COMPLAINT FILED: 29-04-2009<br /> DISPOSED ON: 14-08-2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 14TH AUGUST 2009<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M.BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.971/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT S.Venkatesh PrasadS/o.Sri.Shankarnarayan,MajorR/at No.1499, 17th Main,II Phase, J.P. NagarBangalore – 560 078Advocate – Sri.R.SreedharV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY Deutshe Bank AgBangalore BranchCredit Card Division,Raheja Towers,Ground Floor 26 –27,Bangalore – 560 001.Rep.by itsManagerAdvocate – Sri.Madhusudan Prabhu<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.3,500/- and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> 2. Complainant availed Credit Card from the OP but the service from the OP was totally dissatisfactory. He got Credit Card statement on 08-06-2007 where in OP claimed Rs.20,709-94. Complainant paid the same on 04-07-2007 towards full and final settlement. Then cut the said Credit Card in to pieces and destroyed it. With all that to his utter shock and surprising he received subsequent statement dated 08-08-2007 claiming Rs.1,435-16 not only for that in the subsequent months also he received the statements. OP made claim of certain dues which was unjust and improper. His repeated request and demands made to OP went in futile. Ultimately a settlement are aroused between himself and OP. Where in he agreed to pay Rs.3,500/- to close the account but the mental agony he suffered still remained. He requested OP to compensate to him by causing the legal notice but it went in vain. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 3. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP as per the accounts complainant was in due of Rs.21,952-80 where as complainant paid only Rs.20,709-94 keeping balance of Rs.1,242-47. There is negligence on the part of the complainant. As per the terms of the agreement OP is liable to collect late fee charges and the interest on the amount in due. The said balance is not paid the balance for more than one year that is why OP was forced to issue him a subsequent statement. Of course on hearing from the complainant though he was in due of Rs.7,102/- as good gesture they settled the dispute for Rs.3,500/- waiving an amount of Rs.3,602/-. That would have been the end of the matter but still complainant has filed this false and frivolous complaint. Due to some technical reasons subsequent monthly statement are sent which are of system generated. There is no malafide intention on the part of the OP so as to cause any harassment. Complainant was intimated to ignore the subsequent monthly statements and OP is not going to take any steps to recover the said amount. With all that complainant has come up with this false complaint. The account of the complainant is already closed hence his relief cannot be considered. Complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 5. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 6. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 7. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the Credit Card from the OP. Of course he is not satisfied with the service rendered by the OP, that is why he thought of closing the Credit Card account. In that regard he paid Rs.20,709/94 on 04-07-2007 towards the full and final settlement of the claim. Then surrendered the Credit Card by cutting it into pieces. With all that he received the subsequent monthly statement from OP demanding certain arrears. Hence he felt deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 8. On the other hand it is contended by the OP that the complainant was actually in due of Rs.21,952-68 in the month of July ‘ 2007 but he paid only Rs.20,709-94 keeping balance of Rs.1242-74. As per the Card Member Agreement, OP has got the right to impose the penal interest on delayed payment and other charges. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. What is the bases for the complainant to pay only Rs.20,709-97 on 16-07-2007 as full and final settlement as against the dues of Rs.21,952/68 is not known. <br /> <br /> 9. As per the Credit Card rules complainant is required to pay minimum amount that is also not done hence the arrears and the interest was accumulated and total dues was to the tune of Rs.7,102-08. Then as per the request of the complainant OP agreed to close the account by receiving Rs.3,500/- actually waiving Rs.3,602/-. That speaks to the fairness of the OP but still what made the complainant to file this complaint is not known. <br /> <br /> 10.Of course OP has further confessed that due to some technical reason the monthly statement generated mechanical are sent and they did intimate the complainant to ignore them as they are not going to take any steps for the recovery of the said amount. It is also stated that the complainant’s account was closed and they will not send the subsequent statements. But still why the complainant thought of filing this complaint is not known. <br /> <br /> 11. Having taken note of the facts and circumstances of the case the allegation made in the complaint do not spell out the case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency rather it discloses the case relating to statement of account and for the balance due on the basis of the account. Under such circumstances if complainant is so aggrieved is the proper remedy for him to is to approach Civil Court to redress his grievance. In our view from any angle we find complainant has failed to prove the deficiency in service against the OP. Hence, complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by her, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 14th day of July 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Nrs.<br /> <br /> <br />