Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/67/2006

N.Thirunavukarasu - Complainant(s)

Versus

CITIBANK, N.A - Opp.Party(s)

S.V.Udhaya kumar

05 Sep 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :  13.10.2006

                                                                        Date of Order :  05.09.2017

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.67/2006

TUESDAY THIS 5^TH  DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017

 

Mr. N. Thirunavukarasu,

S/o. Late Thiru. Natesa Mudhaliar,

No.22, Indira Gandhi Nagar,

Southern Nachi, Kurichi,

Mallaiampatu, Somarasam Pettai,

Trichy 620 102.                                             .. Complainant

                                        ..Vs..

 

The Branch Manager,

Citi Bank, N.A.

Citi Bank Card Centre,

P.O.Box 4830,

Anna Salai Post Office,

Chennai 600 002.                                          .. Opposite party.

 

 

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

Counsel for opposite party       :    M/s. R. Balaji & 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.1,00,000/-  as compensation  towards deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for non application of statutory banking principle and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the negligent service rendered by the opposite party by the non application  of statutory banking principle and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost  of the complaint.

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

         The complainant submit that  he had availed three credit  cards bearing Nos. 1) 5425569243012002, 2) 4568229801732000 and 3) 4568229164134000  with the opposite party.  He was remitting the amount regularly and utilizing the benefits properly.  The complainant has paid entire amount towards the credit card.  There is no outstanding dues also, but in the month of October 2003 the opposite party made a payment requesting to pay a sum of Rs.14,067.76 towards credit card account bearing No.5425569243012002  and a sum of Rs.13,798.31 towards credit card bearing No.4568229164134000 and a sum of Rs.12,924.73 towards credit card bearing No.4568229801732000 respectively for the closed credit card accounts.     As such the act of the opposite party clearly amounts to gross deficiency in service and thereby caused harassment, mental agony  and hardship to the complainant.  Hence the complaint is filed.

3. The brief averments in Written Version of  the opposite party    are as follows:

        The opposite party denies each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite party submit that this forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Since the complainant himself is residing at Trichy.  But it is very clear that  the opposite party bank is at Chennai as per Sec. 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Further the opposite party also submit that on 6.10.2003 the complainant settled all his three credit cards by making one time settlement.  There is no due.  But due to system failure; some demands made by the opposite party.  Hence there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and therefore this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

3.      In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant had filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite party  filed and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 marked on the side of the opposite party.  

4.   The points for the consideration is: 

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency of service as prayed for ?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards non application of statutory banking principle  and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for ?

 

 

5. POINTS 1 & 2 :

        The complainant and his counsel not turned to advance any oral argument for long time.   The complainant also has not filed any written argument.  Hence it is treated as complainant as no oral argument.   Argument of opposite party heard.   The complainant pleaded in the compliant and stated in the proof affidavit that he had availed three credit  cards bearing Nos. 1) 5425569243012002, 2) 4568229801732000 and 3) 4568229164134000  with the opposite party.  He was remitting the amount regularly and utilizing the benefits properly. The complainant has paid entire amount towards the credit card as per Ex.A1 And Ex.A2.  There is no outstanding dues also, but in the month of October 2003 the opposite party made a payment requesting to pay a sum of Rs.14,067.76 towards credit card account bearing No.5425569243012002  and a sum of Rs.13,798.31 towards credit card bearing No.4568229164134000 and a sumof Rs.12,924.73 towards credit card bearing No.4568229801732000 respectively for the closed credit card accounts.  The claim of the opposite party is arbitrary and the closer of the credit card which caused hardship and mental agony to the complainant. Hence this complaint is filed.

6.     The learned counsel for the opposite party contended that this forum have no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the case. Since the complainant himself is residing at Trichy.  But it is very clear that  the opposite party bank is at Chennai as per Sec. 11 of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986.   Further the learned counsel for the opposite party contended that on 6.10.2003 as per Ex.B1 the complainant settled all his three credit cards by making one time settlement.  The statement of account Ex.A2 shows that there is no due.  But due to system failure; some demands made by the opposite party.  On the basis of the claim also the complainant has not paid any amount.   The claim of the complainant is imaginary.  It is also admitted that the complainant has not paid any amount towards the wrong demand due to system failure.  Mere sending demand was not caused any harm.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for in the complaint and the points 1 & 2 are answered accordingly. 

             In the result this 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  5^th   day  of  September  2017.  

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants” side documents:

Ex.A1- 29.9.2003  - Copy of the accounts closer confirmation letter.

Ex.A2- 6.10.2003  - Coy of the repayment receipt

Ex.A3- 23.6.2005  - Copy of the demand letter from the opposite party.

Ex.A4- 23.9.2005  - Copy of demand letter from the opposite party.

Opposite party’s side document: -  

 

Ex.B1 – 6.10.2003          - Copy of letter by the opposite party.

Ex.B2-         -       - Copy of statement of accounts.

 

 

MEMBER-I                       MEMBER-I`I                             PRESIDENT.