Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

CC/213/2017

G.Sampath - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Bank CArds, Rep by its Regional Collection Manager - Opp.Party(s)

Shobana Ramasubramanyan

18 Apr 2023

ORDER

Date of filing : 04.02.2016

 IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R VENKATESAPERUMAL     … MEMBER

 

C.C. No.213 of 2017

                                                    

                               Orders pronounced on:  18.04.2023

G.Sampath,

3-6-100 B/1,

West Marredpally,

Secunderabad 500 026.                                       … Complainant

vs.

 

CITI BANK CARDS,

Rep. by its Regional

Collection Manager,

No.766, I Floor,

Annasalai,

Chennai 600 002.                                         ... Opp. Party

 

             For Complainant      :  M/s.K.Gowtham Kumar

             For Opposite Party   :  M/s. LR. B. Dhanasekaran

This Complaint came up for final hearing on 21.03.2023 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for the parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

                      On the ground that the OP/Bank, by way of a letter of settlement dated 07.06.2004 with an enclosed Draft for Rs.30,000/-, had paid to the complainant the said sum towards full and final settlement of a dispute that arose from the consumer case in O.P. No.146 of 1998, which was filed by the complainant against the OP/Bank over the seizure of the Credit Card issued by the Bank in his favour and the subsequent  issuance of bills for the seized/closed Card, and on the allegation that, despite such self-initiated settlement on the part of the Bank, they have negligently raised a demand against the complainant in respect of the very same Card seeking to recover a sum of Rs.21,90,938/-, the complainant has now preferred this present case, alleging that the said demand negligently made long after the final settlement of the issue is a clear instance of service deficiency, due to which, he has been subjected to great mental agony and harassment and, on that score, he seeks this Commission to direct the OP to pay to him a sum of Rs.50.50 lakh towards total compensation for mental agony, etc., and also to pay the litigation expenses.  

    

             2. In brief, it is the case of the complainant that he was issued with CITI BANK DINERS CLUB Credit Card No.36559095063007; that in September, 1992, he had used the said Card for booking tickets with the Indian Airlines at the Bombay Airport; that the ticket-booking was declined as the authorities had told him that they had to seize the credit card as per the instructions of the issuing Bank,  whereupon, he was subjected to great humiliation & embarrassment and, in fact, driven to borrow from his friends;  that he could not succeed in his incessant efforts to get clarification on the credit card issue from the OP that only focused in sending unrealistic bills for the sums which the complainant did not owe; that ultimately, he had filed the consumer case in O.P. No.146 of 1998 before this Commission; that, after a prolonged enquiry, the OP had admitted its negligence and settled the matter out of court and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant and, in that regard, they had issued a letter, dated 07.06.2004, based on which orders were passed in O.P. No.146 of 1998; that, after thus giving a quietus to the entire issue pertaining to the credit card way back in 2004, they have raised a new demand for a sum of Rs.21,90,938/- through a  demand letter, dated 10.12.2008,  in respect of the very same card; that the present demand is a clear instance of negligence and service deficiency, due to which, the complainant, who is a senior citizen with fragile health due to BP & diabetes, has been subjected to great mental torture and agony; and that the OP needs to be penalized heavily for a self-speaking deficiency in service, hence, the present complaint, seeking the direction, as aforementioned.

 

             3. In the written version filed by them, the OP has largely elaborated the pre-settlement facts from their point of view  and, in respect of the present issue, they have mainly stated that the present complaint has been filed with the same cause of action; that the OP had resorted to settlement by considering the complainant’s relationship with them and his old age; that the complainant has not disclosed any fresh cause of action with respect to the same credit card in dispute; and that there is no scope to allege any unfair trade practice on their part; hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

                4. In order to substantiate their claim and case, both sides have filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant has filed 2 documents as Exs.A1 to A2, on the side of the OP, one document/account statement is filed as Ex.B1.

 

                     5. Learned counsel for the complainant states that the original issue with regard to the Credit Card in question was previously resolved by the OP at their own motion, through a letter of settlement, dated 07.06.2004; while so, 4 long years after such settlement, by way of Ex.A2, they have given a Credit Card Statement, stating that the very same credit card is in overdue status, that the amount stands overdue as on 10.12.2008 is Rs.21,90,938/- and that they are referring the complainant’s account to the internal/external agencies as mentioned therein for the purpose of recovery.  In the above background, it is only after the filing of the present consumer complaint, they have marked Ex.B1/Statement for the months of August & September, 2010 and, on that basis, now, they claim that they have actually reversed a sum of Rs.3,711/- towards the principal and Rs.21,87,226.75 towards interest and thereby, brought  the statement to ‘NIL’.  But, no information was ever given to the complainant about such reversal or bringing the statement to NIL.  By referring to the contents of the written version filed by the OP, learned counsel states that the Bank has not given clear details therein about the reversal except making some blunt claims and has never responded to any of the complainant’s allegations in respect of the demand letter in question, dated 10.12.2008, except stating that there is no fresh cause of action; as such, there is no justification at all for them to defend the unjust demand letter which only depicts the unfair trade practice on their part in having made an inflated demand with a mala fide intention of extorting money from the customers like the complainant.  Even assuming that there was no mala fide intention, still the OP has acted negligently in sending the demand letter over a credit card dispute that had already been given quietus and it clearly amounts to deficiency as per Section 2 (1)(g) of the Act.  By ultimately quoting the following passage from the decision of the SCDRC-Delhi in Vibhu Bhakru vs. Standard Chartered Bank (MANU/Q1/0076/2007 - 2007 (1) C.P.C. 712),

                                             “ Such kind of activities indulged by the service providers like banks who first not only rush but provide home service to give loans and issue credit cards and then start harassing the consumers by raising illegal bills irrespective of the fact whether the consumer has transacted any business or not through these cards and go on inflating the recoverable amount without settling the dispute in spite of receiving the dispute declaration form and in spite of being called on telephone almost every day, there cannot be any worst kind of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice than this.”,

and by stating that, in the present case also, the OP herein has indulged in harassing the complainant on the basis of a false demand without any basis at all, learned counsel ultimately pleads for grant of the relief sought for, in its entirety.

 

                     6. Per contra, learned counsel for the OP/Bank, by referring to Ex.B1, states that the said document containing the statement for the months of August & September, 2010, reflects the interest & principal dues and the reversal of the entire outstanding has been done by the OP Bank as a goodwill gesture.  Therefore, no cause of action whatsoever survives and, on that score, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

 

               7. Be that as it may, the present status conveyed by the OP about the reversal of the alleged outstanding will not completely absolve them of their liability for the glaring negligence and service deficiency in  raising a new demand by reviving the card issue that was given a quietus only based on the settlement initiated by the Bank themselves and, as rightly pointed out, the Bank would not have settled the matter at their own motion if there was no fault or shortcoming on their part; otherwise, they would have certainly contested the previous case filed against them. Further, from the following statement of the OP as given in their written version,

             “ 9. It is true that the card of the complainant was picked up by the member establishment during September, 1992 post closure of the card.  The Opposite Party submits that as the earlier complaint filed by the complainant was resolved in 2004, the statements prior to November 2007 are purged and hence not available….”,

it is quite obvious that the card was closed long back during September, 1992 itself and that, because of the reason that the previous consumer case ended in settlement, statements pertaining to the card in question prior to November, 2007 were purged.  If that is so, the OPs have to inevitably answer the lurking question as to how they could generate further statements post-purging and issue the demand letter under Ex.A2.  Instead of that, by referring to a couple of circulars issued by the RBI in respect of record management, they only state the following in the written version, after adverting to Ex.B1:-

               “ Annexed herewith are the statements for the month of August, September and October 2010 as ANNEXURE A reflecting the interest and principal outstanding amount and reversals of the said outstanding done by the Opposite Party Bank as a goodwill gesture.  The principal outstanding amount reversed by the bank is Rs.3711.00.  Hence, no cause of action whatsoever survives…”

Once again, without speaking or mentioning about the actual sum figured in the demand letter, they bluntly present the reversal aspect and state the amount reversed towards the principal outstanding as Rs.3,711/-.   The above details only show that the OPs have no defence at all and that their only endeavour is to somehow escape from the liability through a murky & gloomy reversal claim.  It is not the case of the OP that, after the issue was settled previously, the card in question was activated and used for any transaction.

 

     8.  In the above circumstances, now, we are concerned with the only question as to whether the act of the OP has caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant, who is said to be in his 80s with fragile health due to age-old ailments like BP and diabetes.  In this case where the facts remain that the card-issue was given a quietus at the instance of the Bank, who volunteered themselves for a settlement by paying to the complainant/customer a sum of Rs.30,000/-; that post-closure, there is no proof to show that the card was activated and used for any transaction; and that admittedly, statements prior to November, 2007 were purged, it is quite easy for the bank to issue a demand letter over the closed card and, soon after realizing their fault in having issued such a wrong statement/demand, to present themselves to be so generous with an explanation that they have revised the entire outstanding and thus, there is no cause of action exist to proceed against them.   By way of the previous settlement initiated by it, the Bank had succeeded in averting an adverse order against them, but, having resorted to the new demand and not timely clarifying to the complainant about the tenor of such demand as actually meant by them, the trails of negligence and service deficiency on their part are so indelible that even the present explanation in the form of so-called reversal would not efface it.  Here, by the prevaricative approach of the Bank and the glaring fault & shortcomings on their part, verily, the principles of res ipsa loquitur are clearly attracted. It is unfortunate that the Bank have not even bothered to realize the level of mental pressure and agony to which the age-old complainant would have been subjected to, upon receiving the demand letter that calls upon him to face Agents for the recovery of the alleged overdue of Rs.21,90,938/- which he did not owe.  At least, soon after issuing the demand letter, by realizing their fault, the Bank could have clarified to the customer that the demand was wrong and that they had actually reversed whatever outstanding that was entered in their account books, but, without conveying any information to the customer about their actual decision, they had driven him to run from pillar to post in pursuing the present litigation, as a result, definitely, he would have suffered a great degree of physical strain and mental agony, for which, they Bank is absolutely liable to suitably compensate him.  While highly deprecating the conduct of the OP/Bank, considering the facts and circumstances, we deem it just and proper to impose upon them costs of Rs.2 lakh, besides a direction to pay  a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

              9. In the result, the complaint is allowed in part by directing the OP/Bank to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakh only) as compensation for the mental agony caused to him due to their wrong demand letter and also sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) towards the litigation expenses, within 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which, the said sum shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the complaint till the date of realization.

                                                    

R VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT.

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE COMPLAINANT

•       Date            Description of Documents
• Letter of Settlement given by OP to the complainant
•  

LIST OF DOCUMENTS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF THE OPs

•       Date            Description of Documents
•  

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                           R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                             PRESIDENT.

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/APRIL/2023.