His payment is inconsistent with the demand, that is why as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, OP is entitled to charge the delayed payment charges, interest, etc. So that act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service, that too when OP acted well within the ambit of the terms and conditions of the agreement. We find substance in the defence set out by the OP. It is further contended by the OP that credit card statement is dispatched every month as per the billing cycle. The copies of the statement are produced. It is further stated by OP on the receipt of the so called notice issued by the complainant they sent duplicate statement from the opening of the account till 17th May 2008 and also made demand of the outstanding balance in due to the tune of Rs.1,71,309/-. The copy of the reply and statement copies are produced.<br /> <br /> 8. The main prayer of the complainant is to direct the OP to furnish the statement of accounts. OP has already sent the said statement copies to the complainant under its reply to the legal notice, that would have been the end of the matter. It appears as the OP made the demand of Rs.1,71,309/- as amount in due complainant must have thought of filing this complaint, may be to avoid liability as a counterblast. It is said he who seeks equity must do equity and must come with clean hands. But here the approach of the complainant rather does not appears to be fair. <br /> <br /> 9. The document produced by the OP speaks to the transparency in the maintenance of the account and the dealings. On the perusal of the complaint allegations, in our view it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance in due on the basis of the accounts. Under such circumstances we find the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so aggrieved, he can redress his grievance by filing a comprehensive Civil Suit.<br /> <br /> 10. Viewed from any angle and also bearing in mind the pleadings of the parties as well as the contents of the undisputed documents, the present complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Under such circumstances the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 02nd day of December 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />