BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.391 of 2021
Date of Instt. 17.11.2021
Date of Decision: 08.11.2024
Naseeb Chand, Age 45 years, Son of late Charan Dass, H. No.54, Chohak Kalan, PO Ladhewali, Jalandhar-144007.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. Bajaj Finserv, Opposite Gurdwara Singh Sabha, Urban Estate, Phase-1, Jalandhar-1440022 Through its Manager/Authorized Representative.
2. RBL Bank Ltd., Near Sanjay Crate, Model Town, Jalandhar City. Through its Branch Manager/Director/Authorized Representative.
3. RBL Bank Limited, Unit 306-311, 3rd Floor, JMD Megapolis, Sohna Road, Sector 48, Gurugram-122018 (Haryana). Through its Managing Director/Authorized Representative..
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Complainant in Person.
Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Ajay Bhardwaj, Adv. Counsel for OPs No.2 & 3.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the OP No.1 issued EMI Card (No.2030 4000 4622 9441 valid upto 12/26) to complainant for purchasing some domestic appliances, which amount deducted from time to time from above said saving bank account of complainant. In association with OP No.1 and OP No.2, the OP No.3 sent to complainant a Super Card bearing No.5256 1112 0060 8581 valid upto 09/26 without apply, without demand, without consent and without signature of complainant. After issuance of above said card, the OPs No.2 & 3 started to demand Rs.2200/- for said Super card from complainant. When the complainant refused to give this amount, the OPs increased the amount to Rs.5112.89. The complainant refused to give the above said amount to OPs then the OPs No.2 & 3 threatened the complainant on phone to deposit the said amount immediately otherwise legal action shall be taken against him in the Court of law. The complainant got blocked the above said card on 4/12/2020 through helpline No.302134973-66 and again blocked the said card on dated 2/1/2021 through helpline No.374072133963. The OP No.2 again threatened the complainant through phone No.9999508944 that if the said payment is not given then recovery men will be sent to the house of complainant for recovery of above said amount and the CIBIL score of complainant would be spoiled by OP No.3. On 11/11/2021 one Sh. Deepak Kumar Advocate from Delhi told the complainant through his Mobile phone No.8795638405 to talk with Advocate Sh. Roop Chand at Jalandhar having Mobile No.79821-65759. When the complainant talked with Advocate Sh. Roop Chand, he told the complainant that case has been made vide file No.115 for blocking all the documents of complainant. He further told the complainant to give the above said payment otherwise stern legal action shall be taken in the Court of law for recovery of above said amount. The complainant told the Advocate that the said Super Card has been issued without consent and without demand signature without and of complainant whereas the complainant never required/need the said card but the Advocate of OPs adamant to threat for recovery of above said amount from complainant in one way or other. Now the OPs No.2 & telephonic call the complainant to give to give the above said amount otherwise a case shall be filed in the Court for recovery of above said amount. The complainant neither required nor need the above said super Card but the same has been issued to complainant by OPS No.2& 3 in association with OP No.1 without consent, without Will and without apply Complainant which tantamount to of unfair trade practice and amounts to negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs and as such, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to withdraw/cancel the above mentioned super card and waive the entire amount alongwith interest/penal interest if any and further to give the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant and cost of litigation expenses of Rs.1500/-.
2. Notice of the complaint was sent to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the instant complaint is defective, baseless and devoid of merits, the reason being that the complainant has made Bajaj Finserv as a party i.e. OP No.1 to the complaint whereas the fact is that there is no such company in the name of Bajaj Finserv. It is further averred that the present complaint is legally not maintainable against the answering OP as the complainant is not the consumer of answering OP within the meaning of S.2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is further averred that the present complaint is bad for mis-joinder of necessary parties. It is further averred that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed against answering OP as neither there is any negligence nor deficiency in service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the answering OP. It is further averred that the primary allegation of the complainant is in relation to issuance of credit card and threats issued by the OPs No.2 and 3. Neither the answering OP has issued credit card nor threatened the complainant to deposit the amount as stated therein by the complainant. The complainant has unnecessarily impleaded the answering OP as a party in the present complaint, so, the complaint against the OP No.1 is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that the OP No.1 is only the service provider to the OPs No.2 and 3. The present complaint is liable to be dismissed in the light of agreement dated 27.02.2017 duly executed between the answering opposite party and OP No.2 and 3 wherein it has been duly agreed between the parties to the agreement that RBL shall be responsible for management and resolution of all claims, disputes, complaints and queries raised by the customer in relation to the Credit Card provided by RBL to such Customer and all such issues, claims, disputes or complaints shall not constitute a claim against BFL on account of providing the services. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. The OPs No.2 & 3 filed their separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable before this Commission because the complainant has made allegations that he had never applied for the credit card whereas as per the record of the answering OPs, the card was issued as per the consent and asking the complainant. Therefore, the said averments can be proved only by extensive evidence including the deposition of the handwriting experts and cyber experts, and verifying the documents, previous conduct and acts of the complainant and other witnesses and the production of voluminous documents and record and proving the same by examining number of witness and the cross examination of the said witnesses. Consequently, the said litigation is beyond the purview and scope of enquiry and jurisdiction of this Commission. Consequently, the dispute, if any, can be decided only by the Civil Court. It is further averred that the present complaint is barred under the law in as much as the relief claimed by the complainant in the complaint cannot be granted in view of the statutory law as well as the law laid down by various courts up to the Supreme Court of India. The relief that has been claimed by the complainant is against the settled provision of law as nobody can claim any relief which is against the terms of the contract and nobody can resile from the contract after getting benefit under the same. Therefore the complaint itself is not maintainable and required outright dismissal at the very threshold. It is further averred that the complainant is guilty of concealing and withholding material and vital information from this Commission in as much as he was fully aware of the terms and conditions of the grant of the credit card as he had agreed and accepted that he has read and understood the terms and conditions for the grant of the credit card and only after getting his acceptance, the credit card was issued. Therefore the complainant cannot show ignorance to the said terms and conditions and as such, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a saving bank account in State Bank of India, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder to the written statement filed by the complainant, whereby reasserted the entire facts as narrated in the complaint and denied the allegations raised in the written statement.
5. In order to prove their respective versions, both the parties have produced on the file their respective evidence.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have also gone through the case file as well as written arguments submitted by complainant as well as counsel for the OPs No.2 & 3 very minutely.
7. The complainant has proved on record the EMI Card Ex.C2. Though, the OP No.1 has denied that EMI Card was ever issued by them, but perusal of Ex.C-2 shows that the EMI Card was issued to the complainant by Bajaj Finserv i.e. OP No.1. The complainant has proved his saving bank account Ex.C-3. The complainant has further alleged that he never applied for any super card bearing No.5256 1112 0060 8581, which was issued by OPs No.2 & 3. Perusal of Ex.C-4, the super card shows that this is platinum card issued by the RBL Bank i.e. OP No.2. The grievance of the complainant is that after issuance the super card, the OPs No.2 & 3 started demanding Rs.2200/- for the super card and then the amount was increased to Rs.5112/-. The complainant got blocked the card on 04.12.2020 and again blocked the same on 02.01.2021 through helpline number, but the OPs started threatening the complainant to make the payment otherwise the CIBIL Score of the complainant would be spoiled.
8. The OPs No.2 & 3 has alleged that the complainant himself has got issued the super card and has agreed and accepted all the terms and conditions. It has further been alleged that the complainant had given the consent to the concerned agent through phone and provided the entire intimation to the agent only then the card was issued and complainant was made aware of all the terms and conditions. The OP has produced on record the certificate of the insurance Ex.OP-5 issued on 10.10.2020. The OP in his written statement has alleged that the complainant was issued the super card with his consent and the application and declaration is Ex.OP1/5. Perusal of Ex.OP1/5 shows that it nowhere bears the signatures of the complainant. Ex.OP-5 is the care health insurance issued by the team care health insurance RBL. This is group policy of insurance in the name of Naseeb Chand. The OP in their written statement has nowhere mentioned the connection of the policy with the credit card. The bills have been produced on record by the OP regarding the credit card amount due towards the complainant Ex.OP-7. Perusal of this shows that all the bills nowhere show that the complainant has ever used the credit card for the purchase of any appliances or anything else. The complainant has alleged that he had got blocked his card through helpline and this fact has been admitted by the OPs No.2 & 3 in their written statement in para no.7. As per allegations of the complainant, the card was issued to the complainant without any consent and the OP has given the detail of the agents name and everything regarding which the alleged consent was obtained from the complainant but there is no record produced by the OP to show that the complainant has ever met the agent or he has given any consent or has given any particulars regarding which the OP is alleging to have given by the complainant. No affidavit of concerned agent has been filed/proved by the OPs No.2 & 3. The OPs are in the knowledge of the particulars about the complainant as they themselves have produced on record the policy in the name of the complainant issued by RBL Bank No.2. The complainant has produced on record number of messages Ex.C-6 to Ex.C-83 which were allegedly sent to the complainant by the OPs forcing him to make the payment of the Super Credit Card, failing which an FIR shall be got registered and his Cibil Score would be adversely effected. All these threats were given by the OP vide these messages. The threats given by the OP is wrong and illegal on the face of it as if the complainant had given the consent and had obtained the credit card, the OP had every right to adopt legal course of action to recover the amount and not to threat the complainant time and again. Number of messages has been proved showing the threats given by the OP, which is uncalled for and is unfair trade practice. Had the complainant taken the card by giving consent he would have used the card, but the card/bills nowhere shows that the card was ever used. Since, the consent allegedly given by the complainant has not been proved, therefore, the amount demanded by the OP is wrong and illegal. Thus, the OPs have misrepresented the complainant. Thus, deficiency and unfair trade practice proved and the complainant is entitled for the relief.
9. In view of the above detailed discussion, the complaint of the complainant is partly allowed and OPs are directed to cancel the super card and waive the entire amount. Further, OPs are directed to pay a compensation including litigation expenses of Rs.20,000/- for causing mental tension and harassment to the complainant. The entire compliance be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
10. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
08.11.2024 Member President
