Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/136/2005

S.Sethu Ramachandran - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citi Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.P.Thiyagarajan & Others

13 Nov 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   03.01.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   13.11.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : 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.136/2005

     MONDAY THIS  13^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017

 

Mr. S.Sethu Ramachandran,

No.22, Chakra Flats,

Janakiram Colony,

Arumbakkam,

Chennai 106.                                            .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

Citi Bank, N.A.,

Citi Bank Card Centre,

P.O.Box No.4830,

Anna Salai P.O.,

Chennai 600 002.                                     .. Opposite party.

 

 

Counsel for Complainant         :   M/s. P. Thiagarajan         

Counsel for opposite party      :   M/s. V.Adhivarahan & others  

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony and to pay cost of the compliant.

 

1. The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that he owned a credit card of the opposite party, the credit card bearing No.4550389362877006.  During the month of March 2004, the State Bank of India had offered credit card to complainant under the balance transfer offer.    The complainant accepted the said offer and issued cheque bearing No.055761 dated 24.3.2004 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-.  The State Bank of India also issued a cheque directly to the said bank.   Though the cheque was issued on 24.3.2004, the opposite party has not given credit into the account resulting the subsequent  statement of accounts shows the penalty.  Hence the complainant wrote a letter dated 7.5.2004 to the opposite party.   Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party has not presented the cheque and failed to response and claiming charges for non-payment of dues.  Thereafter at the  request of the opposite party the complainant issued another cheque No.66751 dated 12.5.2004 and stop payment instructions was given to the opposite party.  The opposite party deliberately failed to give any reply.   But till date the opposite party have not clarified why the cheque dated 24.3.2004 was not presented for more than 45 days.   On 4.9.2004 the opposite party wrote a letter relating the cheque that it was bounced.       As such the act of  the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

2.    The brief averments in Written Version of  the  opposite party is  as follows:

The  opposite party deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The opposite party submit that only after the receipt of payment of Rs.10,000/- vide cheque No.055 761 dated24.3.2004 during the month of May 2004 this opposite party had knowledge about the balance transfer and the resultant cheque.   However in the mean time the complainant for reasons best known to his had instructed his bankers viz. SBI to issue stop payment of the said cheque resulting in the cheque being returned unpaid and accordingly inviting charges for late payment, cheque bounce etc. as per the terms and conditions of card member agreement.    The opposite party also state that  State Bank of India had clearly expressed that they erroneously dishonoured the cheque and had requested to represent the same with this opposite party.  Thus the allegations made in para-5 of the complaint is false as this opposite party had been presenting the cheque given by the complainant through their bankers in time as and when they received and there is no delay on their part at any point of time.       Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the  opposite party and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A24 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B8 marked on the side of the opposite party.

5.   The points for the consideration is: 

Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages  with cost as prayed for ?

 

6.  ON POINT : -

       

        The complainant pleaded in the complaint and contended that he owned a credit card of the opposite party, bearing No.4550389362877006.   During the month of March 2004, the State Bank of India had offered credit card to complainant under the balance transfer offer.    The complainant accepted the said offer and issued cheque bearing No.055761 dated 24.3.2004 for a sum of Rs.10,000/- as per Ex.A1.  The State Bank of India also issued a cheque directly to the said bank.   Though the cheque was issued on 24.3.2004, the opposite party has not given credit into the account resulting that the subsequent  statement of accounts shows the penalty.  Hence the complainant wrote a letter dated 7.5.2004 as per Ex.A2.   Even after repeated requests and demands the opposite party has not presented the cheque and failed to response and claimed charges for non-payment dues.  Thereafter at the  request of the opposite party the complainant issued another cheque No.66751 dated 12.5.2004 and stop payment instructions for the earlier cheque  was given to the opposite party.  The opposite party deliberately failed to give any reply.   But till date the opposite party have not clarified why the cheque dated 24.3.2004 was not presented for more than 45 days.   On 4.9.2004 the opposite party wrote a letter Ex.A4 relating the cheque that it was bounced.    The  act of the opposite party is very clear deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case.

7.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly the  State Bank of India assured to take over the liability of offer in issuing credit card and taken over the credit amount of Rs.17,000/- on the account of this opposite party  in the name of the complainant.    Accordingly the State Bank of India cheque bearing No. 055 761 for Rs.10,000/- dated 24.3.2004 favouring this opposite party was issued by the complainant against the pending amount of Rs.17,000/.  This opposite party only after receipt of Ex.B1 came to know the balance transfer availed by the complainant with his bankers cheque which has not been for the entire dues.    However in the meantime the complainant for the reasons best known to him had instructed his banker viz. State Bank of India to issue stop payment of the said cheque resulting in the cheque being returned unpaid and accordingly inviting charges for late payment.    The second cheque issued by the complainant also returned unpaid by his banker erroneously.    This was intimated to the complainant through letter Ex.B4 dated  6.8.2004 Since the cheque was issued belatedly, the allegation that this opposite party was delaying acknowledgment of cheque is false.  In fact the bank had intimated the delay to the complainant and honounred the cheque on presentation.  But there is no record.    Further the contention of the opposite party is that there is no deficiency of service much less unfair trade practice in this case.   Both the cheques were returned and bounced only because of the bad issuance.   But on a careful perusal of the entire records it is seen that the cheque was issued in their respective date and was not properly presented and enchased.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/-  towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  and the point is answered accordingly.

In the result the complaint is allowed in part.  The opposite party shall pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.  

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

 

           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 13^th day  of  November 2017.  

 MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-  24.3.2004          -  Copy of SBI Cards letters to the complainant.

Ex.A2-  7.5.2004   -  Copy of Complainant’s letter to opposite party.

Ex.A3- 12.5.2004  -  Copy of SBI cards letter to complainant.

Ex.A4- 8.5.2004    -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A5- 13.5.2004  -  Copy of Opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A6- 27.5.2004  -  Copy of complainant’s letter to opposite party.

Ex.A7- 12.7.2004  -  Copy of complainant’s letter to opposite party.

Ex.A8- 6.8.2004    -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A9- 7.8.2004    -  Copy of complainant letter to opposite party.

Ex.A10- 20.8.2004         -  Copy of complainant letter to opposite party.

Ex.A11- 26.8.2004         -  Copy of opposite party’s letter to complainant.

Ex.A12- 27.8.2004         -  Copy of opposite party’s letter to complainant by email.

Ex.A13- 4.9.2004  -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A14- 20.9.2004         -  Copy of complainant email to SBI.

Ex.A15- 7.10.2004         -  Copy of SBI email to complainant.

Ex.A16- 7.10.2004         -  Copy of Ops letter to complainant by email.

Ex.A17- 11.10.2004  -  copy of legal notice.

Ex.A18- 8.11.2004            -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A19- 11.11.2004  -  Copy of SBI email to complainant.

Ex.A20- 12.11.2004   -  Copy of complainant’s letter to SBI.

Ex.A21- 16.11.2004   -  Copy of complainant’s letter to opposite party.

Ex.A22- 17.11.2004   -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant by email.

Ex.A23- 20.12.2004   -  Copy of opposite party letter to complainant.

Ex.A24- 20.1.2005             -  Copy of legal notice.

Opposite parties’ side document: -   

 

Ex.B1- 24.3.3004  - Copy of cheque by complainant.

Ex.B2- 8.5.2004    - Copy of letter by opp. party to complainant.

Ex.B3- 13.5.2004  - Copy of letter by opp. party to complainant.

Ex.B4- 6.8.20004  - Copy of letter by complainant to opp. party.

Ex.B5- 26.8.2004  - Copy of letter by complainant to opp. party.

Ex.B6- 4.9.2004    - Copy of letter by opp. party to complainant.

Ex.B7- 8.11.2004  - Copy of letter by opp. party to complainant.

Ex.B8- 17.3.2005  - Copy of offer letter by opp. party.

 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.