KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL 98/2011

JUDGMENT DATED: 12..12..2011

PRESENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

SRI.S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR    : MEMBER

Standard Chartered Bank                                  : APPELLANT

(formerly ANZ Grindleys Bank)

HDFC House, M.G.Road,

Ravipuram Junction,

Ernakulam.         

 (By Adv.Smt.Sreekala Krishnadas)

                Vs.

Aditya Deo,                                                         : RESPONDENT

Aged 42 years,

S/o Vasant Deo,

Manaigng Partner,

D.V.Deo Industries,

Plot No.9,

Major Industrial Estate,

South Kalamassery, Ernakulam,

Kochi – 682 030.

(By Adv.Robin Thomas Philip)

JUDGMENT

JUSTICE SRI.K.R.UDAYABHANU         : PRESIDENT

          The appellants are the opposite parties /Standard Chartered Bank in CC324/09 in the file of CDRF, Ernakulam.  The appellants are under orders to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs.

          2. It is the case of the complainant that he was holder of visa gold card of the opposite party and during March 2009 the opposite party issued a new credit card under the name of Manhattan Plattinum Card valid from 3/09 to 3/12.  A special fee of Rs.3499/- + service tax and cess of 360.40 was also charged for the same.  On receiving Manhattan Plattinum Card the complainant requested opposite party to transfer the credit balance available in his visa gold card to Manhattan Plattinum Card.  He also instructed the call centre to activate his new card and for deactivating visa gold card.  At the time of receipt of Manhattan Plattinum Card he was having a credit balance of Rs.34864.28 in the visa gold card. On 3.4.09 itself the credit balance available in the visa gold card was transferred to the Manhattan Plattinum Card.  He had a credit limit of Rs.55997/- after the transfer of credit balance on 3.4.09.  In the 3^rd week of April 2004 the complainant and his family went for a trip to Europe.  On 26.4.09 while they were at Vienna in Austria he made a transaction using the Manhattan Plattinum Card for a sum of EUR 54 towards the food bill incurred at hotel.  Thereafter on 24.4.09 while at Hamburg in Germany he used the new card for making payment of 348 EURs as advance for  accommodation in the hotel.  But the hotel authorities informed that the transaction had been declined for the reason “host negative”. The time was 10.45AM.  Immediately the complainant contacted the call centre at Kochi at 10.53AM(German time) and sought immediate action.  The complainant had told the customer care centre that himself and his family are in a foreign land and they are not having any extra funds and requested for solving the problem urgently.  The call attendant despite asking back various questions taking considerable time, transferred the call to someone who left it unattended and  later  got disconnected.  The complainant again made a call to the call centre at Kochi.  The person who attended the call was again told about the matter and even this person could not  resolve the problem.  Thereafter the complainant made another call for the 3^rd time to Kochi.  The call attended asked the complainant whether he received a new card but being told that he had received the same he informed the new card is yet to be activated.  The complainant told him he had used Manhattan Plattinum Card at Vienna in Austria and  the call attendant replied of looking into the matter and getting back soon. At 14.46(German time)  he received a call from an executive, of call centre who informed that Manhattan Plattinum Card is yet to be activated and that the transaction made by the complainant at Vienna in Austria is seen debited against the old card ie visa gold card.  The complainant had to contact his friends and arrange funds for his immediate requirements.  The complainants and his family had to cut short their tour expenditure drastically.  They had to limit their food intake  to one meal a day. They could not make shopping for shortage of funds.  The children’s expectations could not be met.  The tour was rendered dull and monotonous apart from the mental agony sustained.  On 29.4.09 at 19.27(German time) he attempted to use the new card for 348 EUR at the hotel. The above transaction was also declined vide electronic transaction slip inspite of having credit balance of over Rs.27000/- and an available credit limit of over Rs.52000/- under the credit card which was issued after charging a special fee of Rs.3499 + 360.40.  The card could not be used.  The complainant has claimed compensation altogether a sum of Rs.10,27,422/- towards mental agony, loss of reputation etc.

          The opposite parties have filed version denying the allegations.  It is stated that the complainant was having the visa gold credit card issued in September 1997 and the same was replaced by visa gold card on 23.5.08.  The same was upgraded to Manhattan Platinum Card  on 9.3.09.  It is alleged that the complainant had neither requested for activation of the Manhattan Platinum Card or deactivation of   the visa gold card.  It is admitted that the credit balance alone in the visa gold card was transferred to the new card on 3.4.09 as requested by the complainant.  The complainant had consciously used the visa gold card till 10.4.09. In case the complainant had requested for cancellation of the old card on 3.4.09  he would not have used the said card till 10.4.09.  It is not correct that he had sought for deactivating the visa gold card.  The earlier visa gold cards will be placed under temporary block with allowance to use it for further 35 days .  But on the 35^th day it will be blocked fully.  In the meanwhile the complainant was notified through a letter that she could activate  the Manhattan Platinum Card by contacting the bank.  It is not denied that the complainant had discussed with the phone banking services of the opposite party for transfer of credit balance in the visa gold card on 3.4.09  but there was no request for deactivation of visa gold card and activation of Manhattan Platinum Card.  It is stated that the upgraded Manhattan Platinum Card was sent through registered post.  The opposite  party had also sent a mail to the complainant within 2 days of dispatch of the new card on 18.3.09 requesting contact to the bank for activation of the new card.  It is pointed out that the use of credit card is  governed the rules of the respective franchisee.  The then familiarly known franchisee credit card are Visa and Master. Any dispute of transaction is routed through the franchisee.  The franchisee had determined floor limit for allowing transactions of the credit card for every country.  The transaction within the floor limit will be processed without the approval of the issuer bank.  On April 26th 2008 when the complainant attempted to transact through the new card for settling hotel bill of EURO 54 the same was allowed by the Franchisee without referring the transaction to the issuer bank.  As per the Franchisee rules the floor limit of allowing hotel transactions in Austria is 910 EUROs which approximately is Rs.72000/-.  As the above transaction was within the floor limit the same was approved by the Franchisee and the debit to the card was sent to the issuer /opposite party bank. When the complainant attempted to transact with the new card on April 29^th 2008  at Germany the same was referred to the opposite party.  The transaction could not be allowed as the card was in blocked status.  It is also pointed out that the complainant had attempted to use the card a number of times prior to the transaction for EUROS 348 in Germany.  But the complainant did not get any effort to contact the bank and activation of the  card.  It is denied that the helpline was not helpful.  The card was activated on the next working day ie 30.4.09.  It is contended there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties .

          The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1 the proof affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Exts.A1 to A9 and Exts.B1 to B5.

          The Forum has found that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties/appellants  since despite calling from Germany the customer service centre at Kochi 3 times only at the last time a answer was forthcoming and that it took an entire day to finally activise the card.  We find that it is admitted that on 3.4.09 the complainant has sought for transfer of balance credit in the visa gold card to Manhattan Platinum Card.  Even as per the version filed by the opposite parties the Manhattan Platinum Card was dispatched on 18.3.09.  Evidently it is only on receipt of new card that the complainant sought for transfer of the balance credit from the old card to the new card.  It is also mentioned in the version that the complainant had discussed with the phone banking service for transfer.  We find that the credit card balance in the visa gold card was transferred to the newly upgraded Manhattan Platinum Card on 3.4.09.  According to the complainant he had sought for activation of the new card and deactivation of the old card.  The evidence in this regard tendered by PW1 stands not discredited as nothing has been brought out in the cross examination of PW1 to show that he was not speaking the truth.  The major contention of the opposite party is that on 10.4.09 the complainant had used the visa gold card.  They have relied on the card statement in this regard ie Ext.A1/B2.  PW1 has asserted that he has not used the old card on 10.4.09.  It is pointed out by the counsel for the complainant in the argument notes filed that the said transaction is only a contra entry made in EURO currency ie cancellation of an advance  booking.  The complainant had made an advance booking for 10.4.09 of an early date using his visa card and subsequently cancelled the same.  The hotelier while cancelling the said booking made a contra entry by 1^st debiting the  booking charge and subsequently crediting the same  which is reflected in Ext.A2.  There is no other entries in Ext.A2 to show that he has used the old card.  We find that the complainant had used the old card.

          The contention with respect to the floor limits allowed by the Franchisee may be true and the same may explain as to why the complainant could use the new card on 26.4.09 for EURO 54.00 and as the floor limits exceeded in Germany the transaction was declined.  But it has to be noted that the card holder would not be aware of the technicalities in this regard.  Once the credit balance in the old card has been transferred to the new card on 3.4.09 and also as the new card was dispatched quite long ago ie 18.3.09 evidently the opposite party was aware of the fact that the complainant has received the new card and the requirement of activation of the same.  According to the complainant he had sought for activation on 3.4.09.  It is admitted in the version filed that complainant discussed with the phone banking service for transfer of credit balance on 3.4.09.  At that time the concerned executive of the opposite party would have or should have intimated about the need of activation.  Further despite the complainant contacted the opposite party from Germany at 10.53AM (German time) 24/9/09 only on the next day the same was activated.  The complainant had conveyed that he is in a foreign land and in devoid of sufficient cash.  It has also to be noted that admittedly the complainant is a long standing customer of the opposite party ie since 1999.  We find that the deficiency in service is writ large on the part of the opposite parties. In the circumstances we find that no interference in the order of the Forum is called for.  The order of the Forum is sustained.  The opposite parties are directed to make the payment as  ordered by the Forum within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant will be entitled for interest at 12% on the amount of compensation from 19.6.09 the date of complaint.  In the result the appeal is dismissed as above.

          Office will forward the LCR to the Forum alongwith the copy of this order.

          JUSTICE K.R.UDAYABHANU       : PRESIDENT

          S.CHANDRAMOHAN NAIR           : MEMBER

ps