DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                     C.C.NO. 04 OF 2020

                                                                              Date of Filing: 09.10.2020

                    Date of Order: 08.05.2023

Sri Santosh Kumar Behera

S/o. Sitaram Behera

At/PO-Bapalmendi

PS- Tikabali

District-Kandhamal                      …………………….. Complainant.

Versus.

1. Chief Manager,

State Bank of India, Phulbani Main Branch,

At/PO-Main Road, Phulbani

PS- Model Town Phulbani

DIST- Kandhamal

2. SBI Cards                                   …………………….. Opp. Parties.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                        Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant       : Mr. Sidheswar Das Adv.

For O.P. No.1                   : Mr.V.V.Ramdas Advocate

For O.P. No.2                : Mr.R.K Panda &H.Maharana –Adv.

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Sudhakar Senapothi.Member.

          Complainant Santosh Kumar Behera has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties for deducting a sum of Rs. 8430/- from his accounts without any just and genuine reason and praying therein for direction to the OPs to refund a sum of Rs. 8430/-(eight thousand four hundred thirty) with interest @ 12% per annum and to pay cost and compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is having a Savings Bank Account in Sate Bank of India, Phulbani Main Branch. The OP No.1 approached the complainant to avail credit card facility with attractive offers and the complainant agreed and consented to avail the card. He was approached by one staff over telephone and was instructed to reach the bank with the Adhar Card, PAN Card and Electric Bill. Reaching bank, he found that the person dealing with the credit card is sitting inside the bank premises and there was no special mark for the customers to distinguish between the SBI Card staff and SBI Staff. From the date of availing the Credit Card, the Opposite Party is deducting the mandatory charges every year even if no transaction is made. Suddenly, the complainant noticed that a sum of Rs. 8430/- has been deducted from his account. When the matter came to his knowledge, he submitted a written complaint and requested to supply a statement of accounts but nothing was done for which he has approached this Commission for reliefs as discussed above.
2. After receipt of notice from this Commission, the Opposite Parties appeared through their Advocates and filed their written version separately. The OP No. 1 in his written version submitted that they have not issued any credit card to the complainant. The SBI Credit Cards is a separate organization and they have no knowledge regarding the terms and conditions between them and the bank is only deducting the amount as per the electronic-mandate given to the Bank. Therefore, the OP prayed for dismissal of the case against them.
3. The OP No. 2 in his written statement stated that the complainant availed the Credit Card from them and as per the terms and conditions, if the amount due, is not paid in time, they will levy finance charges @ 3.4% per month + Service Tax at the applicable rates. Since the complainant did not clear his dues, it was levied on him and he has come to this Commission with un-cleaned hands for which he prays for dismissal of this case against OP No. 2.
4. The principal allegation of the allegation is that the Opposite Party No. 2 has deducted a sum of Rs. 8430/- from his account. The statement given by the OP No. 2 in Para-10 in which certain words like “MAD” “PAD” has been mentioned. The learned Counsel Mr.Maharana appearing for OP No. 2 could not explain before this Commission what these two terms are. In the absence of clarity and the inability of OP No. 2 to explain these terms are unacceptable as their own Counsel could not understand what has been wr4itten in their written statement. It is seen from Para-6 that the annual fees has been deducted once in a year 2019 and again in the year January 2020. We are unable to understand when the complainant has not made any transaction in the Credit Card and the statutory fees has been deducted from his account, why there was a deduction of Rs. 8430/- from his account. No document has been supplied to the complainant in which, the details terms and conditions are there and he has been thoroughly explained regarding the detailed terms and conditions of the transactions. The OP No. 2 has filed certain the copy of the application in which there is a column named Customer Declaration which has been printed in very small letters which a normal person cannot read with his normal vision. It is clear that OP No. 2 being a separate entity clandestinely, carried on its business by giving impression that the Credit Card is issued by SBI which is actually not so. We are astonished how the employee of a Private Limited Company is sitting in the Bank by concealing their original identity and cheating the general public by giving a false impression that he is an employee of the bank. The whole conduct of OP No. 2 is very much suspicious and the role of OP No. 1 is very much doubtful and not clear. The OP No. 1 has not mentioned anything in his written statement as to how the employee of another organization was allowed to sit inside the bank premises and why his identity is concealed. The whole affairs appear to be very clumsy, confusing and the role of both the OPs is not clean.
5. It is clear from the written statement of OP No. 1 and 2 that the complainant had given  auto-mandated for deducting the dues from the account. When the complainant has given auto mandate for deduction of the dues accrued against his credit card, we do not find any justification on the part of OP No. 2 to deduct the amount from SBI account and such deduction is an act of cheating and is an act of unfair trade practice and hence the order.

O R D E R

The complaint petition is allowed in contest against the OP No. 2 and dismissed against OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 8430/- (eight thousand four hundred thirty) only to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deduction till it is actually paid to him. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 15, 000/-(fifteen thousand) only towards compensation for practicing unfair trade practice and a sum of Rs. 5,000/-(five thousand) only towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of order failing which it shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

                                                      Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER

Pronounced in the open Commission today on this 8^th day of May 2023in the presence of the parties.  

     PRESIDENT                                                   MEMBER