DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 633/08
1. Dr. Y.R. Singh
R/o A-351, Surya Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201011 ….Complainant No. 1
2. Smt. Shakuntala
W/o Sh. Y.R. Singh
R/o A-351, Surya Nagar,
Ghaziabad - 201011 ….Complainant No. 2
Versus
BOB Cards Ltd.
Bank of Baroda Building
First Floor, 16-Parliament Street
New Delhi – 110001
Also at:
Regd. and Corporate Office
‘Esperanca’ Shahid Bhagat Marg,
Colaba, Mumbai - 40000 ……Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 25.09.08 Date of Order : 23.08.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Sh. S. S. Fonia, Member
O R D E R
Complainants’ case is that the complainant-1 is the card holder of OP vide credit card No. 5102310136886016 (earlier card No. 5102310136886008) since a long time and he never made default in payment of any bill raised by the bank.; that on 28.08.2002 he moved an application for add-on card to be issued in the name of complainant-2 but the same was never delivered/received by the complainants or any family member as alleged by the OP that the add-on card had been delivered on 13.12.2005 after a delay of more than three years; that the credit card is not to be handed over to any third person and it amounts to gross deficiency in service; that even PIN number was not communicated to the complainants and it has been confirmed by the OP that since 2002 no transaction has been made on alleged add-on card. It is further stated that on 12.3.2007 complainant-1 was shocked to receive a statement in respect of above mentioned card for a sum of Rs. 20,998.70p although he had not made any transaction on the said card; that immediately the complainant reported through e-mail about the misuse of the BOB card No. 5102310136886008 on the same day at 10.45 a.m. It is stated that conversations took place between the parties and letters were exchanged between them for withdrawing inflated bill regarding card No. 5104210136886016. Even a complaint was made to the Banking Ombudsman who vide letter dated 26.2.2008 who informed the complainant-1 that they were unable to proceed further under clause 13(1)(d) of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme, 2006 (amended) on the ground that based on the comments furnished by the Bank and documents produced before Banking Ombudsman they were of the opinion that the add-on card was issued to the complainant-1 on his request and the card was delivered to his daughter. It is stated that the charge-slips were provided by the OP Bank after a lapse of 9 months and even from those slips it is abundantly evident that the signatures on the same do not tally with the signatures of the complainant-2. According to the complainants, the OP has acted against the guidelines issued by the RBI and hence committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The Complainants have prayed as under:-
- Direct the OP to withdraw an inflated bill issued against the card No. 5104210136886016 immediately,
- Direct the OP to cancel the unsolicited credit card,
- Direct the OP to pay compensation of Rs. 2,50,000/- to the complainants in lieu of the mental agony and harassment created due to callous and arbitrary attitude of the OP and/or
- Direct the OP to pay the litigation cost of Rs. 15,000/-.
OP in the written statement has inter-alia pleaded that in pursuant to the application of the complainant-1 received in the Mumabi office of the OP on 30.8.2002, add-on card was issued in the name of Mrs. Shakuntla (complainant-2) which was valid for a period of 3 years and delivered to her on 24.9.2002 though the Blue Dart Courier Agency vide report, copy of which is Annex. R-2; that the complainant had regularly paid renewal fee for primary and add-on card on 31.1.2003, 17.1.2004 and 12.01.2005 which fact shows that the add-on credit card was received by the complainants and in their possession. It is further stated that on the credit card of the complainant-1 and add-on card of his wife complainant-2 becoming due for renewal on 1.1.2006 both the cards were renewed on and dispatched to the complainants on 12.12.2005 in one envelope and that Ms. Navlita, daughter of the complainants received the card on 13.12.2005 through Blue Dart Courier Agency vide report, copy of which is Annex. R-3 and the said cards were valid till 31.12.2008. It is stated that the above renewed add-on card bearing no. 5104-2101-3688-6107 was used on 29.1.2007 and 30.1.2007 after more than one year of the renewal in the near vicinity of the residence of the complainants upto almost full limit of Rs. 21,000/-; that the card was used at Just Passion (Ghaziabad), Big Bazaar (Ghaziabad) and Stylez (Ghaziabad) on 29.1.2007 and at Anurag Electronics (Delhi) on 30.1.2007 and the charge-slips for the above purchases substantiating the above card’s presence and existence were provided, copies of which are Annex. R-3 & R-4; that from a bare perusal of the charge-slips of the card swapped at EDC machine of Anurag Electronics on 30.1.2007, it is evident that the same are signed by Ms. Shakuntla and signatures of Ms. Shakuntla on these charge-slips 100% tally with the signatures of Ms. Shakuntla on the add-on card application which fact shows that the add-on card was lying with and available with the complainants at the time of its usage. It is stated that after taking into consideration the submission of the parties, the Banking Ombudsman vide letter dated 20.2.08 was of the opinion that the signatures of the wife of the complainant on the charge-slip dated 30.1.2007 tally with the signatures on the application form dated 28.2.2002 and the transactions of 30.1.2007 showed that the card was with the complainants on 30.1.2007 when the purchases were made. Denying any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the rejoinder, the Complainants have not denied about the receipt of the credit card on 13.12.2005 by their daughter Navlita and that the complainants had regularly paid the renewal fee for primary and add-on card on 31.1.2003, 17.1.2004 and 12.1.2005. The other averments made in the complaint have been reiterated.
Complainant-1 and Complainant-2 have filed their separate affidavits in evidence but they have not marked any exhibit numbers on any documents. On the other hand, affidavit of Ms. Shuchita Jain, AVP has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP and she has relied on documents Ex. RW1/1A, Ex. RW1/1 to Es. RW1/6. However, the documents marked exhibit numbers in her affidavit have not been marked exhibit numbers on the corresponding documents.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
No oral arguments have been advanced on behalf of the parties. We have gone through the file very carefully.
Copies of the documents filed on behalf of the OP are not much clear and legible. However, we have made our sincere efforts to go through the same. Copy of the BOB card Paras application form submitted by the complainant-1 for add-on card is Annex. R-I. Annex. R-3 is the copy of the delivery card which shows that on 13.12.2005, add-on card had been delivered to the complainants through their daughter. Copies of charge-slips for the purchase made on 29.1.2007 and 30.1.2007 by the complainant-2 are Ex. RW1/3A and Ex. RW1/4A and the same are shown to have been signed by the complainant-2 in Hindi. If we compare those signatures with the signatures of the complainant-2 on the complaint and her affidavit, we have no doubt in our mind that the signatures on the charge-slips were done by the complainant-2 and none else. Therefore, we are not inclined to believe that the complainants had not received add-on card immediately after the submission of the application for add-on card and also on 13.12.2005. We are also satisfied that after the receipt of add-on card, complainants had paid renewal charges on 31.1.2003, 17.1.2004 and 12.1.2005. Therefore, we hold that the complainants have miserably failed to prove their case. Therefore, we hold that the OP is not guilty of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
Announced on 23.08.2016.
Case No. 633/08
23.8.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(S. S. Fonia) (N. K. Goel)
Member President
