STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

Appeal No.390 of 2009

Citibank N.A, Jeevan Bharti Building, 124, Cannaught Circus, New Delhi – 110 001.

                                                                                    ..…Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Gunjan Mehta, House No.5166 (Ground Floor), Modern Housing Complex, Manimajra, Chandigarh.

                                                            ..…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        HON’BLE MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

                        HON’BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

ARGUED BY: Sh. K. S. Prasad, Advocate for the appellant.

                        Sh. Gunjan Mehta (Advocate), Respondent in person.

MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR (RETD.), MEMBER.

1.                     This is an appeal against the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) dated 21.10.2008 passed in complaint case No.1242 of 2008 : Sh. Gunjan Mehta Vs. Citi Bank and others.

2.                     Briefly stated the case of the complainant is that he had been the holder of Citi Bank Credit Card No.5425 5695 7273 3004 and had very rarely used the facility of this card. The complainant, as per him, used to clear the bills on time but on occasions when he found the bill to be on higher side, on his demand for the details of the charges, OP on one pretext or the other chose not to provide such details or given slips or customer signed copies of the transaction bills. The complainant was contacted by OP No.4 on telephone and a demand for an amount of Rs.2 Lacs had been raised as outstanding amount to be paid by him. The complainant demanded from the OP any previous official correspondence in this regard and also disclosed his e-mail address to OP No.4. Consequently, he received a letter dated 18.9.2008 through e-mail demanding an amount of Rs.14,000/-. It was next averred that the complainant could not understand the crux of the matter and had also not received any communication from the Bank since the year 2000 when his credit card was actually surrendered and the account had been closed. It has also been alleged by the complainant that one Sh. Angad Chohan OP No.3 who is a senior official of the OP Bank used filthy and abusive language and had threatened him, consequent to which, he made a complaint with the Police Authorities on 13.10.2008. Alleging the action and conduct of OPs as deficiency in service on their part, the complainant had filed this complaint.

3.                     The version of OPs, on the other hand, is that the complainant had been using his credit card quite frequently and had accepted the same after fully understanding and accepting the terms and conditions for the issue of the credit card. It has further been averred that the complainant was under a contractual obligation to clear the dues against the card, which at that time, stood at Rs.4,08,061/-. It has further been stated that the complainant never made any payment since 13.9.2000 and thus, he was charged late payment, interest, service charges etc. as per the terms and conditions of the card and subsequently, the credit card of the complainant was closed on 2.4.2001 for non payment of dues. The complainant had been offered a one time settlement of Rs.14,000/- on 18.9.2008, which was valid up to 23.9.2008 but the complainant declined the said offer and thus, the amount remains due towards him.

4.                     The learned District Forum, in its analysis of the complaint, observed that the complainant had asked the OPs to cancel the card in the year 2000 but the same was done only on 12.4.2001 and since this date, there was no correspondence between the complainant and the OPs but the OPs suddenly in the year 2008 started demanding a sum of Rs.2 Lacs from the complainant as the outstanding amount against his credit card account, which was mostly towards late payment charges, interest charges and service charges etc because frequently, there had been no real transaction on this credit card after 2001. It has also been observed that the last payment of Rs.3,000/- was made to the OPs on 13.9.2000 and on that date, outstanding balance in the account of the complainant also stood at Rs.3,000/-. The learned District Forum has further gone on to record that the total outstanding amount of Rs.4,08,061.812Ps basically comprises the interest charges, late payment charges and service tax etc and the OPs had only been making book entries in their record from time to time without supplying any counter slips or customer signed transactions bills to the complainant. It has also been recorded by the learned District Forum that since the OPs had failed to produce any document whatsoever for claiming the payment, there was no question of the complainant paying the same. As per the learned District Forum, OPs had been sleeping over the matter for more than seven years, which automatically makes the demand time barred. The learned District Forum has also recorded in the impugned order that it is impossible to believe that the genuine demand of a sum of Rs.2 Lacs could be reduced by the OPs initially to Rs.18,000/- and finally to Rs.14,000/-. Further referring to the statement of credit card account, it has been recorded that as on 12.4.2001, outstanding balance shown is Nil and thus, as per the learned District Forum, this demand of Rs.2 Lacs raised by OPs amounted to some hanky panky in the working of OPs and was only to unduly pressurize the complainant and amounted to indulging in total unethical and illegal ways. Thus, the learned District Forum directed the OPs to finally close the credit card account of the complainant and waive of all outstanding  charges and thereafter issue the complainant a No Due Certificate. It further directed the OPs to update the credit card account of the complainant in the database already supplied by them to CIBIL and ask it to delete the name of the complainant from the defaulters list being maintained by them and after getting the same duly confirmed from CIBIL informed the complainant in writing. The learned District Forum  also directed the OPs to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.1 Lac as compensation for causing him physical harassment, mental pain and agony in addition to pay another sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation. The order was to be complied with within a period of six weeks from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

5.                     Aggrieved by the said order of learned District Forum, OP has filed the present appeal. The appeal having been taken on board, notice was sent to the respondent/complainant and record of complaint case was summoned from the District Forum. Sh. K. S. Prasad, Advocate appeared on behalf of the appellant whereas Sh. Gunjan Meta (Advocate), Respondent appeared in person.

6.                     Sh. K. S. Prasad, Advocate learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant had been a defaulter in payment as no payment had been made by him since December 2000. He also clarified that in April 2001, the operation of the card was automatically suspended due to non payment of amount due. However, monthly statements were being duly sent. It has also been stated that in the year 2008, a onetime settlement had been offered by the Bank asking the complainant to pay a consolidated sum of Rs.14,000/- but the complainant did not accept the same. The learned counsel also referred to Clause 22 of the terms and conditions of the agreement and pointed to the Bench that no dispute had ever been raised by the complainant as per Clause 22 of the agreement. He also submitted that there is no evidence whatsoever placed on record by the complainant with regard to the demand of Rs.2 Lacs. He then referred to page 37 (Annexure A-2) of the appeal and submitted that one time settlement offered proves the bonafide of the Bank as the same was genuinely interested in resolving the issue. He, therefore, prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the complaint be dismissed as the complainant is yet to clear his account with the Citi Bank.

7.                     Sh. Gunjan Mehta (Advocate), Respondent appeared in person and submitted that Para No.5 of the reply filed by OPs categorically stated that the credit card of the complainant was closed on 12.4.2001 and it nowhere indicates that the card had been temporarily closed or suspended. As regards the demand of Rs.2 Lacs, he clarified that the complainant had made a complaint to the Police Authorities of the telephonic threat received by him from OP No.4 demanding a sum of Rs.2 Lacs. In the end, he submitted that the impugned order was a well reasoned and detailed order, which clearly proves out the unfair trade practice on the part of OPs whereby they have raised a demand against a credit card, which had been closed in the year 2000 after a period of 9 years. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be dismissed as it lacks merit.

8.                     We have gone through the record on file as well as the impugned order and have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent in person.

9.                     The main allegation of the complainant is that he was not being supplied the details of the purchases billed to him by the OPs when he demanded the same in the shape of bills and counter slips duly signed by him. Consequently, as per the complainant, he got his credit card closed after registering his objections very strongly with the OPs in the year 2000. It has further been averred by the complainant that a telephonic demand of Rs.2 Lacs had been made by the OPs from him and during the course of this demand, OPs No.3 and 4 had used the filthy language and had also threatened him with dire consequences if the same was not paid and thereafter, he was presented a bill amounting to Rs.4,08,061/- whereas he owed no money to the OPs since he had already closed his account with OPs in the year 2000 and the so called bill had been raised in the year 2008. A perusal of the statement of account annexed with the written statement filed by the OPs indicates that the last purchase shown to have been made by the complainant was dated 15.12.2000 for an amount of Rs.717.63Ps. As per this statement of account, it is also pertinent to mention that the last payment, which had been received from the complainant, was of Rs.3,000/- paid on 13.9.2000. After this payment, the complainant had made further purchases as under: -

“27/08                        706763            SUKHNA AUTOMOBILES                 734.43

27/08              706763            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            18.36

02/09              478468            KAPUR SERVICE STATION                   442.00

02/09              478468            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            11.05

09/09              722703            SUKHNA AUTOMOBILES                 775.09

09/09              722703            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            19.37

09/10              325378            KAPUR SERVICE STATION                   740.00

09/10              325378            PETROL PUMP TRANACTION FEE   18.50

18/10              579298            SUKHNA AUTOMOBILES                 800.00

18/10              579298            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            20.00

24/10              328109            KAPUR SERVICE STATION                   702.80

24/10              328109            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            17.57

25/11              902983          SUKHNA AUTOMOBILES                 769.17

25/11              902983            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            19.22

15/12              573962            SUKHNA AUTOMOBILES                 717.63

15/12              573962            PETROL PUMP TRANSACTION FEE            17.94”

10.                   Obviously, the complainant has made no payments for the purchases made after the payment of Rs.3,000/-. It is also admitted fact that the complainant’s credit card was closed on 12.4.2001. Unfortunately, even though the complainant has alleged that he had been raising the issue with regard to higher charges by the OPs on account of his purchases, there is no evidence on record to substantitate the same. Also, even though the complainant has alleged that a demand for Rs.2 Lacs had been received telephonically from OP No.4 and OP No.3 had threatened him and used filthy language, there is no cogent evidence in this regard to prove this allegation and thus, we are of the considered view that no legal cognizance of this allegation can be taken. OP Bank on its part has contended that they had been sending regular monthly bills to the complainant but unfortunately, again no such bills have been placed on record and neither has any proof of dispatch and delivery of the same has been placed on record. Thus, at the face of it, it is clear that the OP Bank has slept over the matter from 12.4.2001 till 18.9.2008 when a onetime settlement offer had been made to the complainant and the OPs claimed that the complainant owed them a whooping sum of Rs.4,08,061/-.

11.                   From the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be gathered that the complainant made no payments for his purchases made after the last payment made by him on 13.9.2000. The complainant has not filed any rebuttal in any form with regard to the purchases shown to have been made by him from the period 14.9.2000 till 15.12.2000. He has also not placed on record any evidence to prove that he had cleared the amount due from him for these purchases. Thus, it can be fairly concluded that the complainant owed the amount to the Bank for the purchases made after the last payment made by him on 13.9.2000. Thus, on one hand, the complainant has not cleared his full dues and on the other hand, the Bank has got up from a deep slumber after a long period of eight years and has demanded a whooping sum of over Rs.4 Lacs from the complainant mainly on account of cumulative service charges, late payment fee and OCL charge even for a period beyond the period of 12.4.2001 when admittedly the card of the complainant stood cancelled. OPs have on their part shown no evidence of having taken any steps, which they were legally required to take for the recovery of the amount due from the complainant. Thus, we are in consonance with the view held by the learned District Forum that the OP Bank admittedly, indulged in unfair trade practice in pressurizing the complainant by sending him a demand for an amount of Rs.4,08,061/-, yet at the same time, it is not out of context to mention that the complainant who is also legally qualified  having known that he owes certain amount to the Bank deliberately did not make any payments after 13.9.2000 but continued to use the credit card even thereafter and subsequently also, took no steps to settle the account with the Bank.

12.                   In this view of the matter, we find that the compensation directed to be paid by the OPs to the complainant i.e. Rs.1 Lac is on the higher side keeping in view that the complainant himself was also at fault in not fully clearing his account and thus, there is his contributory negligence. Consequently, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the amount of compensation is reduced from Rs.1 Lac to Rs.25,000/-. The OP Bank, however, is granted the liberty to adjust the amount of actual purchases made by the complainant in the months of September 2009 to December 2000 but not paid for and thereafter, pay the balance amount of compensation to the complainant. Subject to this modification, the impugned order is upheld. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

13.                   Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

19^th April, 2009.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MAJ. GEN. S. P. KAPOOR(RETD.)]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

Ad/-