Date of hearing : 30th March, 2014.

Date of judgement : Monday, 11th day of April, 2016.

Judgement

        The present appeal U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  (hereinafter referred to as “the Act“ ) is at the behest of Opposite Party  Nos. 1 and 2 impeach the judgement dated 25th February, 2014 passed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Burdwan ( for short, Ld. District Forum ) in consumer complaint No. 193/2012 initiated by the Respondent was allowed on contest in part with a direction upon the Opposite Parties to make payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation   for harassment  and mental agony and also to take proper steps for withdrawal of name of Complainant from CIBIL list forthwith.

        The Respondent lodged the complaint U/s. 12 of the Act stating that he is an employee of Durgapur Project Ltd and account holder of S.B. Account  of H.D.F.C.  Bank and is also  opened one Credit Card with the said Bank bearing No. 434678600 1155448 which was issued on 02.06.2010. On 02.11.2010, the Complainant purchased one Gold Bar measuring 0.5 gram  worth R.11,208/- and it was repaid by him to  the Bank on 04.01.2011 amounting to Rs.11,133/-. However, the O.P. No.2 introducing himself as an agent of the Bank  demanded  Rs. 4,000/- from him on account of  dues  to be payable by the Complainant. In order to settle the dispute, Complainant gave Rs. 1000/- against a money receipt. However,  it was  noticed that the Bank did not  close the account and rather issued a legal notice through their Advocate  demanding Rs. 12,761/-. Subsequently,  by another letter, the Bank demanded Rs.15,116.64 paise with a direction  to  deposit the amount to Sibam Financial Services at 8/2, Bengal Ambuja Complex. But after attending office, the O.P. No.2 did not entertain him. The Complainant  alleged that after purchasing of the Gold Bar he did not purchase any other article through the Credit Card and as such the Credit Card  Statements issued upon him after payment on 12.01.2011 are all motivated to squeeze him. The Complainant has alleged that for the purpose of education  of her daughter he intend to obtain an education loan from Punjab National Bank wherein he came to know that unless his name is removed from CIBIL no loan can be sanctioned in  favour of him as defaulter. Hence the complaint with a prayer of compensation to the tune   of Rs. 4,00,000/-.

        The Opposite Party of No. 1 by filing a written version dispute the allegations levelled by the Complainant  stating that  in their usual course of business they had  issued the subject credit card facility to the Complainant on the basis of  credit application form submitted by the Complainant. The Complainant being agreed with the conditions mentioned in the Credit Card application form and upon full understanding  with the same  had applied  for subject  credit card from the Bank. It has been stated by  O.P. No.1 that on 02.11.2010 the Complainant had entered into the purchase transaction on which Festival spend cash back offer  was effected  on 29.11.2010 and the Complainant was given  the statement dated 12.12.2010 with a note  - payment due date 01.01.2011. But the Complainant had paid the said amount  on 04.01.2011. Therefore, the Complainant paid the total amount  beyond the  payment due date. As such in terms of the binding clauses of the MITC Booklet  relevant charges for delayed payment was imposed and pursuant  to the outstanding loan not being paid by the Complainant  such information was technically updated in the CIBIL records.  O.P. No. 1 has also stated that Complainant has not placed any documentary prove to establish his allegation inter alia  that he was at all refused by the other Banks. Therefore, any such allegation made by the Complainant in his   petition of complaint  is absolutely notional  and is made on the basis of untenable apprehension only.

        After assessing the material on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties, the Ld. District Forum by the impugned order allowed the consumer complaint with certain directions as indicated above , which prompted the O.P. No.1 , i.e. the Bank to prefer this appeal.

        We have scrutinised the materials on record including the brief note of argument submitted on behalf of the Appellant and considered the submissions advanced by the Ld. Advocates appearing for the parties.

        Undisputedly, the Respondent herein being Junior Manager of Laboratory Department of Durgapur Projects Ltd. was an account holder of Appellant Bank.  He opened  one Credit Card on 02.11.2010  with the Appellant Bank  being No. 4346786001155448 with a credit limit of  Rs. 20,000/-. The credit statement dated 12.11.2010 indicates that a sum of Rs. 11,208/- was issued and payable by the Respondent by 02.12.2010. It should be noted here that the Respondent has purchased one Gold Bar measuring 0.5 gram valued at Rs.11,208/-.The statement dated 12.12.2010 which was payable on 01.01.2011indicates that the opening balance of Rs. 11,208/- and payment/credits has shown Rs.75/- aggregating Rs.11,133/- payable by the Respondent. Unfortunately, Respondent could not make payment within 01.01.2011. However, the statement dated 12.01.2011 which  was payable by 01.02.2011 indicates that on 04.01.2011 the Respondent had paid the entire amount of Rs. 11,133/-. The said document, i.e.  statement dated 12.01.2011 clearly reveals that  opening balance was Rs. 11,113/- and on payment of the said amount the total due  has come down to nil.

        However, subsequently, the statement dated 12.02.2011 indicates that although opening balance was nil but an amount due was Rs.165.45 paise. Subsequently, statement dated 12.03.2011 indicates dues of Rs.15,081/- and the statement  of  12.04.2011 the said amount  has gone up to 2536.49 paise. In this way, the amount dues has increased and the statement dated 12.10.2011 shown that a total due of Rs. 15,447.25 paise was due and payable by the respondent.

        In this regard, we notice that the statement dated 12.02.2011 appears to be hazy wherein  it has been mentioned hat an amount of Rs.4758/- was shown as the amount for credit facility. However, the statement dated 12.05.2011 indicates that the available credit limit was nil.  Inspite of that  the O.P. No.1  was going on showing  total dues increasing month by month and ultimately it reached to Rs.15,447.22 paise in the statement  dated 12.10.2011 . Excepting  purchase of gold bar  0.5 grams which has been paid  by the Respondent on 04.01.2011 he did not purchase any other item through the credit card. The Appellant Bank has failed to show any document  that the  Respondent  authorised them to deduct HDFC premium through the credit card facility. Keeping a person in surprise  and taking advantage of the situation such an attempt on the part of the Bank in a Welfare  State like ours  is quite deplorable .

        Mr. Diganta Das , the Ld. Advocate appearing for the Appellant has submitted that  the Respondent  was defaulter  on payment as evident from the statement of Credit Card Account of the Respondent and as such  the name of the Respondent  was placed in the defaulter list by the CIBIL only who maintain the data of all the persons who availed the loan and also maintained the past history of the concerned persons. He has further submitted that the addition or the deletion of the name from the defaulter list is neither in the  hands of the Appellant Bank nor it is the duty  of the Bank to get it removed from the said list. It is the Bank  who just report the actual status of the party  to the CIBIL  whether he may have a good or bad record. Ld. Advocate for the Appellant  has placed a circular issued by  the Reserve Bank of India relating to credit information reports, etc. in order to appraise that in view of the circular of the Reserve Bank of India dated 27.06.2014, no liability can be attributed upon the Bank as  the Respondent  has defaulted in payment in accordance with the credit card statement.

        Ld. Advocate for the Respondent  , on the other hand,  supporting the decision of the Ld. District Forum has submitted that the Appellant Bank  has failed to show any break up claim  or any justification of claim of Rs. 15,116.64 paise  in their statement of account dated 01.02.2011 more particularly, when available credit limit has shown nil by the statement dated 12.05.2011. He has further submitted that the Appellant Bank has failed  to show  any document whatsoever that the Complainant has purchased any  property other than  0.5gram gold bar by using the credit card.

        We have considered the rival contention between the parties. On going through the materials on record, we find that the Ld. District Forum has rightly noticed deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. Since the Respondent has paid the amount of golden bar on 04.01.2011 and the statement dated 12.01.2011 indicates  that the total dues was nil, there was no reason for  deduction  of HDFC  ERGO Premium from the credit card of the Respondent  unilaterally.  The deficiency on the part of the Appellant  would be  quite apparent  because in spite of showing the available credit limit  as nil on 12.05.2011, the Appellant Bank imposed a burden of Rs. 15,447.22 upon the Respondent by their statement dated 12.10.2011. Therefore, deficiency on the part of the Appellant Bank to deal with a customer  like respondent  is quite evident.

        However, we cannot  share the view of the Ld. District Forum to direct the Bank to remove the name of the Respondent from the list of defaulters.

        Ld. Advocate for the Appellant  placing  reliance  to a decision dated 10th March, 2013 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh in Appeal No. 259 of 2010  (Sidham Pal Garg- Vs. – HDFC Ltd. ) submitted that the Ld. District Forum  has committed a grave mistake by asking the Bank  to remove the name of the Respondent  from the list  of defaulters. The Respondent being Complainant should have  impleaded CIBIL as a party on record for proper appreciation . When CIBIL has not been impleded as  party  there was hardly  any scope on the part of the Ld. Forum to give a direction to the Bank  to t hat effect. It is  true  that it is the Bank who reported an actual financial status of the Respondent. As  to the CIBIL but it may so happen that  besides the Appellant Bank,  some other Bank or Financial Institutions may  report about the actual financial status of the Respondent. As the CIBIL  was not impleded as a party, the Ld. District Forum  should not have directed the Appellant Bank to take proper steps in withdrawal  of the name of the Respondent/Complainant from CIBIL list.

        Therefore, on evaluation of materials on record and having heard the Ld. Advocates  appearing  or ht parties it appears to us that the amount imposed of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation  for harassment and mental agony is not  commensurate  with the  facts and circumstances of the case.

        In view of the above, the appeal is allowed on contest in part. However, considering the facts and circumstances , we do not make any order as to costs in this appeal.

        Impugned judgement is modified to the extent that  the Appellants/Opposite Parties to  make payment of Rs. 25,000/-  as compensation for harassment and mental agony of the Respondent/Complainant.  The amount  must be paid within  30 days from the date otherwise the amount shall carry an interest@9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 24.12.2012 till its realisation.

        The Registrar of this Commission is directed to send  a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Redressal Forum, Burdwan for information.