Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/72/2014

Mr.Gurumurti Natarajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

Axis Bank, Shastri Nagar Branch - Opp.Party(s)

B.Yamunadevi

18 Sep 2019

ORDER

                                                                  Complaint presented on : 11.10.2013

                                                                    Date of Order               : 18.09.2019

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP.  : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.72/2014

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 18^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2019

                                 

Mr. Gurumurti Natarajan,

S/o. Mr. M.K. Natarajan,

Old No.10, New No.11, First Floor,

2^nd Cross Road, Dr. Radhakrishnan Nagar,

Thiruvanmiyur,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                        .. Complainant.                                

                                                                                              ..Versus..

 

1. AXIS Bank,

Rep. by its Manager,

Credit Cards Division,

The Grievance Redressal Cell,

6^th Floor, “C” Wing Solaris Premises,

Opp. L & T Gate No.6,

Saki Vihar Road,

Powai,

Mumbai – 400 072.

 

2.The Manager,

AXIS Bank,

Shastri Nagar Branch,

No.18, M.G. Road,

Near Adayar Bus Depot,

Shastri Nagar,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                 ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the complainant                 : M/s. B. Yamunadevi & others

Counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2 : M/s. A.S. Kailasam &

                                                                 Associates

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 & 2 to apologize for all the inconvenience caused to the complainant, to repay the excess amount of Rs.6,620.36 taken from the complainant’s account and to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.

1.    The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The complainant submits that he is an account holder and operating the banking transactions for several years with the 2^nd opposite party.  Based on the credentials, the 2^nd opposite party approached the complainant and offered a pre-approved credit card bearing No.5241 7810 0025 6456 in the month of November 2012 on 18.01.2013.  The complainant received the bill accidently which was thrown in his gate and compound.  The complainant called the 2^nd opposite party on the same day and enquired about the previous bill which was not sent to him.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party on the same day i.e. on 18.01.2013, enquired about the earlier bill for the period from 16.11.2012 to 15.12.2012 and for what reason, the current bill for the period covering from 16.12.2012 to 15.01.2013 had the claims of late payment fee, auto debit interest and Interest and taxes on these items on the second bill which was received only January arise in the absence of any bill issued for the period from 16.11.2012 to 15.12.2012.  The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party’s officials responded that they entered phone numbers and email ID for the 1^st time only after enquiry raised by the complainant on 18.01.2013. The complainant never opted for auto debit plan.  But the 2^nd opposite party’s staff wrongly entered this option in their system and withdrawn the same as wrong entry after due activation.  

2.     The complainant submits that only a sum of Rs.47,573/- has been paid by him towards the use of credit card from the very inception.  Thus a sum of Rs.384/- “My choice Cash Back Credits” has already been paid in excess.   The 2^nd opposite party has not delivered the  first bill to his address but activated the auto debit option without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.   The complainant submits that the 2^nd opposite party by himself paid a sum of Rs.36,670/- towards expenses incurred in the first two billing cycles.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the 2^nd opposite party has not come forward to rectify the errors and not sending the details of credit card transactions.  For this, the 2^nd opposite party shall be penalized.  On 17.04.2013, the complainant issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party for which, the 1^st opposite party sent a reply letter dated:13.07.2013 stating that the complainant has not paid the amount due for more than 60 days and having a due of Rs.6035.48 and de-activated the complainant’s credit card as the complainant has not been servicing the minimum amount.  Further to recover the due amount from the Savings account of the complainant, if he fails to pay within a period of 7 days.   The complainant sent reply on 29.07.2013 to the letter dated:13.07.2013 sent by the 1^st opposite party.   The 1^st opposite party without replying to the notice dated:17.04.2013 or waiting for the complainant to reply to the letter dated:13.07.2013, the 1^st opposite party proceeded to recover a sum of Rs.6,236.40 from the complainant’s Savings Bank account.   The said acts of the opposite parties without considering the complainant’s grievance are highly arbitrary, unfair and done without application of mind.  The act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony to the complainant.   Hence, the complaint is filed.

3.      The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite parties 1 & 2 is as follows:

The opposite parties 1 & 2 specifically deny each and every allegations made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same.    The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the complainant has availed credit card facility from November 2012. The complainant was not intimated by the opposite parties about the credit card due earlier which the complainant would have paid in time.  On enquiry of the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party about the various charges, the opposite parties entered the complainant’s mobile number and email ID.   The complainant never opted for auto debit facility.  The complainant demanded proof of delivery of statements and also made several complaints with the 2^nd opposite party but of no avail.   Due to the wrongful practice and false billing and no response to his billing, the complainant stopped using the credit card from February 2013.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that the 1^st bill of Rs.17,013.15 was attempted to be recovered by auto debit since, the complainant has no sufficient funds auto debit could not be materialized and bounced.  The charges towards payment of bounce were incurred as a result of which, a fee for late payment also arrived.  A payment of Rs.36,670/- was made by the complainant unilaterally on 19.01.2013.   The opposite parties 1 & 2 state that a lien was marked on his SB account for the amount of Rs.6.035.48 as per clause 31 of the Credit Card Agreement and letter dated:13.07.2013 called upon the complainant to pay the same within 7 days.  The complainant did not comply with the said demand and thereafter after giving him more that the 7 days mentioned in the letter on 26.07.2013, the opposite parties exercised their general lien of the amount of Rs.6,236.40 due and payable as on 26.07.2013 and the same is in accordance with the agreement between the parties.   Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 & 2 and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

4.     To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 are marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2. 

 

5.      The points for consideration is:-

1. Whether the complainant entitled to get refund of the excess amount Rs.6620.36 collected by the opposite parties as prayed for?
2. Weather the complainant entitled to a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and the opposite parties are liable to apologize for inconvenience with cost of Rs.1,000/- as prayed for?

6.      On point:-

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the complainant’s Counsel also. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he is an account holder and operating the banking transactions for several years with the 2^nd opposite party.  Based on the credentials, the 2^nd opposite party approached the complainant and offered a pre-approved credit card bearing No.5241 7810 0025 6456 in the month of November 2012 on 18.01.2013, as per Ex.A1 (S).  The complainant received the bill accidently which was thrown in his gate and compound.  The complainant called the 2^nd opposite party on the same day and enquired about the previous bill which was not sent to him.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 (S), it is very clear that the bill for the period from 16.11.2012 to 15.12.2012 was not received.  The bill for the period from 16.12.2012 to 15.01.2013 was alone received.  Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party on the same day i.e. on 18.01.2013, he enquired about the bill for the period from 16.12.2012 to 15.01.2015 and for what reason, the current bill for the period covering from 16.11.2012 to 15.01.2013 availing the claims of late payment fee, auto debit interest and taxes arise in the absence of any bill issued for the period from 16.11.2012 to 15.12.2012. 

7.     Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party’s officials responded that they entered phone numbers and email ID for the 1^st time only after enquiry raised by the complainant on 18.01.2013.   The complainant never opted for auto debit plan.  But the 2^nd opposite party’s staff wrongly entered this option in their system and withdrawn the same as wrong entry after due activation.  The complainant further contended that only a sum of Rs.47,573/- has been paid by him towards the use of credit card from the very inception.  Thus a sum of Rs.384/- “My choice Cash Back Credits” has already been paid in excess.   The 2^nd opposite party has not delivered the 1^st bill to his address but activated the auto debit option without the knowledge and consent of the complainant.   Further the contention of the complainant is that the 2^nd opposite party by himself paid a sum of Rs.36,670/- towards expenses incurred in the first two billing cycles.  Even after repeated requests and demands, the 2^nd opposite party has not come forward to rectify the errors and not sending the details of credit card transactions.  For this, the 2^nd opposite party shall be penalized.  On 17.04.2013, the complainant issued legal notice to the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A4 for which, the 1^st opposite party sent a reply letter dated:13.07.2013 as per Ex.A5 stating that he has not paid the amount due for more than 60 days and having a due of Rs.6035.48 and de-activated the complainant’s credit card as the complainant has not been servicing the minimum amount.  The opposite party sent reply as per Ex.A6 for the notice dated:17.04.2013 in which, as per clause No.31 of ‘Card Member Agreement of Credit Cards the Bank has right to exercise general lien/ set off etc against your all the accounts and the bank shall debit your accounts for the total  amount due including all the charges, late payment fees and interest’.  Hence, the complainant was constrained to file this case for the refund of excess amount of Rs.6,620.36 collected by the opposite parties with compensation and apology by the opposite party’s officials.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1(S), bills, it is very clear that an amount of Rs.6,236.40/- was due for the period of 16.06.2013 to 15.07.2013 was collected by the opposite parties on 26.07.2013 is seen from the statement of accounts as per Ex.A7.   But the other hand, the opposite parties has not explained on what basis, the claim towards service tax at 12.36% debit interest and another service tax at 12.36% etc claimed against no transaction. 

8.     The contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that admittedly, the complainant has availed credit card facility from November 2012. The complainant was not intimated by the opposite parties about the credit card due earlier which the complainant would have paid in time.  On enquiry of the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party about the various charges, the opposite parties entered the complainant’s mobile number and email ID.   The complainant never opted for auto debit facility.  The complainant demanded  proof of delivery of statements and also made several complaints with the 2^nd opposite party but of no avail.  Due to the wrongful practice and false billing and no response to his billing, the complainant stopped using the credit card from February 2013.  Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that the 1^st bill of Rs.17,013.15 was attempted to be recovered by auto debit since, the complainant has no sufficient funds auto debit could not be  materialized and bounced.  The charges towards payment of bounce were incurred as a result of which, a fee for late payment also arrived.  A payment of Rs.36,670/- was made by the complainant unilaterally on 19.01.2013.   But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1, it is seen that the opposite parties issued bills only in the month of January 2013 proves deficiency in service.  

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties 1 & 2 is that a lien was marked on his SB Account for the amount of Rs.6.035.48 as per clause 31 of the credit card agreement and letter dated:13.07.2013 since the complainant did not complied the demand of the opposite parties, on 26.07.2013 an amount of Rs.6,236.40 was debited.  But the opposite parties has not explained under what circumstances and how a bill for Rs.6.035.48 arrived and Rs.6,236.40 debited  all along the complainant is challenging the levy of interest service charges at the rate of 12.36% etc for which, the opposite parties has not given any answer proves unfair trade practice.  Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite parties 1 & 2 shall refund a sum of Rs.6,620.36 being amount paid in excess and a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally directed to refund a sum of Rs.6,620/- (Rupees Six thousand and six hundred and twenty only) being the amount paid in excess and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-  (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

  The above  amounts shall be payable  within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 18^th day of September 2019. 

 

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT

 

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-

Ex.A1	.11.2012	Credit card statements - Original
Ex.A2 (S)		Copy of email complaint and reply by the opposite parties
Ex.A3 (S)		Copy of email complaint and reply by the opposite parties
Ex.A4	17.04.2013	Copy of legal notice of the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A5	13.07.2013	Reply of the opposite parties - original
Ex.A6	29.07.2013	Copy of 2nd legal notice of the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7		Statement of accounts - original

 

OPPOSITE PARTIES 1 & 2’ SIDE DOCUMENTS:-  NIL

 

                              

MEMBER                                                                                PRESIDENT