Haryana

Panchkula

CC/373/2021

LALIT GUPTA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

BANK OF BARODA. - Opp.Party(s)

SONIA SAINI

09 Jun 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	373 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	06.09.2021
Date of Decision	:	09.06.2022

 

Lalit Gupta son of  Sh. J.R.Gupta, R/o #652, Sector-7, Panchkula.

 

                                                                ….Complainant.

 

Versus

Bank of Baroda through its Branch Manager, Sector-8, Panchkula.                                                                                                                                                                                  ….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019.

 

Before:              Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr.Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr.Sushma Garg, Member.

 

 

For the Parties:   Ms. Sonia Saini, Advocate for the complainant.

                        OP already proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2021.  

 

ORDER

(Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member)

1.                The brief facts of the present complaint are that in the year 2016, the complainant had visited the OP in connection with banking work, when the official of the OP was interacting with the complainant and OP started telling about the different schemes floated by the OP bank for the benefits of the consumers. The official of the OP persuaded to have credit card by luring the complainant towards the benefit of the credit card. The complainant was asked to complete the KYC and he opted for just Rs.50,000/- limit of the credit card. The complainant was handed over one envelope containing the credit card and other sealed envelope containing the pin code etc. The official of the bank did not tell about the terms and conditions of the usage of the credit card. It is stated that the complainant was not actually in need of the credit card and the same was issued by the official of the bank just to cover up their targets. He never opened those envelopes nor used the credit card even once to start the facility. After one year of the issuance of the said credit card, he received a call from the customer care Centre of the Op that the complainant has been charged Rs.500/- as penalty for not using the credit card but the complainant refused to pay any penalty or charges of any type. On dated 29.07.2021, the complainant approached his banker Seva Haryana Gramin Bank for availing housing loan facility but the banker refused to extend any loan as the OP has spoiled the CIBIL score. He reserves his right to get the FIR registered in this respect.  The OP has also committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Due to the acts and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.             Notice was issued to the OP through process server received back served but none has appeared physically on behalf of the OP before the Commission despite the fact that the contents of the presnt complaint are well within the knowledge of the OP. Thus, due to non appearance of OP, it was proceeded ex-parte by this Commission vide its order dated 29.11.2021.

3.             To prove the case, the ld. counsel for the complainant has tendered his affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement.

4.             We have heard the ld. counsel for the complainant and gone through the entire record available on the file, minutely and carefully.

5.             During arguments, the complainant reiterating the averments made in the complaint stated that he was allured by the official of OP regarding the benefits of a credit card and on persuasion, he provided his KYC details to the bank officials, where upon he was handed over a envelope containing the credit card and other sealed envelope pin code etc. It is contended that he had opted for a limit of Rs.50,000/- only qua the credit card. The case of the complainant is that the bank officials did not inform him about the terms and conditions of the usage of the credit card. As per averments of the complainant, he was not in need of a credit card and the same was provided to him by the bank officials just to cover up their targets. Further, the case of the complainant is that he never utilized the credit card for availing the credit facility but the OP had charged a sum of Rs.500/- as penalty, non-payment of which had adversely affected his CIBIL score. In the present complaint, it has been prayed that the OP be directed to correct his CIBIL score by paying compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of involving into unfair trade practice by the OP.

6.             The OP preferred not to contest the present complaint and remained absent despite services of notice, accordingly, it was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 29.11.2021 and thus, the assertions made by the complainant go unrebutted and uncontroverted.

7.             On the other hand, the version of the complainant is fully supported and corroborated by his affidavit Annexure C-A, along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-6.

8.             In view of the fact that the OP neither responded to the notice nor he has opted to controvert the precise cognizable averments made by the complainant having a very relevant bearing upon the adjudication of the grievance, the only distilled view is that the complainant has been able to prove the genuineness of the grievance that the OP had committed deficiency in service, the manner whereof has been detailed in the complaint, as also the affidavit in support thereof. Thus, we hold that OP is liable for the deficiency and unfair trade practice; hence, the complainant is entitled to relief.

9.             Coming to the relief, it is found that the demand raised by the OP asking the complainant to pay the amount has been wrong and incorrect and thus, we deem it expedient to direct the OP to drop its demand of payment of any dues qua the credit card in question. The complainant is liable to return the credit card to the OP and, thereafter, the OP shall inform the TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. to remove name of the complainant by correcting his CIBIL score.  However, keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the present case, the complainant is found not entitled to any compensation on account of mental agony and physical harassment and litigation charges.

10.            As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions:-

1. The OP is directed to drop its demand of payment of any dues qua the credit card in question.
2. The complainant is directed to return the credit card to the OP and, thereafter, the OP shall inform the TransUnion CIBIL Ltd. to remove name of the complainant by correcting his CIBIL score.

 

11.            The OP shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on: 09.06.2022

 

 

                Dr.Sushma Garg         Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini        Satpal

                    Member                  Member                          President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                        Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini                                                                             

                                           Member