Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

103/2010

M.Fazlullah - Complainant(s)

Versus

Chief Manager,ABN AMRO Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M.Krishnamoorthy

14 Feb 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 12.03.2010

                                                                          Date of Order : 14.02.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                                                                                          

CC. NO.103/2010

WEDNESDAY THE 14^H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018

                                              

Mr. M.Fazlullah,

No.11, Mosque Street,

Hastinapuram,

Chennai 600 064.                                   .. Complainant

                                      ..Vs..

1. Chief Manager,

ABN AMRO Bank,

Regional Office, 2^nd floor,

TVH Balicia Tower,

M.R.C. Nagar, Chennai 28.

 

2. Mr. Dinech Patnaik /Mr.Kiran,

Recovery officer,

ABN Amro Bank,

Regional Office, 2^nd floor,

TVH Balicia Tower,

M.R.C. Nagar,Chennai 28.

 

3. Tele Callers,

ABN Amro Bank,

P.O.No.418,

G.P.O. New Delhi.

 

4. The Chief Manager,

ABN Amro Bank,

P.O.No.418,

G.P.O New Delhi, Noida.                                           ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. M.Krishnamurthy  

Counsel for opposite parties  :  M/s. Umapathi & Madhan      

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service and to pay cost of the complaint.  

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he is a credit card holder of the  opposite parties bank form the year 2006.  He was given credit card loan of Rs.50,000/- which was closed in the year 2006-2007;  But the opposite parties sending reminders with statement of accounts showing dues by the complainant.   Hence the complainant sent a letter to the 4^th opposite party. The opposite party  accepted the fault and sent an apology letter to the complainant on 13.3.2008.  Again the opposite party sent letters and claimed dues towards loan.   On 9.7.2009 the complainant issued legal notice with recent statement copy dated 4.6.2009 received from the opposite party for which the opposite party has not sent any reply.   On 12.1.2010 the complainant went to the Regional office of the opposite party to clarify the matter.   The opposite party man Mr. Dinesh Patnaik explained the complainant that the renewal fee of Rs.600/- would be reversed since the account is not operative from January  2008.  He also assured the complainant that he will make suitable arrangement to close the matter.   But he has not done so.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Hence the complaint is filed.

2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the  opposite party is as follows:

The  opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.  The opposite parties state that the present complaint is not maintainable against the opposite parties  at all and is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action for filing this case.    The complainant availed the credit card bearing No.7777-7777-7091-5964 after duly signed and filled up application form  with the terms and conditions.   It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the complainant was irregular in paying his outstanding dues and hence reminder statements were sent to the complainant.  The complainant had made irregular payments towards his credit card account and there is a balance of Rs.8061.11 as on 15.11.2010.  In this context the opposite parties submit that as a responsible bank, the opposite party bank does not indulge in modes of recovery of unpaid dues amount through means which are not permissible under the law of the land.   Hence there is no deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite  parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 & Ex.B2  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

4.      The points for consideration is :

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost as prayed for?

5.  ON POINT:

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.   Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.   The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a credit card holder of the  opposite parties bank form the year 2006.  He was given credit card loan of Rs.50,000/- which was closed in the year 2006-2007;  But the opposite parties send reminders with statement of account showing some dues.   Hence the complainant sent a letter to the 4^th opposite party and the opposite party  accepted the fault and sent an apology letter to the complainant on 13.3.2008  as per Ex.A1.  Again the opposite party sent letter and claimed dues towards loan.  So on 9.7.2009 the complainant issued legal notice  Ex.A5 with recent statement copy dated 4.6.2009 received from the opposite party for which the opposite party has not sent any reply.   On 12.1.2010 the complainant went to the Regional office of the opposite party to clarify the matter.  But the security retained the complainant and keep waiting for long hours caused great inconvenience and mental agony.  The opposite party man Mr. Dinesh Patnaik explained the complainant that the renewal fee of Rs.600/- would be reversed since the account is not operative from January  2008.  He also assured the complainant that he will make suitable arrangement to close the matter.   But he has not done so.   Due to the claim of amount towards arrear of loan and monthly installments  the complainant and his family put to great mental agony.  But on a careful perusal of the statement of account Ex.B2 produced by the opposite party  also show that  there is no transaction for long period.

6.   The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that this complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and it should be dismissed in liminie.   There is no cause of action for filing this case also.   The complainant is not a bonafide consumer and suppressed the material fact and mis-represented the vital facts  in order to file this false complaint.   Admittedly the complainant availed the credit card bearing No.7777-7777-7091-5964 after duly signed and filled up application form  with the terms and conditions.  The complainant had made irregular payments towards his credit card account and there is a balance of Rs.8061.11 as on 15.11.2010.  But on a careful perusal of the entire statement of account it is very clear that the complainant has not transacted the credit card for a long time after closing of the loan account.  Further the contention of the opposite parties  is that the complainant failed to pay monthly bills in compliance with the terms of repayment for the loan account.  There is no record.   Further the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is not proved the allegation of claiming amount by the opposite parties stated in the legal notice.  But on a careful perusal of Ex.A1 to Ex.A5 it is seen that the complaint lodged by the complainant and the apology letter of the opposite parties proves the deficiency of service.   Considering the opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- and the point is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.   The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only)  for mental agony with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant. 

The above  amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14^th  day of February 2018. 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1- 13.3.2008 - Copy of letter from ABN AMRO Bank.

Ex.A2- 3.7.2008  - Copy of letter by the Complainant to the opp. party.

Ex.A3- 15.5.2008 - Copy of cash account statement from Bank.

Ex.A4- 9.5.2009  - Copy of letter by the complainant to the opp. party.

Ex.A5- 9.7.2009  - Copy of legal notice with Ack. Card.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  

Ex.B1-           - Copy of personal loan documentation form.

Ex.B2-         - Copy of Statement of accounts.

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.