Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member This is an appeal filed by Standard Chartered Bank and its Customer Care Service against the judgement and award passed by District Forum, Pune in consumer complaint No.216/2005 decided on 24/07/2009. By allowing the complaint partly, District Forum directed the opponents jointly and severally to pay sum of `22,068/- to the complainant within two months from receipt of order and further directed to restore or reinstate credit card facility of the complainant with full credit limit of `2 Lakhs. As such opponents filed this appeal. 2. The facts to the extent material may be stated as under :- The complainant who is respondent herein is a resident of Market Yard Road, Pune. He was holder of Credit Card issued by opponent Nos.1&2. On 05/11/2004 he had received statement from the Bank showing that there were two debit entries against his account. The complainant disputed those entries by sending letter dated 15/11/2004. According to him disputed amount of `14,889/- was neither voluntarily nor involuntarily spent by him by using Credit Card. The opponents-Bank thereupon sent Dispute Declaration Form to the complainant on 17/11/2004. After duly filled in he returned said Dispute Declaration Form to the Bank on 22/11/2004. The dispute was accordingly raised as per Rules and Regulations of the Bank. On 05/12/2004 the complainant had received fresh statement from the Bank in respect of his Credit Card. The amount of `16,133.25 was demanded by the Bank. By communication dated 08/12/2004 the complainant was assured that no interest shall be charged on the disputed amount. Again on 15/12/2004 complainant sent Dispute Declaration Form to the Bank raising the dispute. The opponents-Bank had replaced the Credit Card number of the complainant and limit of the Credit Card of the complainant was reduced from `2 Lakhs to `1 Lakh from 12/01/2005. On 11/02/2005 Credit Card facility was withdrawn and demand was again raised by the Bank. This time Bank has claimed late charges, interest, etc. in contravention to the letter of assurance given by the Bank on 08/12/2004. The complainant approached the Bank for the dispute raised by him on 17/11/2004. The complainant received letter from the Bank on 22/03/2005 which includes Charge-slip. Actually Charge-slips were not included in their letter dated 22/03/2005. The complainant by his communication dated 05/04/2004, 06/04/2005 and 08/04/2005 demanded Charge-slips and Merchant Bankers Report. Ultimately, on 12/04/2005 the Bank had withdrawn the credit card facility of the complainant. For the first time on 16/04/2005 the complainant learnt from the Bank that the dispute was withdrawn as beyond the time frame. The complainant alleged that it was the responsibility of the Bank to get itself satisfied with the signature of the card holder by tallying with the signature found on the Charge-slips. The comparison was not made by the Bank in respect of 4to5 Charge-slips. With the result, those Charge-slips were not bearing signature of the complainant as compared to his specimen signature maintained by the Bank. According to the complainant, the demand raised by the Bank to the extent of `14,889/- was illegal. Charging of interest and penalty charges on that line was also improper and despite deficiency pointed out to the Bank, there was no positive response. The complainant had made payment of 22,068.26 on 16/07/2005 and complainant has grievance that his dispute raised by filing two Dispute Declaration Forms were adjudicated by the Bank ex-parte without hearing the complainant. He was not given any opportunity to make submissions. The Bank violated principles of natural justice. The complainant, therefore, prayed that he should be awarded compensation of `2 Lakhs besides, amount of `22,068.26 should be refunded to him and Credit Card facility should be directed to be restored with full credit limit of `2 Lakhs by allowing the complaint. 3. Both the opponents filed written version and contested the complaint. According to the opponents, Credit Card of the complainant was lost or misplaced during period 10/10/2004 to 14/10/2004. Intimation thereof was not given to the Bank nor reported to the Police. For the first time, the Bank received intimation on 15/11/2004. The Bank contended that the complainant had contravened Rules and Regulations of the Bank. Rule 14 of Rules and Regulations of the Bank required that in case of fraud or misplace of card, the matter should be informed to the Police as well as to the Bank. They pleaded that they had rightly decided the dispute raised by the complainant and there was no deficiency in service and therefore, the complaint should be dismissed with costs. 4. Learned District Forum appreciated the facts on record and held that the Bank was guilty of deficiency. In as much as, the dispute raised by the complainant twice were summarily rejected without offering any reasonable opportunity of being heard to the complainant. District Forum also gave finding that the Bank had not properly compared signature of the complainant found on the Charge-slips with reference to specimen signature maintained in the Bank and therefore, it was guilty of deficiency in service. District Forum clearly made comparison of signatures found on Charge-slips with reference to specimen signature maintained by the Bank of the complainant and held that Bank had failed in making comparison diligently with regard to signature of the complainant on the Charge-slips. The Bank had not decided the dispute raised by the complainant properly. They decided the dispute ex-parte without offering any reasonable opportunity to the Credit Card holder. They had dismissed the dispute simply saying that there was delay in filing Dispute Declaration Forms. The complainant should have raised dispute within 15 days from 05/11/2004 but he raised the dispute on 17/11/2004, not within 15 days and District Forum held that the Bank had ultimately neither settled the dispute nor adjudicated the dispute and thereby the Bank was guilty of deficiency in service. Moreover, District Forum also noted in its order that out of seven entries, one entry found on one Charge-slip pertaining to transaction of `586/- in favour of ‘Raj Restaurant’ had been deleted by the Bank while maintaining rest of the entries. In any view of the matter, District Forum held that there was deficiency in service and directed the Bank to pay to the complainant a sum of `22,068/- within two months and restore the credit facility of the complainant with full credit limit of `2 Lakhs. Aggrieved by this award, the opponent/Bank has filed this appeal. 5. We heard Ms.Pallavi Kulkarni, Advocate for the appellant/Bank and Mr.D.G. Sant, Advocate for the respondent/complainant. 6. We are finding that the impugned order passed by the District Forum is well reasoned one and we do not find any substance in the appeal preferred by the Bank challenging the order passed by the District Forum. We are finding that the Bank had not acted as per Rules and Regulations it had framed governing Credit Card facility given to the Credit Card holder. Once, the dispute is raised by the Credit Card holder questioning any debit entry or questioning his signature on the Charge-slip, it is the duty of the Bank to make thorough inquiry and to adjudicate the matter and inform the complainant about result of said inquiry. In this case though dispute was raised twice by the respondent/complainant, the Bank did not properly hold inquiry and Bank simply told the complainant that the matter has been disposed off as not within time frame. When the Bank is dealing with the dispute raised by the Credit Card holder and when according to the Bank, there was simply delay of 2 days, the Bank should not have resorted to technicality and the Bank should have decided the dispute after hearing the complainant. Instead of doing so, the Bank took short-cut and informed the complainant that the dispute was dismissed as beyond time frame. This itself, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/Bank. Moreover, what is pertinent to note is the fact that out of seven entries, six entries were kept intact after inquiry and one entry was deleted. It means that all was not well with the appellant/Bank. Somebody had withdrawn amount of `586/- without signature of the complainant. When this is so, the District Forum rightly held that other entries might have been of the like nature. The Charge-slips might not have been signed by the complainant or signed by somebody else, because the complainant had misplaced the Credit Card for 5 days. The deficiency of the complainant was that he should have filed report with the Police. If the Credit Card was misplaced for 4-5 days, nobody lodges complaint with the Police unless complainant comes to the conclusion that it has been stolen by somebody from his house. No such apprehension was in the mind of complainant. Mere non-lodging of police report cannot be said to be fatal to the case of the complainant. What is significant to note is that the complainant’s disputes were not properly adjudicated by the Bank and half-hazardly one entry was deleted. The Bank then informed the complainant that he should pay rest of the amount with interest and late charges. In fact in a letter dated 08/12/2004, the Bank had assured the complainant that disputed transactions shall not accrue any interest until the case is resolved. If this is so, the Bank had still charged interest and collected from the complainant total amount of `22,068.26 illegally without adjudicating the complainant’s dispute raised by filing Dispute Declaration Forms. In the totality of the circumstances, we are finding that the order passed by the District Forum in favour of the complainant is just and proper and we are not finding any material on record to take a different view of the matter and to interfere in the order challenged in this appeal by the appellant/Bank. In the circumstances, we are finding that the judgement passed by the District Forum is sustainable and District Forum rightly handed out a verdict in favour of the complainant placing emphasis on the fact that when the District Forum had examined the signatures of Charge-slips with reference to the admitted signature of the complainant maintained by the Bank, District Forum found that the signature found on the Charge-slips did not tally with the specimen signature. Therefore, District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. In the circumstances, we find no substance in the appeal. Hence, we pass the following order :- -: ORDER :- 1. Appeal stands dismissed. 2. No order as to costs. 3. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties. Pronounced Dated 20th June 2012. |
