DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

[Consumer Complaint Case No: 451 of 2010]

--------------------------------

              Date of Institution : 21.07.2010

                   Date  of Decision   : 17.08.2012

--------------------------------

Manohar Lal, #301, Sec.10, Opp. Anupam Sweet, Panchkula.

                                  ---Complainant

VERSUS

[1]  HSBC Bank, Card Products Division, through its Managing Director, 52/60, M.G. Road, Mumbai.

[2]  Branch Manager, HSBC Bank, SCO No.1, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh – 160017.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:  SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA           PRESIDENT

         MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

         SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU     MEMBER

Argued By:    Sh. D.K. Singal, Counsel for Complainant.  

          Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.      Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Parties on the grounds that, the Complainant being approached by the officials of Opposite Party No.2 in the year 2005 had offered different type of credit card plans and credit card facility without any rent. Thereafter, a credit card bearing No. 4384 5999 9709 2415 was issued to the Complainant free of cost vide Ref. No. 20050 4291 35142 w.e.f. April 2005 to April 2007. As the Complainant never felt the need of using the credit card, the same was not used by the Complainant even for a single time since the date of issue. Even the confidential pin number which was delivered to the Complainant in a sealed cover was still lying with him as it is.

        The Complainant claims that the statement of accounts received by the Complainant showed the charging of rent against use of credit card, which was not used by the Complainant, even for once. The Complainant immediately contacted the Opposite Party No.2 to raise objection against the statements issued between 27.4.2005 to 17.10.2005 (Annexure C-3 to C-8). The Complainant also claims that another communication dated 23.10.2005 through which a demand of Rs.192.24 was raised even though the card was never used. The Complainant claims that such demand against a card that has not been used by him is totally illegal.

        The Complainant also claims that after the expiry of the card in question in the year 2007, the Opposite Parties renewed and issued another credit card bearing No. 4384 5999 9709 2415 to the Complainant, without his prior consent, w.e.f. April 2007 to April 2010. The Opposite Parties in their letter dated 1.3.2007 clearly mentioned that in case the Complainant uses the said card even for once, it would be considered that the Complainant had fully accepted the terms and conditions stated in the card holder agreement. The Complainant alleges that such kind of act confirms the wrong intentions of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant claims that after the issuance of 2^nd card, an opening balance of Rs.3387.48 was shown in the statement of account dated 18.7.2007 to 17.8.2007, which was reduced by Rs.359.55 by Opposite Parties on their own. The copies of the statements are annexed at Annexure C-19 and C-20 respectively. The Complainant claims to have written letters to the Opposite Parties which are annexed as Annexure C-23 to C-25, wherein the amount of Rs.7372.54 and Rs.10,563.40 were found mentioned illegally according to the Complainant. The Complainant also claims to have received a communication from the side of the Opposite Parties informing him about the closing of the credit card facility on his request through their communication dated 23.2.2009. And that in the month of Mar., 2009 the outstanding amount of Rs.87,714.96 was shown in the accounts of the Complainant by the Opposite Parties.

        The Complainant has also annexed letters dated 30.3.2009 and 29.4.2009 as Annexure C-21 and C-22. The Complainant claims to be aggrieved of the illegal claim of Rs.10,563.40 by the Opposite Parties, even though the credit card facility offered to him on renewal was not used by him even for once.   

        The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, has prayed for the following relief: - 

[a]  To place on record the details/ supporting documents to show the alleged usage of the credit card;

[b]  To issue the instructions to the Opposite Parties to withdraw the bills which were issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, illegally and arbitrarily;

[c]  To pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1 lac for mental agony and harassment;

[d]  To pay punitive damages of Rs.1 lac;

[e]  To pay the litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-;

        The complaint of the complainant is duly verified and supported by his detailed affidavit.

2.      The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant by filing their joint reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is barred by limitation; as the dispute raised by the Complainant pertains to the amount of rupees billed to his account in the year 2005-06 and on account of non-payment of the same over due, and late payment charges had accrued against it. It is further mentioned that the dispute as raised through the present complaint is with regard to challenging the amounts accrued in the year 2005, 2006 and 2007. As the present complaint is filed in the year 2010, hence the same is barred by limitation.   

        The Opposite Parties further mentions that the facility of the credit card was offered to the Complainant on his application and that the application form is annexed with the reply. As the card was issued on the instructions of the Complainant the Complainant cannot claim to be ignorant about the facts that are part and parcel of the card as well as its terms and conditions.

        According to the Opposite Party free card facility was only limited to the 1^st year of its subscription; and thereafter, the Complainant was liable to pay a renewal fees subsequent thereof. This condition is contained in the application form itself. To support this factum an acknowledgement slip is also annexed with the reply. 

        As the Complainant was liable to pay the said amount of renewal charges, that had accrued against the card, but at the same time keeping in view that the Complainant had not used the credit card, the Opposite Parties had reversed the amounts and the statement of account shows a zero balance in order to amicably settle the matter and this was done without admitting any deficiency in service on their part.

        On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply, the Opposite Parties had denied all other factors except for the ones that are part of the record. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Parties have prayed for the dismissal of the complaint with heavy costs.  

3.      Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the Parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

4.      Without going into the pure merits of the present complaint, it would be just and fair to ascertain the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum, to entertain the present complaint.

5.      We have gone through the entire complaint as well as the annexure submitted. The Complainant in Para No. 13 of his present complaint has categorically stated that as the office of the Opposite Party No. 2 has its office in Chandigarh, and the same issued the credit card, in question, thus, the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum is attracted. However, it is noticed that the credit card in question is found to have been issued from the Bombay Office and was received by the Complainant at his residential address, situated at Panchkula (Haryana). Even the communications made by the Opposite Parties were from their Bombay Office to the Panchkula address of the Complainant, as well as the communications of the Complainant to the Opposite Parties Annexure C-21 is found to be made to the Opposite Parties at “The Director Response Cell (ADON), HSBC, P.O. Box No. 631, Mumbai GPO, Mumbai – 400001”.  The Complainant has not proved conclusively the averment mentioned in Para No. 13 of the Complaint that the credit card in question was issued from the Chandigarh office of the Opposite Party.  

6.      The present complaint squarely falls under the observations as cited in the case titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited reported in IV (2009) CPJ 40 (SC), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held as under: -

(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 17 — Jurisdiction — Territorial — Fire broke out in godown at Ambala — Insurance policy taken at Ambala — Compensation claim made at Ambala — Contention regarding applicability of Amendment Act, 2003 not acceptable — ‘branch office’ in amended section means, branch office where cause of action arose — No part of cause of action arose in Chandigarh — Consumer Commission, Chandigarh had no jurisdiction to adjudicate.

        Thus, no cause of action accrued at Chandigarh. Therefore, merely because the Opposite Parties have their Branch Office at Chandigarh (Opposite Party No.2 in the present case) would not confer jurisdiction to the District Forum at Chandigarh.

7.      Hence, we dismiss the present complaint on this score alone. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

8.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

17^th August, 2012

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER