BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.461 of 2015

Date of Instt. 28.10.2015

Date of Decision: 10.04.2019

Ajesh Kumar Tandon S/o Late Sh. Om Parkash Tandon resident of 1427, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Jalandhar City.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Citi Bank N. A., Through its Manager at the office situated at Mail Room No.2, Club House Road, Chennai-600002.

2. Citi Bank N. A., Through its Branch Manager at the office situated at 36, G. T. Road, Gobind Niwas, Jalandhar City.

3. Vikas Kalra, Branch Manager, Citi Bank, 36 G. T. Road, Gobind Niwas, Jalandhar City, Punjab-144001.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Jyotsna (Member)

Present: Sh. K. C. Malhotra, Adv & Sh. Gurcharan Singh, Adv Cl. for the Complainant.

Sh. H. K. Chopra, Adv & Sh. Sorabh Sharma, Adv Cl. for the OPs No.1 to 3.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that he is availing the Credit Card facility since long time (almost 18 years) from OP and is regularly making the payment of the invoices generated against the outstanding amount against the complainant. The complainant was never even a single default in making the payment. As the invoices for the various months were not delivered to the complainant as such the complainant has made representation for the same before the OPs. The OPs have rendered their apologies for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and assured the complainant that there will be no such problem in future, but the OPs have failed to keep their promises and made default repeatedly. Feeling aggrieved by the default in delivery of the invoices raised by the OPs, the complainant has opted for the delivery of the invoices through registered post. The OPs have marked the same in their record and assured the complainant that the invoices will be delivered in time by the registered post only at the mailing address of the complainant. Despite the assurances given by the OPs, the OPs have failed to do so.

2. That the complainant has purchased three mobile handsets and made the payment through the said card. The complainant got astonished to perceive from the bills that 2% extra charges were levied. The complainant has approached the OPs and informed them regarding the said unfair charges levied by the vendor and to refund the same to the complainant and to take a strict action against the vendor. Inspite of taking action against the vendor, the OPs have served a false and frivolous reply of the same. Even the number of visits and reminders by the complainant in this regard proved failure.

3. As per the guidelines issued by the RBI, the OPs are under the obligation to dispatch the bills well in time so as to deliver the bill/statement, promptly before the date of payment and also to give the customer the sufficient time to examine the bills and to make the payment, but the OPs have failed to deliver the statements with regard to the above said card. Aggrieved from the delayed dispatch of the statements, the complainant approached the OPs. The OPs informed the complainant that the statement for the period June 2015 has already been sent through registered post on 25.06.2015. The complainant went to the post office as the directions of the OPs and enquired the status of the said letter, on this the complainant came to know that letter was posted on 08.07.2015 i.e. on due date for the payment and the same was delivered to the complainant on 13.07.2015 i.e. after the due date for the payment. The OPs have intentionally provided the wrong information and are guilty of deficiency in services. Despite many representations on the grievances made by the complainant to the employees of the OP, but the OP has not given up their illegal practices and then situation was changed drastically when Branch Manager Mr. Vikas Kalra joined at Jaladhar. He adopted a vindictive stance towards the customer. The complainant has raised his many problems before the OP number of times and made them aware of the hardship and problems suffered by the complainant due to this unethical behaviour and delayed and deficient services. As the complainant has not received the statement for the period of August 2015, so accordingly the complainant approached the OP No.2 on 07.09.2015. The OP No.3 and the staff at the office of the OP No.2 misbehaved with the complainant and used derogatory language with the complainant and made the complainant to wait for long time. The complainant has moved a complaint in this regard to the OP No.2, but the OPs took no action. On the contrary, the OPs has issued letter dated 16.09.2015 received on 30.09.2015 and leveled false allegations on the complainant with notice to close the card unilaterally. The card issued by the OPs to the complainant bears the photo of the card holder, but the current card does not have clear photograph of the complainant and this creates lot of embarrassment, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant at the time of uses of the card. The complainant has number of times asked the OP to replace the card with clear and visible photograph and also supplied the photographs twice, as per the demands of branch manager, but the OPs has not supplied the card with clear photo yet. By virtue of the said deficiency in service and unfair trade practices, the complainant has suffered mental strain, humiliation, harassment and accordingly, a cause of action accrued to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed not to deactivate/close the credit card of the complainant and further for issuing the directions to the OPs to supply the statement/bills immediately after the bill period and to deliver the bills of the credit card prior to the last date of payment and further OPs be directed to refund the charges levied by the vendor and directing the OP to initiate legal action against the vendor and further OPs be directed to pay Rs.4,95,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum and further OPs be directed to pay cost of proceedings.

4. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, all the OPs appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the relief claimed by the complainant by way of present complaint has become infructous because the credit card of the complainant has been already deactivated on 20.10.2015 prior to filing of the instant complaint, regarding that an intimation was also given to the complainant for closing of the said credit card, vide letter dated 16.09.2015 and even after closing/deactivating the credit card again intimation was given to the complainant, vide letter dated 27.10.2015 and as such, the relief claimed by the complainant through this complaint has already become infructuous and thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. It is further averred that no cause of action has arisen in favour of the complainant and against the OPs. It is further submitted that the OP bank has been regularly providing the monthly statement of account to the complainant through post. Thereafter, the statement of account was sent to the complainant through registered post on the request of the complainant, but still the complainant is raising question upon non-supply of the statement. It is further averred that the credit card relationship with the complainant is governed by the terms of the card member agreement between the parties. As per clause 15.2(a) of the card member agreement, the complainant is liable to make payment towards the total outstanding on his credit card account even in the event that he has not received the monthly statement of account. It is further submitted that it is the sole discretion of the bank to deactivate services of credit card, as and when it deems appropriate, in regard to that refer clause 26 of the card member agreement. It is further alleged that the present complaint has been filed with an intention to harass the OPs and is liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Section-26 of the Consumer Protection Act. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant was availing the services of Credit Card facility from the OP, but it is denied that there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. The other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

5. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.CA along with some documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-15 and then again tendered documents Ex.C-16 to Ex.C-42 and closed the evidence.

6. Similarly, counsel for the OPs No.1 to 3 tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Jaspreet Singh as Ex.OP/A along with some documents Ex.OP/1 to Ex.OP/7 and closed the evidence.

7. We have gone through the written arguments of the respective counsels and also gone through the pleadings as well as documents very minutely.

8. In nutshell, the factum in regard to availing credit card services from the OP by complainant, is not in dispute. The allegations of the complainant are that the OPs are not supplying the copy of statement of account well within time which caused problem for the complainant to deposit the amount and further alleged that the complainant has purchased three mobile handsets and made the payment through said credit card, but the vendor had charged 2% extra and regarding that an information was given to the OP to take appropriate action against the vendor, but the OP did not take any action and further alleged that he requested the OP for replacement of old credit card with the new one having latest facilities and further claim of the complainant is that the OPs be restrained from deactivating the credit card of the complainant.

9. In order to meet out the allegation, the complainant has not brought on the file any documentary evidence that 2% extra charges were levied on the purchase bill. So, in the absence of any documentary evidence, we cannot accept that there is any unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and moreover, charging of excess amount of 2% is not on the part of the OP bank rather such type of deduction of charges may have been agreed between the member bank and the merchant for offering card transaction services, but in the instant complaint, nothing has been proved on the file in regard to excess charges of 2%.

10. Further, the next allegation of the complainant is that the OPs are not providing efficient services to the complainant, by not supplying the copy of statement of account well within time, whereby the complainant will able to deposit the amount, but this allegation of the complainant is refuted by the bank by placing on the file some documentary evidence i.e. Ex.OP/3 and same letter also produced on the file by the complainant himself Ex.C-33, the said letter was addressed to the complainant Mr. Ajesh Kumar Tandon, in the aforesaid letter, the bank/OP has informed the complainant for getting copy of statement of account through statements on email and also asked the complainant to sent your email address and further informed the complainant in case of non-receipt of the statement, you can also visit the website of the bank at www.citybank.co.in and obtain HPIN. Using this, you can view your statement online. If the complainant was duly informed by the OP that he can view his statement of account from the bank website, then non-supplying of statement of account cannot be considered as deficiency in services. Further, we like to refer CardMember Terms and Conditions, which is Ex.OP/6 and as per Clause 15.2 (a), under the heading 'Payments', which we like to reproduce as under:-

“The Card member will owe and make payment to Citibank of all charges incurred by the use of the Card, plus all charges provided for in the Terms and Conditions. The Card member shall become liable immediately to Citibank for payment of the amount of charges so incurred and notwithstanding that the Card member may not have received the State of charges due by him, he shall be obliged to make payment of the aforesaid, on the basis of bill and charge slips in his possession, within 30 (thirty) days of incurring the charge or earlier if requested”.

If we scanned the aforesaid provision of the terms and conditions of Cardmember, then we can say that providing of statement of account is not a pre-condition for payment of the amount of charges, so incurred and the card member may not have received the statement of the charges due by him. So, we find that non-supplying of statement or late supplying of statement will not give any concession to the complainant for depositing of the charges.

11. We have also gone through the Cardmember Terms and Conditions Ex.OP/6 Clause-26.1, under the heading 'Closing of Account', which we like to reproduce as under:-

“The privileges of the Credit Card may be withdrawn and the Credit Card cancelled by Citibank at any time, including on the occurrence of an event of Default (in its absolute discretion and without giving notice thereof to the Cardmember or assigning any reason therefore) either temporarily or permanently”.

12. Apart from above, we have also considered the plea taken by the complainant that OP miserably failed to replace the old one credit card with the new one having latest facilities. In regard to this plea, the OP alleged that the said allegation with regard to photograph on the credit card is a baseless averment. We also agreed with the version of the OP that the credit card never appended with the photographs of Card Holder and moreover, whenever new card with having some latest facilities is launched by the concerned bank, then the said new card have been automatically sent by the bank to all customers. So, this allegation of the complainant is also having no force.

13. The last allegation of the complainant that the OP be directed not to deactivate/close the credit card of the complainant. Here, we like to make it clear that the complainant first of all has to establish by leading cogent and convincing evidence that his credit card, on the day of filing complaint was in active position, if so, then it is the duty of the complainant to bring on the file some documentary evidence in the shape of his own statement of account of the OP bank, where-from we ascertain that some transaction was made through credit card prior to filing of the instant complaint i.e. 28.10.2015, but no such type of evidence has been produced by the complainant except his own oral version, whereas the OP alleged that the said claim of the complainant has already become infructuous because the credit card of the complainant was deactivated/closed much prior to the filing of instant complaint i.e. on 20.10.2015.

14. Admittedly, the instant complaint was filed on 28.10.2015 and put up before the Forum on 30.10.2015 and on that day, an effective order was passed for service of the OP as well as on the application for restraining the OP from deactivating the credit card of the complainant. But the documents placed on the file by the complainant himself i.e. the letter dated 16.09.2015 Ex.C-14, again the said letter tendered by the complainant as Ex.C-38. It is admitted fact that the instant letter dated 16.09.2015 came on the file from the possession of the complainant, which gave assumption that the same was received by the complainant from the OP. This letter is very crucial to adjudicate the matter in issue, through this letter, the OP gave a notice to the complainant of 30 days time for closing his credit card facility. No doubt, any services provided to the customer cannot be stopped immediately without any intimation rather there is no ban to stop the same, but after adopting due process or after giving due intimation and accordingly, through this letter Ex.C-38 dated 16.09.2015, the OP informed the complainant that your behaviour towards the employee of the bank is not appropriate and due to that reason, you are hereby intimated that your credit card facility having number 4386 2800 1729 0911 is going to close within 30 days from the date of this letter. Not so, after lapse of 30 days, the OP again informed the complainant that your services in regard to credit card had been closed, the said letter is dated 27.10.2015 Ex.OP/2 and same letter has been came on the file from the possession of the complainant also, which is Ex.C-41, where-from we construe that the said letter Ex.C-41 dated 27.10.2015 was also received by the complainant, the contents of this letter are very important and authenticated for reaching a right conclusion of the dispute in issue. We like to reproduce the last stanza of the letter dated 27.10.2015, which is as under:-

“We have already sent the intimation letter that we are constrained to close your card ending 0911 within 30 days through post, vide RL Number ET13166856051N on September 16, 2015 and we would like to inform you that your card has been closed on October 20, 2015.”

It is clearly established on the part of the OP that the credit card of the complainant have been already closed on 20.10.2015, whereas the instant complaint filed on 28.10.2015, means after receiving the letter regarding closing of the credit card, therefore, absolutely the instant claim of the complainant has become infructuous.

15. From the above detailed discussion, we reached to the conclusion that the counsel for the complainant could not able to put such like solid substances to prove the allegations of the complainant and accordingly, we reached to the conclusion that the complaint of the complainant fails and the same is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

16. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Jyotsna Karnail Singh

10.04.2019 Member President