D.O.F:25/09/2019
D.O.O:30/09/2022
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.No184/2019
Dated this, the 30th day of September 2022
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K :PRESIDENT
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M : MEMBER
SMT.BEENA.K.G : MEMBER
Mr. T.M Abdul Khader, aged 55 years
Abnas Cottege, Anangoor, : Complainant
Kasaragod Post, 671121
(Adv: K.Vinod Kumar)
And
- Coustomer Service Manager,
BOBCARDS Ltd,
Banerji Road
Kacheripady, Eranakulam – 682018 : Opposite Paraties
(Adv: K.K Mohammed Shafi)
- Branch Manager
Bank of Baroda
Kasaragod Branch, Kasaragod 1
ORDER
SRI.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.M
The complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986 as amended.
The facts of this case in brief is that the complainant is having an account with Opposite Party No.2 for last several years and as suggested by the Opposite Party No.2, he availed a credit card bearing No.5473441658602001. The Opposite Party has to provide monthly statement of the credit card in time so as to facilitate the payment without any delay. But the Opposite Party failed to issue monthly statement to the complainant in time and after a long delay it is informed that as on 31.11.2012, there is an amount of Rs.47,488/- to be paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Therefore the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- on 12.01.2013 and Rs.40,000/-on 23.03.2013 through Opposite Party No.2 Since there was no any acknowledgement regarding the above payment, the complainant sent a letter dated 28.11.2013 to the Opposite Party No.1 , demanding the statement and expressing his intention to cancel the card. But the Opposite Party No.1 did not care the notice On 17.08.2108. The complainant approached the Canara Bank ,Kasaragod for a loan and at that time , but the Canara bank denied the loan verifying the CIBIL report , as there was a willful default of Rs.14,116/- as reported by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did not give any information regarding any dues. The complainant is a reputed personality having no financial difficulty to pay whatever amount due to be to paid to the Opposite Party during 2012 or 2013.
On coming to know about the entry in the CIBIL report, the complainant caused a registered notice dated 15.09.2018 to the Opposite Party No.1 asking them to withdraw the false information. But the Opposite Party No.1 issued an evasive reply contenting falsehood in order to escape from the liability and claimed a huge amount without any basis from the complainant. The Opposite Party
failed to impart the services offered by them while issuing the credit card and due to the deficiency in service the complainant sustained financial loss as well as mental agony.
Hence this complaint is filed for a direction to the Opposite party to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation for financial loss and mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as costs.
The opposite parties entered in appearance through their respective counsels , who filed separate written versions.
As per the version of the Opposite party No.1, they provide limited data to the Trans union CIBIL as per the Credit Information Companies (Regulation ) Act 2005 and various circulars of RBI. The CIBIL reports are independently prepared using data from various sources as per their internal policies. Trans union CIBIL is a separate company and the complainant failed to make the CIBL Limited as a party
in this case. The complaint is not maintainable as the parties have agreed under the MMITC that all disputes or matters connected to Card Agreement is subject to sole and exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai. The complaint is bad for non joinder as the Trans Union CIBIL is not made party. The complaint is not maintainable as the Card agreement is at the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai. The complainant claims that he was informed that his dues were Rs.47,488/- as on 31.11.2012. He made a payment of only Rs.1,000/- on 12.01.2013 and after almost two months he paid Rs.40,000/- on 23.02.2013, when there is Rs.47,488/-and the complainant clearly accept that he fell short more than Rs.6,000/- in his payment. The complainant’s negligence to pay his dues cannot be painted as a deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1.
There are multiple modes of communication used by the Opposite Party No.1 to communicate the monthly statement. It is the responsibility of the complainant to update his registered communication address, email and phone number. He has not paid his dues and the same attracted interest and penalty. The legal notice of the
complainant was properly replied by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was given opportunity to settle his dues and accordingly to update his CIBIL status.
However he failed to do the same. The Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the damage suffered, if any , by the complainant , due to a CIBIL report which is not prepared by them. The complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
As per the version of the Opposite party No. 2 , the complaint is false , frivolous, vexatious and not Iiable to be dismissed..The Opposite party No. 2 denied allegations in the complaint, except that are admitted. It is submitted that the Credit card is being issued and maintained by Opposite party No. 1, which is a separate company. The Opposite party No. 2 do not have any software to check the status of the credit card issued by the Opposite party No. 1. The Opposite party No. 2 is not at all responsible for the grievances stated in the complainant. The Opposite party No. 2 is an unnecessary party in this case. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party No. 2 and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
The Complainant filed proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and documents Ext. A 1 to Ext. A 5 are marked. The Ext - A1 is the copy of the letter sent to The OP No.1,Ext . A 2 is the Courier assignment Note, Ext A3 is the is the copy of the Lawyers Notice, The Ext. A4 is the Postal AD card, Ext. A5 is the copy of the CIBIL consumer information.
From the side of the Opposite parties, no evidence is adduced no document marked.
Based on the pleadings and evidence of the rival parties in this case the following issues are framed for consideration.
1. Whether there is any service deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of all or any of the opposite parties?
2. If so, what is the relief?
For convenience, all these issues are considered together.
Here the specific case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party has to provide monthly statement of the credit card in time so as to facilitate the payment without any delay. But the Opposite Party failed to issue monthly statement to the complainant in time and after a long delay it is informed that as on 31.11.2012, there is an amount of Rs.47,488/- to be paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party. Therefore the complainant paid Rs.1,000/- on 12.01.2013 and Rs.40,000/-on 23.03.2013 through Opposite Party No.2 Since there was no any acknowledgement regarding the above payment, the complainant sent a letter dated 28.11.2013 to the Opposite Party No.1 , demanding the statement and expressing his intention to cancel the card. But the Opposite Party No.1 did not care the notice On 17.08.2108, the complainant approached the Canara Bank , Kasaragod for a loan and at that time ,but the Canara bank denied the loan verifying the CIBIL report , as there was a willful default of Rs.14,116/- as reported by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did not give any information regarding any dues. The complainant is a reputed personality having no financial difficulty to pay whatever amount due to be
to paid to the Opposite Party during 2012 or 2013.On coming to know about the entry in the CIBIL report , the complainant caused a registered notice dated 15.09.2018 to the Opposite Party No.1 asking them to withdraw the false information. But the Opposite Party No.1 issued an evasive reply contenting falsehood in order to escape from the liability and claimed a huge amount without any basis from the complainant. The Opposite Party failed to impart the services offered by them while issuing the credit card and due to the deficiency in service the complainant sustained financial loss as well as mental agony.
The Opposite party No.1, would state that they provide limited data to the Trans union CIBIL as per the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 and various circulars of RBI. The CIBIL reports are independently prepared using data from various sources as per their internal policies. Trans union CIBIL is a separate company and the complainant failed to make the CIBL Limited as a party in this case. The complaint is not maintainable as the parties have agreed under the MMITC that all disputes or matters connected to Card Agreement is subject to sole and exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai. The complaint is bad for non
joinder as the Trans Union CIBIL is not made party. The complaint is not maintainable as the Card agreement is at the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of courts in Mumbai. The complainant claims that he was informed that his
dues were Rs.47,488/- as on 31.11.2012. He made a paymen5t of only Rs.1,000/- on 12.01.2013 and after almost two months he paid Rs.40,000/- on 23.02.2013, when there is Rs.47,488/-and the complainant clearly accept that he fell short more than Rs.6,000/- in his payment. The complainant’s negligence to pay his dues cannot be painted as a deficiency of service by the Opposite Party No.1.
There are multiple modes of communication used by the Opposite Party No.1 to communicate the monthly statement. It is the responsibility of the complainant to update his registered communication address, email and phone number. He has not paid his dues and the same attracted interest and penalty. The legal notice of the
Complainant was properly replied by the Opposite Party No.1. The complainant was given opportunity to settle his dues and accordingly to update his CIBIL status.
However he failed to do the same. The Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for the damage suffered, if any , by the complainant , due to a CIBIL report which is not prepared by them.
The opposite party No. 2 would state that the Credit card is being issued and maintained by Opposite party No. 1, which is a separate company. The Opposite party No. 2 do not have any software to check the status of the credit card issued by the Opposite party No. 1. The Opposite party No. 2 is not at all responsible for the grievances stated in the complainant. The Opposite party No. 2 is an unnecessary party in this case. There is no service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party No. 2 and therefore the complaint is Iiable to be dismissed with costs.
Here the complainant produced a copy of the Circular of RBl/2008-2009/100 dated 23.07.2008 regarding Credit card operations of Banks for ready reference.
It reads, II. Card Statements - "Acknowledgement for monthly statement, the banks should have a mechanism to ensure that customer's acknowledgement for receipt of the monthly statement is talken - Banks have been advised,
vide paragraph 3 (a) of Master circular on Credit card operations dated July 1, 2008 ( Circular No. DBOD FSD.BC.6/24.01.011/2008-2009 ) that they should ensure that there is no delay in dispatching bills and the customer has sufficient number of days (atleast one fort night) for making payment before the interest starts getting
charged. Banks could consider putting in place a mechanism to ensure that the customers acknowledgement is obtained for receipt of the monthly statement. "
The case of the complainant is that the Opposite Party has to provide monthly statement of the credit card in time so as to facilitate the payment without any delay. But the Opposite Party failed to issue monthly statement to the complainant in time and after a long delay it is informed that as on 31.11.2012, there is an amount of Rs.47,488/- to be paid by the complainant to the Opposite Party.
The credit card is issued by the Opposite party No.1. The opposite party No. 1 has no case that the complainant has violated any credit card conditions, except the delay in payment of some amount.
Further the opposite party No.1 has no specific pleading that they have issued monthly statement to the complainant in time. Even though the Opposite party No.1 stated that there are multiple modes of communication used by the Opposite Party No.1 to communicate the monthly statement, they did not state as to by which mode of communication they issued the monthly statement to the complainant. No document also produced to that effect.
The Document Ext. A 5 , the Consumer CIR of Trans Union CBIL would show that there is remark in the status of the complaint that "WILFUL DEFAULT "during the relevant period. The complainant states that he had approached the Canara Bank , Kasaragod for a loan and at that time , but the Canara bank denied the loan verifying the CIBIL report , as there was a willful default of Rs.14,116/- as reported by the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party did not give any information regarding any dues . The complainant is a reputed personality having no financial difficulty to
pay whatever amount due to be to paid to the Opposite Party during 2012 or 2013.
The complainant states that the opposite party did not issue statement in spite of registered notice dated 28.11.2013, the Ext. A1. Non issuing of statement in time is a violation of RBl guidelines. In the Circular of RBl/2008-2009/100 dated 23.07.2008 regarding Credit card operations of Banks , it is stated that Banks are advised to scrupulously adhere to these instructions and any violation would be viewed seriously. So in the absence of any rebuttal evidence, this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the opposite party No.1.
Considering the facts and circumstances of this case this commission is of the view that there is service deficiency on the part of the Opposite party No.1 and they are liable to compensate for the mental agony and loss. Since there is no evidence against the opposite party No. 2, as regards to any service deficiency or negligence or unfair trade practice, they are exonerated. The complainant estimate loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 /- but there is no evidence for such a huge loss. Even though the complainant states that he had approached the Canara Bank , Kasaragod for a loan and at that time , the Canara bank denied the loan verifying the CIBIL report ,he did not produced any document to prove that aspect . In that situation this commission is of the view that the complainant is entitled for a nominal compensation only. Rs. 5,000/- would be such an amount of compensation.
In the result the complaint is allowed and the opposite party No.1 is directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards compensation and Rs. 3,000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as costs to the complainant.
The time for compliance is 30 days from receipt of the copy of this judgment
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- copy of the letter sent to the Opposite Party No:1
A2- Courier service assignment note
A3- Lawyer notice
A4- Postal AD card
A5- Copy of the cibil consumer information
Witness Examined
Pw1- Abdul Khader
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Assistant Registrar
Ps/
