J U D G E M E N T
Filtering out the unnecessary details in the complaint, the complainant’s case may be summarized thus :-
In succinct, the case stated in the complaint, is that, the Complainant is a ‘Credit Card’ holder being No. 4718 6000 0128 7723 issued by the Opposite Party Bank against his Savings Account No. 443010100000921 and the said ‘Credit Card’, having the credit balance of Rs. 525.35/- only and Edge Loyalty Rewards Points of 12361 nos. which has money value, was lost on 28.05.2014 from the custody of the Complainant and subsequently the said ‘Credit Card’ was blocked by registering a complaint with the Bank’s Customer Care No. 1800 233 5577 by the Complainant and the Bank authority had issued a complaint No. 79420434, dated 28.05.2014. Thereafter the Complainant had applied for another ‘Credit Card’ on 06.06.2014 against the Application No. 422825273. But the Opposite Party Bank did not yet issue the same in favour of the Complainant after expire of the stipulated period of 21 days. The Complainant sent a letter on 03.07.2014 to the Opposite Party Bank for issuing the same but of no response, what amounts to deficiency and/or negligence in rendering service towards him, for which he has to suffer harassment and mental agony and prayed for compensation. Hence, this case is filed seeking adequate redressal.
Opposing the complaint, the Opposite Party by filing separate Written Versions one by the Opposite Party denying all the contentions and all material allegations made by the Complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the Complainant has no locus standai, and the case is not maintainable either in law or in fact.
The specific case, as stated by the Opposite Party, in terse, is that the Complainant is an account holder bearing the no. 443010100000921 and was issued a ‘Credit Card’ with a limit of Rs. 20,000.00/- only on an application of the Complainant. The Complainant used his ‘Credit Card’ for making various transactions and also made regular payment against his usage. The said ‘Credit Card’ was allegedly reported to be lost from the possession of the Complainant on 28.05.2014 and had blocked on the same day from phone banking channel from the mis-using the same but had not indicated his preference for replacement. On request of the Complainant the Bank had been blocked the said ‘Credit Card’ being no. 4718 6000 0128 7723 and subsequently the Complainant had made another application before the Opposite Party for a new ‘Credit Card’.
The Complainant had apparently not reported the incident of loss of his said ‘Credit Card’ and applied for another one with superior value propositions and credit limit. The Complainant had not deposited his income documents and KYC documents along with his application for new card which is required for issuing the new ‘Credit Card’ as per the Banking regulations, instead of repeated phone calls. Thus the Opposite Party denied any deficiency and negligence against the Complainant and prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
Point for Consideration
1. Is the complaint maintainable under the C. P. Act ?
2. Was there any negligence and/or deficiency in service
on the part of the O.P ?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for ?
Decision with Reasons
All the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience and brevity.
We have carefully considered and scrutinized the submission made before us by the Complainant himself and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party and also critically perused all the material documents on record.
The dispute between the both Complainant and the Opposite Party is that whether the Complainant is entitled to get the replacement of the said previous ‘Credit Card’ being No. 4718 6000 0128 7723 lost by him and also entitled to get the other reliefs as prayed for or not.
On overall evaluation of the argument made before us by the Complainant himself and also the Ld. Advocate for the Opposite Party and the material evidences on record, it is evident that admittedly the Complainant is an account holder bearing the no. 443010100000921 and was issued a ‘Credit Card’ with a limit of Rs. 20,000.00/- only.
The record reveals that admittedly the Complainant used this ‘Credit Card’ for making various transactions and also made regular payment against his usage in regular basis.
It is revealed from the case record that the Complainant alleged that the said ‘Credit Card’ had been lost the custody of the Complainant on 28.05.2014 which was admitted by the Opposite Party Bank by filing his Written Version.
Manifestly, it is found from the Written Version, paragraph no. 4 filed by the contesting Opposite Party that the said ‘Credit Card’ was allegedly reported to be lost from the possession of the Complainant on 28.05.2014 and had blocked on the same day from phone banking channel from the mis-using the same but had not indicated his preference for replacement.
But on the same paragraph of the same Written Version it is also revealed that the Opposite Party Bank further stated that the Complainant had apparently not reported the incident of loss of his said ‘Credit Card’ and applied for another one with superior value propositions and credit limit.
Now it is the grave confusion that which statement of the Opposite Party Bank is correct or is not that whether the Complainant actually informed the Opposite Party Bank the fact of the loss of his said ‘Credit Card’ being No. 4718 6000 0128 7723.
Manifestly it is revealed from the photocopies of the documents filed by the Complainant that the Complainant had sent a letter on 03.07.2014 to the Opposite Party Bank and which was duly admitted to receive by the Opposite Party, wherein the Complainant had informed the matter that he had lost his ‘Credit Card’ being No. 4718 6000 0128 7723 and claimed for another one.
The case record reveals that the Complainant had applied for another new ‘Credit Card’ with superior value propositions and credit limit without depositing any of his income documents and KYC documents along with his application for new ‘Credit Card’ which is required for issuing the new ‘Credit Card’ as per the Banking regulations.
But by filing the petition of complaint the Complainant prayed for re-issuing of his previous ‘Credit Card’ which was lost with credit amount of Rs. 525.35/- only.
Thus, the unanimous decision of the Forum is that the Complainant is entitled to get the replacement of his previous ‘Credit Card’ and the Opposite Party Bank is also liable to re-issue the said ‘Credit Card’ with same credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- only along with Rs. 525.35/- only in favour of the Complainant.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, we are of the opinion that the Complainant has proved their case and are entitled to get the relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the Complainant deserves success.
In the result, we proceed to pass
O R D E R
That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs. 5,000/- only which is payable by the Opposite Party within one month from date of this ‘Order’.
That the Opposite Party is directed to re-issue the said ‘Credit Card’ being No. 4718 6000 0128 7723 with same credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- only along with the credit balance of Rs. 525.35/- only in favour of the Complainant within one month from the date of this ‘Order’.
In the event of non compliance of any portion of the order by any Opposite Parties within a period of one month from the date of this ‘Order’, that Opposite Party shall have to pay a sum of Rs. 200/- per day, from the date of this ‘Order’ till full satisfaction of the decree and the same shall have to be deposited by the Opposite Party to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Written & Typed by me. Chandrima Chakraborty, Member.
