In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 21 / 2009.
1) Aparajita Rao,
P-139, Lake Road, Kolkata-700029. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) CITIBANK N.A.,
41, Jawaharlal Nehru Road, Kolkata-700071. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 36 Dated 31/05/2012.
The petition of complaint has been filed by the complainant Aparajita Rao against the o.ps. Citi Bank N.A. and another. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a member of the Space Circle Club at Calcutta. O.p. no.1 offered a credit card to complainant for being a member of the said Club. Initially Credit Card no.4550 3876 6192 1004 was issued to complainant by o.p. no.1. No payments were due against the said card. Despite the same o.p. had billed the complainant for late payment for Rs.300/- each and again on 28.8.05 for Rs.350/- without any rhyme or reason. Despite seeking an explanation for the same on reply has been given by o.p. for such arbitrary demand of late payment charges. Thereafter, at the further request of o.p., complainant agreed to subscribe to a Dinners Card and card no.3670 632575 7003 was issued. Complainant stated that an agent of o.p. called at the office of complainant and requested for instructions under which o.p. would pay the insurance premium of complainant and telephone bills. Complainant had agreed to the same and the particulars of insurance with the New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Good Health Policy Plan and the telephone number standing in her name were furnished to them. The agent requested for a visiting card and the same was also provided to him. Then a bill was raised by o.p. on 23.10.05 after payment the premium for policy no.41564356 for Rs.25,126/- and the same was settled in the month on 5.11.05. Though o.p. offered payment by installment, the same was not accepted by complainant and the amount raised in the bill was paid in one go. After a certain point of time it transpired that o.p. was paying not only the premium for the policy so disclosed but also payments of other policies with LIC. It further transpired that o.p. was paying telephone bills for the telephone numbers not only standing in her name but also in the name of her parents. Such telephone numbers were printed on the visiting card furnished to the agent of o.p. At no point of time any instruction was given for payment to Calcutta Telephones (o.p. no.2 ) for the connection of the complainant’s parents.
Thereafter, by a letter dt.14.11.05 complainant had sent an e-mail to o.p. categorically pointed out that no further premium be paid by them on her behalf to the LIC or any other body/bodies on her behalf and the same was received by them and a token f reference was given by them being no.3020938 dt.31.5.06. A further request was made to o.p. to furnish her with a copy of the premium receipt as the same was necessary for her Income Tax purpose.
Again by a letter dt.23.11.05 the request was reiterated to o.p. but no steps were taken by o.p. It was also pointed out that since they were paying telephone bills but had not taken any step to pay the bill for the number 22100053 the same was disconnected by the authorities and complainant had to pay reconnection charges for the same. Request was again made not to make any payment on behalf of complainant to any authority. The said letter was followed up by letters dt.8.12.06, 26.12.06 and by lawyer’s letter dt.31.5.06.
A credit card statement was sent to the e-mail address by o.p. demanding payment for the sums of money wrongly paid out by them together with interest. Such e-mail was sent month by month and the last of such e-mil was received by the complainant in Nov. 2008. On 20.10.08 an agent of o.p. called from New Delhi at the residence of complainant in the afternoon around 2-00 p.m. refused to disclose her name and sought to threaten her for not paying the sum so demanded by o.p. and also used such filthy language. Complainant also stared that unknown phone calls from the bank mentally tortured her over phone by using filthy language and demanding payment of the fake bill raised by the bank to complainant.
Thereafter, a demand notice was issued to o.p. no.1 again on 18.6.07 and an e-mail was received from o.p. no.1 on 29.10.07 requesting for the contact number of complainant. The same was provided but no call was received. Finally in Dec. 2007 a reply was received from o.p. no.1 acknowledging receipt of the e-mail request for cancellation of utility payment facility. However, complainant was informed that o.p. no.1 could not act on her request ony on e-mail instruction due to possibilities of fraud. O.p. no.1 alleged that they required a customer signature or internet password or a telephone banking password for the said purpose which is illegal and o.p. no.1 could misuse the same. Complainant did not have any internet banking system with o.p. no.1 and as such, a password for the same could not arise. The policy was adopted by o.p. no.1 to cover their ill motive.
On 29.12.08 complainant received a letter dt.10.12.08 from o.p. alleging that a sum of Rs.29,784/- was due from complainant as on 10.12.08 and that a recovery agent had been appointed to recover the alleged dues from complainant. Hence, complainant has no alternative but to file the instant complaint before this Forum with the prayer contained in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint.
Both o.ps. had entered their appearances in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is admitted position that no amount is due to the credit of the either parties. It is further admitted position that o.ps. issued ‘no due certificate’ in favour of complainant. Now the matter centres around only as regards quantum of the amount of compensation and litigation cost. Considered the materials on record we find that complainant had to face mental stress and strain and agony as well as harassment caused by o.ps. and complainant had to attend a lot of days in this case. We find clear deficiency on the part of o.ps. especially o.p. no.1 and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost as against o.p. no.1 and without cost as against o.p. no.2. O.p. no.1 is directd to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only to complainant for her harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.
_____Sd-_____ _____SD-_____ _____Sd-_______
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
