ORAL ORDER
Per Hon’ble Mr.S.R.Khanzode, Presiding Judicial Member
This appeal takes an exception to an order dated 16/10/2008 passed in consumer complaint no.104/2007, Shri Raghunath G.Ranade v/s. Chief Executive Controlling Office, Citibank Card Member Services, Chennai and another; passed by Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pune. It is a consumer complaint in respect of services availed in respect of Citi Bank Indian Oil Credit Card held by appellant/complainant –Raghunath Ranade (herein after referred as ‘appellant’). It is the grievance of the appellant that cash advances/loans were extended to him by the Credit Card which was repayable with equated monthly installments (EMI) of `1730/- in 30 EMIs but they were changed to 36 EMI without his consent and knowledge and further he also raised dispute about arbitrary changing the rate of interest applicable and further an issue that in spite of his payment of `70,000/-, proper credits were not given to him.
The Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed respondents/opponents (herein after referred as respondents ) a compensation of `10,000/- to the complainant which was to be paid within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the impugned order and, failing which, it was to carry further interest @ 9% p.a. till its realization. However, not satisfied with the said compensation awarded, original complainant Raghunath Ranade preferred this appeal. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent did not prefer any appeal and, thus, acquiesced with the impugned order.
Heard both the sides. Perused the record. The respondents in their written version categorically denied all the allegations in toto. It was denied that the cash advances/loans were thrusted upon the appellant and they further denied any miscalculation of interest or discrepancy in the accounts maintained. They also denied any unfair trade practice on their part, as alleged by the appellant. The advances were extended to the appellant based upon his performance of repayments made of the credit card dues. Those advances/loans were also accepted by the appellant.
In the instant case, at the first instance, we find that it is the institution of Credit Card of the City Bank which is a service provider for the appellant. The cash advances given to him are not in dispute. The cash advances or the loans given or the drafts for said purpose issued (as worded by the complainant himself in his repayment advice dated 19/06/2002) are on certain terms and conditions including the term regarding calculation of the interest. The method of calculating EMI is also well defined. If the appellant had any grievance in this respect, he must first establish as to what those terms were and how card issuing bank erred in either calculating the interest of EMI or the accounts maintained appropriating the repayments made. In absence of any material to that effect the complaint ought to have been dismissed as such. There is no evidence that the advances/loans were thrusted on the complainant. Once he himself accepted those advances and preferred not to return the demand draft or advances received, he thereby accepted all the terms and conditions connected with it.
Furthermore, grievance in respect of alleged deficiency in service would be against the card issuing bank viz. City Bank. Complaint is not filed against City Bank which is a banking company and an independent legal person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (‘Act’ for brevity).
Respondent/opponent no.1 “Chief Executive Controlling office of Citibank Card Member Services” is the office and not a corporate body, which has a status as legal person. Thus, opponent no.1 before us is not a legal person within the meaning of section 2(1)(m) of the Act. As far as respondent /opponent no.2- The Manager Citibank (N.A.), Pune is concerned, he is one of the employees of Citibank. He has to function as per his duties and responsibility spelt out by his employer. He is not a service provider in respect of services rendered by the Card issuing authority. Thus, the complaint per se is misconceived as against respondent /opponent no.2 –Manager Citibank (NA).
For the reasons stated above, it is not a case for any enhancement of the compensation awarded. Thus the appeal is devoid of any substance.
Holding accordingly we pass the following order:-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
In the given circumstances both the parties to bear their own costs.
Pronounced on 5th September, 2012.
