Sri Swapan Kumar Mahanty, President.
This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.
The complainant’s case in brief is as follows :-
Complainant applied for credit card to the OP1 Axis Bank Ltd. and signature credit card bearing No.4111 4600 0113 0529 with credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- was issued in his favour. Complainant made payment of the charges to the OPs as raised in the monthly statements. The card was used till 04-04-2016. The OPs upgraded the credit card out of their own accord and the complainant came to know about the upgradation of card from the statement for the month of March, 2016. Such statement was raised in connection with credit card No.5593 4200 0005 8612 instead of old card though the new card never received and/or used by the complainant. The matter was taken up with OP3 over telephone.
Further grievance of the complainant is that on 10-04-2016 he had been to a restaurant for dinner with family and guest and tried to use credit card being No.4111 4600 0113 0529 on completion of dinner but the transaction was rejected. Finding no other alternative, complainant paid the bill amount after obtaining cash from one of his guest. The OPs unlawfully blocked the signature credit card without any cogent reason. Complainant has also lost his prestige and reputation in the eyes of his friends and relatives on 10-04-2016. There is deficiency in services on the part of the OPs. Hence, the complainant has lodged the consumer complaint with a prayer to direct the OPs to withdraw all the illegal demand in connection with new credit card being No.5593 4200 0005 8612, to pay compensation Rs.7,00,000/- for mental pain agony and harassment and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.
The OPs have contested the case by filing a joint written version contending, inter alia, that the complainant did not avail any service from the OPs upon payment of consideration. Complainant availed a credit card and the relationship between the parties is of debtor and creditor. As such, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 have no application in the instant case and the complaint is not maintainable. The specific case of the OPs is that the complainant applied for a credit card and the OP/Bank issued a card being No.4111 4600 0017 9154 with a credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- in favour of the complainant. The credit card is governed by the “card member rules and regulations” of the bank. Complainant availed and used the credit card extensively and is bound to make payment but he failed and neglected to make payment of his dues under the aforesaid credit card. Credit card has an expiry date whereas the credit card account remained constant till the cancellation of the card facility and on expiry of the old credit card a new card is issued to the customer under the same credit card account. The credit card of the complainant got expired in June, 2014 and a new card being No.4111 4600 0113 0529 was issued to the complainant under the same account. The credit card was upgraded to privilege credit card on the consent of the complainant but could not deliver due to absence of the complainant in his recorded address. The old card deactivated on upgradation of new credit card. Complainant used the credit card till 06-04-2016 when it got deactivated the total outstanding of the complainant was carried forward to his new credit card. Complainant duly admitted his liability and made part payment till 21-10-2017. To avoid his liability complainant filed the instant consumer complaint. Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the consumer complaint with costs.
In the light of the above pleadings the following points necessarily came up for determination : -
- Is the complainant a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
- Are the OPs deficient in rendering services to the complainant?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons
Points No.1 to 3 :
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
To prove their case both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed questionnaire and replies vis-à-vis relevant documents in support of their respective cases. We have also examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.
There is no dispute that the OP1 issued a signature credit card bearing No.4111 4600 0017 9154 with credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- to the complainant, complainant used the aforesaid credit card and made payment to the OP1 Bank against transactions. The main grievance of the complainant is that the OP Bank issued a new credit card being No.5593 4200 0005 8612 instead of previous signature credit card without his consent, he was not aware that operation of earlier credit card will be stopped and in spite of satisfactory transactions the OPs had blocked the signature credit card without any cogent reason. The OPs denied the grievance of the complainant and state that the credit card was upgraded to privilege card with the consent of the complainant and privilege card was sent to the recorded address of the complainant but undelivered. Upon upgradation of any credit card the old card gets deactivated after a suitable period. Complainant did not activate his privilege credit card in spite of repeated reminders and continued to use old card till 10-04-2016. Complainant has filed the present case with mala fide intention to avoid his liability.
On perusal of the documents on record we find that signature credit card being No. 4111 4600 0017 9154 was issued in favour of the complainant with credit limit of Rs.2,00,000/- in the month of August, 2012 and the said card expired in the month of June, 2014. It is also true that a new credit card being no.4111 4600 0113 0529 was issued under the same credit card account in the name of the complainant and the complainant used the said credit card. The credit card was upgraded as privilege credit card being No. 5593 4200 0005 8612 in lieu of signature credit card. Fact remains that the said privilege credit card was not delivered to the complainant due to his absence in the recorded address. Complainant did not activate the privilege credit card within the specified period and the previous signature credit card automatically deactivated after the statutory period though the complainant used the signature credit card being No.4111 4600 0113 0529 till 06-04-2016. Documents on record go to show that the complainant by way of online purchased with ABP Weddings for an amount of 2,500/- but on account of delayed settlement with the merchant the payment on the end of OP Bank was delayed and the expenditure was charged to the credit card account of the complainant on 09-06-2016. Total outstanding of the complainant was Rs.4,771.48 till 06-04-2016 in respect of signature credit card and such amount was carried forward to the privilege credit card of the complainant. The complainant refrained himself from payment of his earlier dues for which interest accrued on the outstanding amount. The complainant has failed to point out the deficiency as alleged in the consumer complaint. Hence, by making non-payment, late payment fees levied and accumulated to principal amount. As per terms and condition of the card holder agreement the OPs are neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged in unfair trade practiced. In a decision reported in 2015 (2) CPR 687 (NC) HDFC Bank and Ors. Vs. Kesto Naskar it has been held that credit card holder is bound to clear outstanding dues against his credit card amount.
The next question is regarding determination the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum. According to the Ld. Advocate for the OPs all dispute arising out of and/or relating to this Card Member Agreements shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of competent courts at Mumbai, India. As observed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in First Appeal No.725 of 2010 it would defeat the very purpose and object of the C.P. Act, if the provisions of the Agreement between a Consumer and a Service Provider alone were to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. Thus, the submission of the OPs is that this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this Consumer Complaint because of an agreement does not help the OPs.
Regard being had to the entire facts of the case coupled with documents on record, we are of the opinion that though the complainant is a consumer under the meaning of C.P. Act but he failed to show any deficiency of rendering service and/or unfair trade practice against the OPs. The consumer complaint is frivolous and liable to be dismissed. Thus, the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Accordingly, point no.1 is answered in the affirmative and remaining points are answered in the negative.
In the result, the case merits fail.
Hence,
Ordered
That the consumer complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against the OPs.
No cost is imposed upon any of the parties.
