Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/195/2006

DN.Meyappan - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.Udhaya kumar

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   22.12.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

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

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

C.C.NO.195/2006

TUESDAY THIS  14^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

Dn. Meyappan,

S/o. Thiru.Nagappan,

No.24-B, Second Cross Street,

Padmavathi Nagar,

Virugambakkam,

Chennai 600 092.                                               .. Complainant.

 

                        ..Vs..

The Manager – Customer Care,

Citi Bank,

Cardmemeber Services,

P.O.Box No.4830,

Anna Salai Post Office,

Chennai 600 002.                                               ..Opposite party.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. S.V. Udayakumar & other   

Counsel for the opposite party        : M/s. R. Balaji

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, 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.1,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the negligent service  rendered by the opposite party  and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony and stress suffered by the complainant.

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

       The complainant being account holder at Citi bank credit card since 1993 and much impressed in service of the opposite party the complainant immediately had availed more than two cards with his opposite party to get utilized.    He has been prompt in remitting the payment due to the opposite party.   He used to pay the amount by way of cheque and demand draft to the opposite party for which they had duly handed over the various receipts to the complainant.  

2.     The transaction of the aforesaid three credit cards were stopped in early 2001.   For the above said cards a compromise settlement of Rs.44,300/- was made between the complainant and the opposite party in the month of January/February 2003 on oral confirmation by some officials.    Subsequent to that there has been no statement or communication received by the complainant from the opposite party.   In the month of April 2005 the representative of the opposite party made a phone call to the complainant regarding the payment for which the complainant had given the details of the settlement. 

3.     After a lapse of two years, to the utter shock of the complainant who had received a statement of account dated 25.5.2005 wherein the opposite party had claimed a sum of Rs.3,35,925/- towards the credit card number 4385 8790 1087 6005.   Further the complainant had written a letter dated 20.5.2005 to the Assistant Vice President, Credit card division, Citi Bank, Chennai wherein he had mentioned his grievance and also requested the opposite party to issue no due letter.   Pursuant  to the above letter the opposite party had responded with vague reply and asked the complainant to  pay a sum of Rs.3,49,840.54.   

4.     The complainant had written a letter dated 6.7.2005 to the Assistant vice President, Credit card Division, Citi Bank, Chennai  wherein the complainant again reiterated the same facts and asked the opposite party to issue no due certificate for the credit card number 4385 8790 1087 6005 as the opposite party had been sending the statement  by non application of their minds in business which caused the complainant to drown in sheer mental stress.   The opposite party had replied bluntly in their letter dated 16.7.2005 without scrutinizing the accounts of the complainants credit card number and unreasonably harassing the complainant by putting the exorbitant figure thereby the opposite party had dragged the complainant into restless state.  

5.     The complainant again preferred a letter dated 4.8.2005 wherein the complainant had raised the salient points to the opposite party.  But even though number of communications sent to the opposite party who had sent a statement dated 25.8.2005 wherein the opposite party had claimed a sum of Rs.3,79,813.72 for which the complainant had written a letter by registered with acknowledgment due dated 19.9.2005.  The opposite party had duly acknowledged the complainant’s letter vide the acknowledgment card dated 20^th September 2005.

6.     That from the above facts, it is clearly proved beyond reasonable doubt that the opposite party has been deliberately trying to drain off the complainant’s money, which clearly shows that the opposite party’s delinquency in duty and negligence of service and due to which the complainant had suffered a lot of mental agony, stress and strain.   The complainant is 62 years old and being Hypertensive patient through their agents and in all perspective which accelerated and Blood pressure of the complainant and he required a lot of medical attention and treatment which is clearly revealed in the Doctor’s certificate.   Hence the complaint.

7. Written Version of  opposite party is  in brief as follows:

           The opposite party denies all the allegations.  It is not denied by the bank that the complainant has been a credit card holder of their bank since several years and that he possessed three cards for his usage and benefits.    It may be true that the complainant had stopped using the credit card since 2001, but such stopping of the usage either at the instances of the bank or voluntarily on part of the complainant, does not absolve the complainant from making payment towards the credit card accounts, which he had utilized for all his purchases, cash drawls, etc., Besides, it is also a fact that the bank does not raise a demand immediately upon the card number and that after providing a comfortable credit period of 45 days, they make a demand, while they prepay the merchant whenever the card member had utilized his credit card. 

8.     The complainant vide his letter dated 20.6.2005 himself has admitted that during the year 2001, he was not having enough earning and that he could not remit even the minimum amount due and then he was advised to stop the usage of the credit cards by the bank and thus the assumption of the complainant that after stoppage of credit facility, the bank account sustain its claim is incorrect, as it is not the end of the road for the bank for them to collect their legitimate dues.  

9.     It is submitted that the complainant himself according to his own calculations and without the consent of confirmation from the bank had whimsically sent a payment of Rs.44300/- on 19.2.2003 to the bank, which according to the complainant vide para-5 of his complaint is dependent on alleged oral confirmation.    It is denied that any such oral confirmation was given by the bank and the complainant himself had arrived at such a figure whilst his outstanding were huge.    The complainant himself vide his letter dated 20.6.2005 at page 2, last para, admits that the settlement was not approved by the bank and it was under process and that he was under “impression” that the matter is settled.   Thus the assumption on part of the complainant that the amount sent by him on 19.2.2003 was towards full and final settlement is incorrect.

10.    In response to the letter dated 20.6.2005 of the complainant, they relied the same on 25.6.2005 stating that the payments towards the card dues were long pending and confirmed that the outstanding as of that date was Rs.3,49,840.54.    It may be true that the complainant would have written yet another letter to the bank on 6.7.2005, requesting for a no due certificate for the card account, but yet again the bank replied vide its letter dated 16.7.2005  confirming the balance outstanding on the card account.   Thus the entire complaint is based on assumption and presumption while the fact remains that the complainant is due on the card accounts which he is attempting to evade under the guise of age factor, which cannot deter  the bank from raising their demand.  

11.    The entire cause of action is misconceived and misconstrued with bundle of imaginations and presumptions and the bank had acted within its frame work by making their demands legitimately.    Hence the complaint has to be dismissed with costs.

12.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A12 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B4  marked on the side of the opposite party.

13.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite party as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

14. Point No.1:-

According to the case of the complainant is that, even after the transactions of alleged three credit cards were stopped in early 2001 and compromise settlement of Rs.44,300/- was made between him and the opposite party in the month of January / February 2003 on oral confirmation by some officials.   After lapse of two years to shock he has received a statement of account dated 25.5.2005.  Wherein the opposite party had claimed a sum of Rs.3,35,925/- and in spite of repeated letters sent to the opposite party, they have not come forward to comply the demands of the complainant and thereby the opposite party committed deficiency of service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.

15.    On the other hand, the opposite party vehemently contended that the complainant himself according to his own calculations and without the consent or confirmation from the bank had whimsically sent a payment of Rs.44,300/- on 19.2.2003 to the bank on alleged oral confirmation and the same way towards full and final settlement is in correct.  It is further contended that the opposite party have replied properly to the letters sent by the complainant stating that the payment towards the card dues were for long pending and outstanding was of Rs.3,49,840.54   and therefore there is no deficiency of service as alleged by the complainant. 

16.    In such circumstances the duty cast upon the complainant to prove the alleged deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party with relevant and consistent evidence.  On perusal of the evidence of the complainant, it is seen that since 1993 onwards  when he has been regularly utilizing the facility from the opposite party and he has stopped the transactions of the said credit card in the early 2001 and made a compromise settlement of Rs.44,300/- with the opposite party in the month of January/February 2003 on oral confirmation and to that effect on 19.2.2003 the complainant has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- the repayment receipt is marked as Ex.A1.   It is further stated that to shock he has received statement of account dated 25.5.2005 which is marked as Ex.A2 for the claim of Rs.3,35,925.66 by the opposite party towards the credit card No.4385 8790 1087 6005 and hence he has written a letter Ex.A3 to the Assistant Vice President,  Credit Card Division, Citi Bank, Chennai.  It is pertinent to note from the above letter, the opposite party had responded with vague reply dated 25.6.2005 which is marked as Ex.A4 and asked him again to pay a sum of Rs.3,49,840.54 and thereby caused mental stress and for his ailment he has been in regular medical attention for various dates  the Doctor’s prescription to that effect is marked as Ex.A5.  

17.    It is further learnt from the evidence of the complainant that again on 6.7.2005 he has written a letter Ex.A6 to the Assistant Vice President, Credit card Division, Citi Bank, Chennai and asked the opposite party to issue no due certificate, but the opposite party had been sending the statement by non application of their minds in business which caused him to drown in sheer mental stress which is marked as Ex.A7.   Therefore again the complainant written a letter Ex.A8 and the opposite party who had sent a statement dated 25.8.2005 which is marked as Ex.A9 in which claimed a sum of Rs.3,79,813.72 and for which he had written letter by registered post with Acknowledgment due dated 19.9.2005 which is marked as Ex.A10 and acknowledgement for the receipt of the same is marked as Ex.A11.   Thereafter the opposite party had preferred a new demand of requesting the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.4,29,421.38 through Ex.A12  the statement of account dated 25.11.2005 which clearly shows deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.

18.    While being so, on going through the evidence of the opposite party  it is stated that the complainant himself according to his own calculations and without the consent or confirmation from the bank had whimsically sent a payment of Rs.40,000/- on 19.2.2003 through Ex.B2 towards full and final settlement is in correct and even the said Ex.B2 does not so.   Further it is narrated by the opposite party in response to Ex.B1 letter sent by the complainant to the bank of the opposite party and reply through Ex.B3 properly by stating that outstanding amount of Rs.3,49,840.54 and also Ex.B4  reply letter, dated 16.7.2005 was sent to the  complainant confirming the balance outstanding the  alleged on the credit card account  and therefore thus the entire complaint based on  assumptions and presumptions while the fact remains that the complainant due of card accounts and hence there is neither any negligence nor deficiency of service.

 19.       At this juncture, on careful perusal of rival submissions put forth on either side, it is admitted fact that the complainant utilized the credit card facility from the opposite party bank since 1993  and stopped using the credit card since the year 2001.   Similarly, the complainant had paid Rs.40,000/- through Ex.B2 is not at all disputed.   At the outset, the point for consideration is whether the above said amount paid by the complainant towards full and final settlement on oral confirmation as stated by the complainant has been true or not.  At this point of time, the learned counsel for the opposite party would submit that the stopping of usage of the credit card either at the instance of bank or voluntarily on part of the complainant does not absolve the complainant from making payment towards the credit card accounts which he had utilized for all the purchases cash drawls etc.    Moreover, there is no proof produced by the complainant for oral confirmation of the opposite party.    At this instance, on careful perusal of the evidence adduced on the side of the complainant, it is clearly stated both in the complaint as well as in the proof affidavit though the compromise settlement of Rs.44,300/- was made on oral confirmation by some officials.   If it is so, without any concrete evidence this forum cannot take such plea for consideration.   Moreover Ex.B1 equilent to Ex.A1, the complainant himself admits that the settlement was arrival by the bank and it was under process and though he was under impression that the matter is settled.   Therefore, the complainant was purely an assumptions that the credit card account was settled cannot binding upon the opposite party at any cost.

Such being so on the letter Ex.A3 & Ex.A6 sent by the complainant to the opposite party they have properly replied through Ex.B3 &  Ex.B4 which also marked on the side of the complainant as Ex.A4 and Ex.A7.   Furthermore, it is crystal clear  from Ex.A2 and Ex.A9 and Ex.B3 & Ex.B5, there is  outstanding amount as mentioned was due in the complainant and the same has to be repaid by the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the credit card division till the full and final settlement could be confirmed.   Otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the opposite party the complainant is a defaulter. 

20.    From the forgoing among other facts and evidence, it is crystal clear that nothing on record to show that the complainant has made any full and final settlement with the opposite party in respect of his credit card amount.  Whereas, the complainant had paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- through Ex.A1  towards full and final settlement unilaterally and on own calculations and assumption.   Therefore, the allegation made by the complainant that there is a deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party which caused mental stress and hardship holds not good and it is unsustainable.  

21.        In this regard the following decision relied upon the learned counsel for the opposite party is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. 

IV (2013) CPJ 262 (NC)

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI

K. BHASKARAN

..Vs..

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK LTD. & ANR

 

     Consumer Protection Act,1986 – Sections 2 (1) (g), 21 (b) – Banking and Financial Institutions Services – Credit card – Settlement of dues – Unilateral “full and final” settlement – Payment of balance amount – Alleged deficiency in service – District Forum dismissed complaint – State Commission dismissed appeal – Hence revision – Nothing on record to show that petitioner has made any full and final settlement with respondent in respect of his credit card amount – Fora below categorically held that Rs.1,27,910 was due against petitioner against which he himself had sent sum of rs.1,02,328 towards full and final settlement unilaterally.

 

22.            In the light of above facts and circumstances and observations made above, the complainant has not proved any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  by means of relevant and consistent evidence.  Hence this forum, can easily come to the conclusion without any hesitation that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.   Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.  

23. POINT No.2:-

          As per the view concluded in point No.1, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

 

         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  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 19.2.2003  - Copy of repayment receipt.

Ex.A2- 25.5.2005  - Copy of the statement card.

Ex.A3- 20.5.2005  - Copy of the letter from the complainant.

Ex.A4- 25.6.2005  - Copy of the reply letter from the opposite party.

Ex.A5-                   - Copy of doctors prescription.

Ex.A6- 6.7.2005    - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A7- 16.7.2005  - Copy of reply letter from the opposite party.

Ex.A8- 4.6.2005    - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A9- 25.8.2005  - Copy of Statement card

Ex.A10- 19.9.2005         - Copy of letter from the complainant.

Ex.A11- 20.9.2005         - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A12- 25.11.2005- Copy of Statement card.

 

 

Opposite party’s side document: -   

Ex.B1-  20.6.2005 - Copy of letter by the complainant.

Ex.B2- 19.2.2003  - Copy of payment receipt by opposite party.

Ex.B3- 25.6.2005  - Copy of reply by opposite party.

Ex.B4- 16.7.2005  - Copy of reply by opposite party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.