| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.349/19 Mr. Ashok Shroff S/o Late Shri K.L. Shroff B-25/3, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II New Delhi-110020. .…Complainant VERSUS Citibank NA, Level 1, Gurmehar A-12, Ring Road South Extension Part-I New Delhi-110049. Also At: Mail Room, ACROPOLIS 9th Floor New Door No.148 (Old No.68) Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai Mylapore, Chennai-600004. ….Opposite Party Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Present: Adv. S.S. Sobit for complainant. Present: Adv. Jishnu Bhardwaj, proxy counsel on behalf of Adv. Suruchi Suri for OP. ORDER Date of Institution:12.12.2019 Date of Order :01.07.2024 President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking direction to OP to reverse the charges of Rs.14,57,048.69 being wrongfully claimed by the OP; further direction to OP to desist from levying this amount with interest/service charge etc.; restrain the OP from informing the CIBIL that the card account of the complainant is overdue/inform the CIBIL to amend the credit score of the complainant; sum of Rs.20,00,000/- towards compensation/damages and cost of litigation. - It is stated by the complainant that OP issued ‘Ultima Primary Credit Card’ in favour of the complainant it was replaced twice. It is stated that upon perusal of the billing statement for the period 26.07.2016 to 25.08.2016 it was noticed that a total sum of Rs.4,28,553.33 had been claimed on account of ‘Purchase and other charges’. A sum of Rs.2,319.87 had also been claimed on account of ‘interest charges’ computed at 3.40% per month and a sum of Rs.392.98 was claimed as service tax computed at 15%.
- It is further stated that since complainant had made the payment in full towards the dues payable as per the previous billing month i.e. upto 25.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.1,14,953.66, which payment was made much before the due date there was no question/reason of levying of any interest or service tax. It is stated that the billed amount as per credit card statement for the period 26.07.2016 to 25.08.2016 was Rs.4,28,553.33 and since the sum of Rs.2712.85 was wrongly levied complainant deposited the actual sum i.e. Rs.4,25,840.48.
- It is further stated that despite the complainant making genuine requests to the OP seeking reversal of the said wrongly levied sum of Rs.2,712.85 in the next bill for the period 26.08.2016 to 25.09.2016 interest charges @3.40 % per month amounting to Rs.22,569.24 were found levied besides service tax of Rs.3,385.39.
- It is stated that no cogent or valid reasons was provided by the OP for the imposition/levy of interest or the service tax. Complainant according again requested the OP to reverse the wrongly levied amount of Rs.28,667.48. Complainant at the relevant period paid a sum of Rs.3,66,755.15 against the billed amount of Rs.3,95,422.63.
- It is further stated that the OP avoided to respond/comply with the request made by the complainant regarding reversal of the wrongly levied charges and in the next bill once again charges on account of interest and service tax were found levied and this has been continued ever since.
- As per the billing statement for the period 28.8.2017 to 25.09.2017 sum of Rs.11,38,473.76 was mentioned as billing amount out of which Rs.2,71,568.43 was levied as interest and service tax. Complainant then wrote to the OP on 02.11.2017 highlighting the OP’s unwarranted and unjustified conduct however instead of analyzing and appreciating the plight of the complainant a letter dated 09.11.2017 was received virtually refusing to rectify/ reverse the wrongly levied charges.
- It is the case of the complainant that he has addressed 20 detailed communications to the OP but the OP has avoided to address the issue and the meagre amount of Rs.2712.85 is now Rs.6,45,114.43 in the month of July 2018. Complainant again wrote the OP on 12.9.2018 and received a communication from OP dated 17.09.2018
“Further as per August 2016 statement, we have received the complete payment of Rs.1,14,953.66 on August 12 2016 within the payment due date. However, residual interest charge of Rs.2319.87 was levied in July 2016 statement. The residual interest charge is levied for the period from July 2016 statement generation till the date of payment received”. It is stated by the complainant that no such residual interest was either due or payable by the complainant. - In response to the email dated 17.09.2018 complainant addressed another mail dated 19.09.2018 highlighting that OP more than took two years to explain the reason for levying the disputed amount of Rs.2,712.85 i.e. interest amount of Rs.2,319.87 plus tax of Rs.392.98 and requested the OP to reverse the wrongly claimed charges however, the OP again took the earlier stand. OP offered to reverse the interest charge of Rs.10,000/- which was credited and is seen in the statement 27.08.2018 to 25.09.2018.
- OP continued with its deficient conduct in raising unjustified and unwarranted charges in the monthly bills. One such bill for the period 26.07.2019 till 25.08.2019 for a sum of Rs.13,71,385.91 out of which meagre sum of Rs.32,392.84 was towards actual charges and the balance amount is shown as interest charges. In this regard, communication dated 12.09.2019 was sent to the OP but the OP instead of redressing the grievance of the complainant, blocked the card in September 2019. The complainant was dismayed at such a mechanical response and the treatment meted out to him by the OP despite the fact that the complainant was having an average spend of Rs.1,00,00,000/- through the credit card.
- It is stated by the complainant that the OP has been deficient in its service by claim the amounts that are neither due nor payable and is therefore guilty of indulging in unfair trade practices.
- In response to the legal notice of the complainant dated 23.09.2019 OP sent an email dated 22.11.2019 and made false and irrelevant assertions and communicated that it was only willing to reverse Rs.10,000/- from the claimed amounts. It is further stated that the amount claimed by the OP which is neither tenable nor payable would be reported to CIBIL as ‘overdue’ and would diminish the credit score of the complainant.
- It is further pointed out the complainant that the OP had been engaging in similar activity of claiming unjusfitifed and arbitrary amount qua the credit card of the complainant as in credit card statement of 26.02.2016 to 27.03.2016, 25.04.2017 to 27.03.2017 and on both the occasions after being point out OP had given the due credit adjustment to the complainant. It is further stated that as per the SMS received by the complainant from the OP the amount payable is now Rs.17,11,745/- as on 26.02.2020.
- In their reply, OP has stated that the complainant has not approached the Commission with clean hands and that as per the records, complainant has defaulted several times in making full payment against the outstanding amount and was accordingly charged interest as per the prevailing rules of the OP’s credit facility. It is stated that as a service gesture OP has reversed the interest charges along with GST and is reflected in the credit card statement of the complainant.
- It is stated that Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) of the credit card state that the payment received from the customer is primarily credited towards piece and interest charges and subsequently towards cash withdrawal and purchases. Hence the outstanding amount kept on adding up as the payments were made in part by the complainant were first adjusted towards the fee and interest charges and then towards withdrawal and purchases made by the complainant resulting in outstanding of Rs.17,11,745/- as on 02.03.2020.
- It is further stated that as per the orders of RBI in terms of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 every credit institution has to provide required information to the credit information company.
- It is further stated that OP cannot be held liable for the default on the part of the complainant. It is stated that the complainant is using his credit card for cash withdrawal however, he is not making payment towards the interest built the cash withdrawals. As per the complainant’s own statement as a service gesture the interest charges were reversed as it was only minimal interest on the cash withdrawal in August 2015 statement and the complainant was also explained the reason for billing the interest charges. It was explained that interest will be reflected in the statement of subsequent months if the part payment is made and cash withdrawal is done. In the case of the complainant as a service gesture OP had reversed interest charges and corresponding GST of Rs.39,773.35 but it was not done on account of any miscalculation or deficiency at the end the OP. Likewise, in July 2016 statement the total due amount was Rs.1,14,953.66 and the payment received from the complainant was Rs.1,14,953.66, however, there was a cash withdrawal on his add on credit card which is updated in the credit card statement of August 2016 hence interest charge of Rs.2,319.87 was levied against his August 2016 statement.
- It is the case of the OP that complainant has been repeatedly making partial payment against his outstanding dues reflecting in his monthly statement of account hence the OP in line with the MITC have charged with absolute transparency and disclosure.
- It is stated that OP cannot be construed to be deficient in its services provided to the complainant owing to his lapses and cannot reverse the interest charges. It is stated complainant has completely ignored the MITC and assumed that the payments were made against the principal amount excluding the interest charges but to the contrary the amount is first used to pay the fee/charges levied on by the complainant due to late/part payments made by him. The credit card statement from September, 2014 to January, 2020 are annexed as annexure OP-2 (colly).
- It is further stated that as the OP did not receive the minimum amount due payment to keep the credit card active after September, 2019 the card could not be kept active. It is stated that lapse of part payment/non-payment at the end of the complainant cannot be treated deficiency on the part of the OP.
- In his rejoinder, it is stated that regarding the statement of April 2016 OP had claimed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as fee for the subject card and claimed a sum of Rs.1,450/- towards service tax/GST on the membership fee. However, on the request of the complainant these charges were waived and the complainant deposited the rest of the amount of Rs.63,131.61 as against the billed amount of Rs.74,581.61. Similarly, in the billing statement of May 2016 payment with respect of membership fee, GST and wrongly levied interest was not paid and rest was paid.
- As far as the statement of August 2016 is concerned it is stated that complete payment of Rs.1,14,953.66/- was made much prior to the due date and therefore there is no question of levying of any interest/service tax as has been done by the OP for the period 26.07.2016 to 25.08.2016. It can be seen that a sum of Rs.4,28,553.33/- was claimed by the OP on account “purchase and other charges’ and sum of Rs.2,319.87 was charged as interest and Rs.392.98 as service tax. It is stated by the complainant that when the amount was paid in time no interest or service tax was payable.
- It is further stated that even assuming that there was cash withdrawal of Rs.3,000/- incurred on ‘add on credit card’, the interest has been claimed by the OP till 25.07.2016 only and the payment of the total dues reflected in the statement dated 25.07.2016 were made by the complainant on 10.08.2016 even then the interest of 18 days on Rs.3,000/- from 26.07.2016 to 12.08.2016 (payment received by OP) could not have been 2319.87 as is projected by the OP. Accordingly, the explanation given by the OP with respect to this amount is false, motivated and malafide.
- It is reiterated that the complainant had made always all payments strictly in consonance with the actual usage shown in the billing statement therefore the OP is guilty to deficiency in service for having to claim a sum of Rs.14,57,048.69 from the complainant which has now swelled to Rs.17,11,745/-.
- Both the complainant as well as OP have filed their respective evidence affidavits as well as written arguments and have heard the oral arguments. The controversy revolves only on the August 2016 credit card statement of the complainant. It is seen from the credit card statements placed on record both by the complainant as well as OP related to the relevant disputed month of August 2016 that the OP has clarified the charges for which the complainant has been billed. However, the amount of Rs.3,000/- as claimed by the OP to be cash withdrawal on the supplementary add on card is not visible in any of the credit card statement. It is unfathomable that the complainant would be asked to pay something which he is not aware of. Accordingly, the charges imposed by the OP on the said amount of cash withdrawal without any information to the complainant is totally uncalled for and amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Further, despite various correspondence of the complainant with the OP regarding the issue no step was taken by the OP to correct its mistake or correct the statement of the credit card of the complainant. It is seen from the statement that the complainant has made huge payments towards his credit card and could not have shied away from making further payment of Rs.3,000/- had he been informed about it. OP has indulged in unfair trade practices by blocking the credit card of the complainant however complainant has not placed any document on record to show his adversely affected CIBIL Score.
Therefore, this Commission directs the OP to reverse the outstanding claimed by them along with interest and other charges, from the complainant charged in lieu of Rs.3,000/- cash withdrawal on add on card. The Commission further directs to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the harassment that the complainant had to undergo because of the unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Copy of this order be given to the parties as per rules. File be consigned to record room. Order be uploaded on the website. | |
