Date of Filing: 14.11,2018. Date of Disposal: 11.09.2023.
Complainant : Amitabha Hazra, S/O Late Adhir Kumar Hazra. Resident of Vill. & P.O. Mirzapur P.S. Dewandighi, District-Purba Bardhaman, Pin-713102.
-VERSUS -
Opposite Party/Parties : 1. Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, Bardhaman Branch, having its office at 45, G.T. Road, Parbirhata, Bardhaman-713101.
2. Managing Director of HDFC Bank, having its office at Ceebros Building, 110 N.M. Road, Aminikarai, Chennai-600029.
Present : Smt. Subrata Hazra (Saha) -Hon’ble President.
: Mrs. Lipika Ghosh - Hon’ble Member.
: Mr. Atanu Kr. Dutta. - Hon’ble Member.
Appeared for the Complainant : Sri Santi Ranjan Hazra Ld. Advocate.
Appeared for the Opposite Party :Sri Sumit Ranjan Bhadra Ld. Advocate.
F I N A L O R D E R
The grievance of the complainant is that the complainant was a Credit Card Holder, as handed over by the HDFC Bank, the number of which is 4577044300059964 and validity was from the period of 09/2015 to 09/2018. This card provided the facilities as money back renewal for Rs. 150, interest free credit up to 50 days from the date of purchase etc. The annual fee of the card was Rs. 500/- behind his credit card. Needless to mention the complainant used this card for purchasing of products. But now all on a sudden, the OP No.1 demanded Rs.56, 862.21 from this complainant which was abnormal and contrary to the expenditure. The complainant asked the OP to submit the statement of account but they did not send any statement. Further to be mentioned, this OP No.1 approached the complainant to settle the claim on the aforesaid amount through a compromise, directing him to pay Rs.45,000/- only in total by 10 equal installments . The complainant agreed at their proposal and as per settlement they made a document. On payment of Rs. 6,520 and handed over 9 account payee cheques in equal amount of Rs. 4,275/- to them drawn on Allahabad Bank and the document was also prepared in this regard about the compromise and payment which is marked as Annexure B for judicial consideration. This OP deposited the cheque No. 002057 which was duly en-cashed by them. Subsequent installments were payable on 20.01.2018 to 20.02.2018. This OP collected each installment respectively of Rs. 4,275/- by en-cashing the cheque and subsequent installment in cash to HDFC Bank and Allahabad Bank. Some cheques behind this statement of cash payment were not deposited by the HDFC Bank. Hence, payment of cash was for few days delay. But the complainant paid all money or amount as per settlement of Rs.45, 000/-. Accordingly, the complainant is entitled to get ‘No Due Certificate”. He also prays for compensation of Rs.30, 000/- for mental agony and Rs.20, 000/- towards unfair trade practice of the Bank and Rs.10, 000/- as litigation cost.
The OP Bank contested the case by filing W/V and stated that this complainant suppressed the actual fact. It is not a Consumer Dispute. Practically, this complainant was issued a Credit Card being No. 4577044300059964 with most important terms and conditions. The complainant used the card for purchasing and the OP issued the statement of use of the Credit Card to the address of the complainant. Interest charge also payable/accrued as per default of payment for outstanding dues. All those statements have again sent to the address of the complainant. It is also the fact that due was settled in compromise at a Rs. 45,000/- which was scheduled to be paid in 10 installments in equal amount. The complainant paid 9 numbers post-dated cheques of Rs. 4,275/- and paid cash of Rs. 6520/- as first installment.
Further to be mentioned, all cheques were placed by them but those were bounced or were not en-cashed due to bounce.
So, the settlement has been broken and all dues were accrued against this Credit Card in actual amount of Rs. 56,862.21. The credit card was now permanently blocked. Naturally, this OP never adopted any unfair trade practice or made any deficiency in service or there is no question of payment of any compensation by them. The case is liable to be dismissed.
Now, in order to substantiate the contention under the complaint petition this complainant examined himself and filed Xerox copies of all documents like his Credit Card as Annexure A, settlement paper dt. 25.10.2017 as Annexure B and receipt of cash payment as well as cheque en-cashed by Credit Card Bank and Allahabad Bank respectively which was marked as Annexure C.
On the other, the Bank authority placed their employee as witness for the purpose of evidence in writing when the entire statement under the W/V was related and the documents as true copy of resolution of a meeting dt. 19.10.2019 was filed as Annexure A , the terms an conditions of the Credit Card was filed as Annexure B and the Credit Card statement dt. 22.01.2019 was filed as Annexure C.
Decision with Reasons.
This Commission carefully perused the entire documents as placed in record. We find the evidence of the complainant as in writing was lastly given on 08.04.2019 i.e. after filing the W/V by the Opponent. We further found his evidence was duly tested by the Bank in evidence board. This complainant stated about the settlement in between himself and the O.P Bank, where he was directed to pay Rs. 45,000/- in 10 equal installments instead of Rs. 56,821.21. The complainant further deposed that in terms of the agreement, 9 account payee cheques of Rs. 4,275/- respectively and cash of Rs . 6,520/- were paid to the Bank in respect of their settlement dt. 25.10.2017. The complainant further deposed that he paid 9 cheques of equal amount but all the cheques were not en-cashed or placed by the O.P Bank in time, for which he had to pay cash deposit behind unplaced cheques . He had sufficient balance at his drawee bank- “Allahabad Bank” at the time of handing over the cheques to the H.D.F.C. Bank who was the Credit Card payer. He deposed that he was never issued any “No Due Certificate” till now, rather on 22.08.2018 Bank sent him further demand of Rs. 40,334/- on cancelling the agreement dt. 25.10.2017.
We, the Commission, find this complainant was duly tested by the Opponent when entire materials on record for him were established by his evidence and also his filing of document behind his contention of settlement dt. 25.10.2017 in between the Bank and himself. It has been substantiated that he was ordered to pay Rs. 45,000/- behind the alleged claim of Rs. 56,821.21.
Now just for a look on the agreement dt. 25.10.2017 which was filed by the complainant as Annexure –B . This document transpires that both the parties signed on the document and the amount was reduced from Rs. 56,862.21 to Rs. 45,000/- . It is also found or admitted fact that cash payment of Rs. 6,520/- was written in that document and the document also containing 9 account payee cheques in favour of the H.D.F.C. Bank drawn on Allahabad Bank, Burdwan. We, the Commission, further find that this settlement was valid up to July, 2018.
By evidence this complainant substantiated the entire document before this Commission and by filing the document of payment, this complainant also substantiated that he paid the settled amount of Rs. 45,000/- on payment of cash, cheques and some cash amount to the OP Bank behind some of the un-encashed cheque amount. Accordingly, it is incumbent duty of the Bank –Credit Card Payer to show that this complainant has violated any terms and conditions of their settlement. Here, we find the complainant repeatedly stated by evidence that though he paid 9 cheques behind his payment but all the cheques were not en-cashed by the Bank in time, hence, he had to pay cash of those cheques to their Bank. Practically, this evidence was not able to be discarded by the Bank by any substantial cross-examination. Only they made a statement by W/V that they placed those cheques to the drawee Bank and those were bounced.
The fact to say, the (Bank) placed no such substantial document to show that placed cheques were bounced as given by the complainant to them. Naturally, subsequent payment in cash to their Bank by the complainant which was admitted through document of cash receipt as Annexure C debarred the OP to comment t that this complainant violated any terms and conditions of the settlement.
From the documentary evidence of the complainant which was placed as Annexure C before this Commission, it is evident that 5 cheques were en-cashed by the OP of Rs. 4,275/- respectively from the Allahabad Bank and one was from their own Bank, those documents or cheques were 002057, 002058, 002061, 002062 and 002065 and they also filed three cash receipts , each amount was Rs. 4,275/-. So, we the Commission, hold that as soon as the Bank settled his dues finally as Rs. 45,000/- on 25.10.2017 from the alleged claim of Rs. 56,821.21 , this Commission ought to give value to the admitted settlement dt. 25.10.2017 which was a bipartite agreement in between them under their respective signatures. It is further to be held that unless and until the Bank would show that there was any default or violation of settlement by the complainant , the Bank is estopped to discard this agreement of settlement or amount of payment as paid by the complainant.
Therefore, we find total Rs. 45,000/- was cove red by the cash payment as well as cheque payment which were duly taken by the OP Bank behind their allotted Credit Card and settled expenditure as per agreement dt. 25.10.2017.
Further to be mentioned this OP Bank or the OPs did not able to satisfy the Commission whey they again sent the letter of payment of Rs. 40,334/- on 22.08.2018. The last payment of the complainant was made on 23.07.2018. We find that the validity of the settlement was valid up to July, 2018 so as per this state of affairs, no violation is being seen by the complainant as per terms and conditions of the Agreement dt. 25.10.2017.
It is further fact from the materials on record that Credit Card was issued in lieu of annual charges of Rs. 5000 and we hold this is the “consideration” on the part of the complainant for taking Credit Card from the OP Bank and as per this admitted payment of Rs. 500/- strengthen this complainant to be a Consumer of the OP behind taking Credit Card.
Accordingly, the allegation or from the entire litigation, we find no reason to send further demand by the Bank for payment of Rs. 40,334/- behind this expenditure for using the Credit Card. They failed to substantiate their demand behind this expenditure by the complainant on the subsequent charge of Rs. 40,334/-.
So, when the bipartite agreement i.e. the documents dt. 25.10.2017 of both the parties was agreed and obeyed by the payment of Rs. 45,000/- as admitted expenditure of the complainant, at present, the Bank is stopped to realize any further amount except Rs . 45,000/- behind the expenditure of Credit Card by the complainant on the subsequent charge of Rs. 40,334/- . The Commission is duty-bound to give value to this Agreement dt. 25.10.2017 until it is shown as not paid by any cogent evidence.
Hence,
ORDERED
The complaint be and the same succeeds with regard to getting No-dues Certificate from the OP Bank in respect of Credit Card No. 4577044300059964 .
Complainant do get litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) as asked for and also being allotted further Rs. 5,000/- for his harassment. No further amount is allotted by the Commission.
OPs are directed to give “NO Dues” Certificate to the complainant and to pay Rs. 15,000/- in total behind his litigation cost and harassment within 3 (three) months from the date of order i.d. complainant is liberty to get the amount by execution under the C.P. Act.
Let the free copy of this order be given to the parties on free of cost .
Original documents be returned to the Complainant, keeping Xerox certified copies.
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
Member Member President
D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman. D.C.D.R.C., Purba Bardhaman.
