BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> C.C.No. 235/2007 Filed on 12.11.2007<br /> Dated : 16.08.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> Devi Anil Kumar, 5/1984-1, Warriam Gardens, Sree Krishna Lane, Kowdiar, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 003.<br /> <br /> (By adv. S. Reghukumar)<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> Citibank, Citibank Card Centre, P.O.Box 4830, Anna Salai P.O, Chennai – 600 002.<br /> <br /> This O.P having been heard on 15.05.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The complainant who is an architect by profession has filed the complaint against Citibank alleging the following: The complainant was offered a credit card by M/s Citibank and she had never applied for it and was never a customer of Citibank also. The complainant was informed that special women's cards were offered as a free photo card, but it was not issued. The special women's card was issued on 19.05.2001. the card was frozen on 17.02.2003 alleging that outstanding amount had exceeded the limit set by Citibank. The complainant never used the credit card after 17.02.2003 and the outstanding at that time was Rs. 19,080/-. The complainant had made a payment of Rs. 13,700/- during 16.01.2003 to 17.01.2004 inspite of this the outstanding at the end of this period was arrived at Rs. 15101.04. The service charges were taken without rendering any service. From the date of freezing the complainant had paid Rs. 27,700/- to Citibank but the outstanding was still kept at Rs. 10,412/- by faulty methods and deceptive practice. <br /> Though the complainant brought this to the notice of the opposite parties, the opposite parties replied without giving any commitment nor taking any steps for s settlement. The opposite parties further stated that the balance outstanding is Rs. 10412/-. Their intention was to wilfully delay the process of settlement further and unduly charge more money committing grave illegality. Though the complainant wrote to the opposite parties again, there was no reply at all. The opposite party continued to abuse the complainant through telephone and hence the complainant was constrained to make further payment of Rs. 4000/- in 4 instalments. Later, the complainant stop the payments and the collection agent of the opposite party met the complainant with the assurance that if a cheque for Rs. 1400/- is paid, the entire amount could be settled and accordingly the complainant made the payments and she was informed that the account has been settled. Since the complainant did not receive any communication as per the assurance, she somehow managed to contact the opposite party. Opposite party further offered to settle the outstanding at Rs. 10412/-. Since the complainant had already paid Rs. 5400/-, she requested them to settle at Rs. 5,012/- and after that there was no positive response from the part of the opposite party. Later on complainant received a letter and according to the opposite party, the dues had been worked out to Rs. 19,795.63. On 15.10.2007 the complainant received a legal notice demanding payment of an amount of Rs. 26,658.75 which is due within 3 days. The opposite party has added the dues by charging illegally on various accounts. Hence this complaint against opposite party for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice claiming refund and compensation among other reliefs. <br /> The opposite party remains exparte. <br /> Complainant PW1 has filed affidavit and marked Exts. P1 to P11 on her part. <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether the opposite party has illegally collected any amount from the complainant?<br /> (ii)Whether there is any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (iii)Reliefs and costs.<br /> Points (i) to (iii):- Complainant has pleaded that she was never a customer of Citibank and she had never applied for a credit card on her own. But she was offered a credit card by the opposite party as part of their sales promotion and though it was a free offer they had charged Rs. 500/- as fees for the first year which is evident from Ext. P2. Though she had complained, she did not get any response from the opposite party. It is further alleged that though her photograph was taken by the opposite party the photo card has not been issued. <br /> Further the complainant has stated in her complaint that her card was frozen on 17.02.2003 alleging that the outstanding amount had exceeded the limit set by Citibank, which is without any basis. The complainant has sworn that after 17.02.2003 she has never used the credit card for any purpose, but the opposite party kept on adding the dues by charging illegally on various accounts. <br /> PW1 has not been cross examined and hence her affidavit stands unchallenged. The complainant has produced 11 documents in support of her complaint. These Exts. P1 to P11 substantiate the case of the complainant. The opposite party has neither contested nor cared to deny any of the allegations levelled against them inspite of sufficient opportunities. Hence in the above circumstance we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has succeeded to prove the allegations levelled against the opposite party. According to the complainant an amount of Rs. 14020/- has been collected in excess from her. The complainant as PW1 has sworn that at the time of freezing the operation of the credit card on 17.02.2003 the amount outstanding was Rs. 19,080/- and thereafter she had remitted Rs. 33,100/- in various instalment till 17.08.2006. The opposite party was not willing to settle the account and kept on adding the dues by charging illegally on various accounts. As per Ext. P3 the total amount due as on 16.01.2003 is Rs. 19,080.42. According to the complainant after that she has remitted Rs. 33,100/-, till 17.08.2006 for which there is no denial by the opposite party and hence we are left with no other option than to believe the complainant on the basis of the documents produced on her part. <br /> In the light of the above, we are of the view that there is nothing to disbelieve the complainant and since the opposite party has never turned up to contest the matter or dispute the same, it is found that the opposite party was deficient in their service towards this complainant. The opposite party has illegally collected excess amount from the complainant which leads to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is found entitled to refund of Rs. 14,020/- from the opposite party. Obviously, the complainant would have suffered monitory loss, inconvenience and mental sufferings due to the act of the opposite party for which she has to be compensated and we find an amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation towards the same. <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to close the credit card account of the complainant with effect from 17.02.2003 by waiving all service charges and other charges levied from 17.02.2003. The opposite party is further directed to refund Rs. 14020/- along with a compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Order for compliance two months failing which Rs. 14020/- shall carry 12% interest from the date of order till realisation. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 16th August 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD President<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER <br /> <br /> C.C.No. 235/2007<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Devi Anilkumar<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 <br /> series - Photocopy of application form for credit card page I and free photo card (page 2).<br /> P2 - Photocopy of Citibank card statement of Card No. 4550 3889 2672 9000 dated 07.07.2001.<br /> P3 - Photocopy of Citibank card statement dated 16.01.2003.<br /> P4 - Photocopy of Citibank card statement dated 18.04.2003.<br /> P5 - Photocopy of letter dated 15.06.2005. <br /> P6 - Photocopy of reply from Citibank letter No. 0075/AA dated 01.07.2005.<br /> P7 - Photocopy of letter dated 21.07.2005 by the complainant. <br /> P8 - Photocopy of complainant's e-mail dated 13.12.2006 to Grievance Redressal Officer, Citibank.<br /> P9 - Photocopy of reply by e-mail from City bank dated 29.12.2006.<br /> P10 - Photocopy of reply by post from Citibank dated 13.04.2007.<br /> P11 - Photocopy of legal notice from S.A Associates on behalf of Citibank. <br /> <br /> <br /> II OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />