Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/589/2006

P.Venugopal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Card Division - Opp.Party(s)

P.Deenadhayalan

02 Mar 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                           Date of Filing  : 23.11.2006

                                                                                                                            Date of Order : 02.03.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)

2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                      CC. NO.589 /2006

FRIDAY THE 2^ND DAY OF MARCH 2018

                                              

Mr. P.Venugopal,

S/o.  A. Parthasarathy,

No.18A M.C.M. Garden 3^rd Street,

Old Washermenpet,

Chennai 600 021.                                        .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

 

1.  HDFC Bank Card Division,

P.O.No.399,

Annasalai Post,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. The Manager,

HDFC Bank Card Division,

P.O.No.400,

Anna Salai Post,

Chennai 600 002.

 

3. HDFC Bank House,

Senapati Bapat Marg,

Lower Parel,

Mumbai 400 013.                                         ..  Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for complainant         :  M/s. P. Deenadayalan & another

                                                        

Counsel for opposite parties   :  M/s. Deepa HariGovind       

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interest paid for pledging jewels on the instigation of opposite parties and Rs.3,000/- towards cost of the complaint.

1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

          The complainant submit that he was informed that one year free membership fee and insurance policy coverage along with the credit card but the 1^st opposite party had not performed according to their promise and if any mistake occurred to the complainant’s statement there is only way to contact the 1^st opposite party’s call center and inform to them to which they would record the complaint and give promise to take action on the basis of the complaint.   The complainant further state that having joined as member of the opposite party bank; he came to know that the original colour of all the opposite parties as they were claiming fee for membership card and improper statement of accounts was rendered and unrelated charges levied to the complainant and their activities in contrary to and if he ask any clarification regarding his account there is no reply but threatened that he is a borrower and he had to pay to them whatever amount reflected in the monthly statement.  When he contacted over the phone they said to contact grievance cell that even if he contacted any grievance cell there is same call center staff members are available hence the complainant has approached in person to the 1^st opposite party office to say his grievance but they informed to him that they are not dealing with the customer in person except over the phone and there is no any other way to settle the problem unless the court intervene in this regard.  

2.     Further the complainant state that he purchased by using the credit card and the 1^st opposite party informed that he would get reward points for his purchasing.   Hence the complainant purchased and paying the amount periodically without fail on every month.   In the month of October 2005 he purchased articles for a sum of Rs.6800/- and Rs.13,390/- by using the credit card and one week later the 1^st opposite party’s call center staff contacted him over the phone and stated that there is a six month offer is launched for the customer convenient to settle all outstanding amount due in the credit card and if the complainant’s cell outstanding amount is merged entirely there is due amount of a sum of Rs.21,128/- for that he need not pay any interest upto six months thereafter they would collect interest for balance due amount and it is called 6 months offer, accordingly the 1^st opposite party’s staff came to the complainant’s house and got signature as to the 6 month offer.   Regarding the six month offer particulars which is not reflected in October 2005 month statement but all this was reflected in the month of November 2005 statement which was received in December 2005 in which the 1^st opposite party mentioned on the contrary to the 6 month offer in their statement that as if the complainant took a loan a sum of Rs.21,128/- from them and also there is 2 EMI is pending and levied separate processing fee and all those things.   The 1^st opposite party fails to perform their promise to the customer and violates all terms and conditions to the complainant regarding which the complainant informed to call center for clarification for which the 1^st opposite party accepted their fault and asked the complainant that he need not pay amount according to the month of November 2005 statement and they promised to rectify that error and send clear statement to next month.   On March 2006 he received February 2006 but all of a sudden in that statement the 1^st opposite party insisted the complainant that he has to pay a sum of Rs.5018.45 immediately without mentioned any stipulated date but the complainant astonished of that mentioned amount because every month he is paying minimum a sum of Rs.2000/- according to the EMI and at the same time  the complainant contacted the call center they replied the same averments that they would rectify the statement in next month and asked not to pay that month amount and registered his complaint but the complainant not satisfied with the answer from them hence he had decided to issue a notice through his lawyer and sent on 20.4.2006 to all opposite parties as to his grievance and seeking remedy from them but there is no reply for lawyer notice.    One Mr. Vincent belongs to Nungambakkam Branch of 1^st opposite party called the complainant and asked to pay March 2006 statement amount a sum of Rs.6129.79 to them immediately but the complainant narrated all happening but Mr.Vincent is not convinced and forced the complainant to make payment and even if there is any error the complainant firstly should pay to them.   The opposite parties also levied late fee of Rs.342.14 and finance charge Rs.142.65 etc.  Hence the complainant is compelled to pledge his jewels and paid the amount to 1^st opposite party. Further the complainant state that  as per the June Month statement the complainant  excessively paid a sum of Rs.4,025.72 and asked the  1^st opposite party to refund the same. Further the complainant state that on 15.10.2005 the complainant purchased articles worth Rs.13390/- only but the 1^st opposite party in July 2006 statement it is maintained that Rs.13990/- (i.e.) with interest which was also brought to the knowledge of the 1^st opposite party but there is no response from them like these the 1^st opposite party levying all incorrect amount in their statement which was brought to their knowledge over the phone but they would not rectify any error.    As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.  

3. The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st  opposite party and adopted by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties  is as follows:

The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.   The opposite parties submit that the complainant acquired his credit card by voluntarily signing the card application and the Most Important Document (MID) and the same was delivered to him on 29.3.2005.   At no point of time the bank had informed the complainant that the membership for the credit card was free for life and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.   Similarly the allegation that if there was any discrepancy in the statement of account, the complainant needed to contact the phone banking section to get clarification as per the information by the bank is false and imaginary and the complainant for the purpose of making allegations to make out a case he alleged these unwarranted things.   They had sent improper statement of accounts to the complainant and that they had levied unrelated charge to his card account is malicious and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.   Further even assuming that the statement of account contained discrepancy, the complainant had every right to question the same within 30 days of receipt of such statement and in this case; the complainant had not done so nor he contacted the bank  in person complaining the same.    The complainant taking advantage of the usage of the credit card has subscribed to the terms and conditions of the card member agreement which governs the usage of the card.  Hence the complainant cannot plead ignorance about the applicable charges.   In compliance with the RBI guidelines, the terms and conditions for issue and usage of a card are mentioned clearly in English for the understanding of the prospective customers in the application forms. 

4.     At this juncture it is submitted that interest charges are charged when the total amount due is not paid by the customer and late payment charges are charged when even the minimum amount due is not paid by the customer.   Over credit limit charges are charged when the customer exceeds the assigned credit limit.  In the instant case the complainant was levied the above applicable charges as per the applicable terms and conditions.  The interest charges are applicable only if the total amount due on the card account is not cleared before the payment due dates; and if not so and if revolving credit facility is chosen and the minimum amount is paid which will be 5% of the total amount due) interest charges will be levied in order to facilitate the benefit of the revolving credit facility.  It is also pertinent to note that the rate of interest is dynamic based on the spending and payments made by the customer.   Further the opposite parties state that  the complainant had opted for DAE, which meant dial and EMI, wherein the complainant upon his purchases with merchant establishments, can convert such charges into a loan and repay the same in easy monthly installments and in his case during April 2005 the complainant had converted  his transaction worth Rs.7400/- into a DAE and again the transaction incurred for Rs.6800/- during November 2005 was also converted into a DAE and similarly the transaction done during the month of April 2006 for Rs.13,398/- was also converted at the request of the complainant into a DAE and accordingly the charges, interest were levied as per the terms and conditions and hence the allegation made in para 7 that the conversion of the transaction into DAE will not attract interest for 6 months is an assumption and there is no such guarantee by the bank and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same.    Therefore there  is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B2  marked on the side of the  opposite party.

5.      The points for consideration is :

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards interest paid for pledging jewels on the instigation of opposite parties as prayed for ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.3,000/- as prayed for ?

6.   POINTS 1 & 2:

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite parties counsel also.   Perused the records (viz.) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.  Admittedly the complainant is a credit card holder of the 1^st opposite party bank on believing the false promise of the opposite parties staff and officials like free membership card for life time etc.  But the complainant has not produced any record.  Further the contention of the complainant is that he used to transact through credit card for purchase and paying the amount periodically without fail.  Whenever the complainant purchased articles the opposite parties would convert the purchased amount into EMI and direct the complainant to pay the amount in a stipulated period.   Ex.A1 is the statement of account from October 2005 to October 2006 shows several EMI and credits balance etc.  The complainant further contended that in the month of October 2005 he purchased articles worth Rs.6800/- and Rs.13,390/- by using the credit card.   After one week, the call Centre of 1^st opposite party informed that there is a six month offer for the customer to settle all outstanding amounts due to credit card.  Thereby on merging all outstanding total amount comes to Rs.21,128/- for which there shall be no interest for 6 months but the opposite parties claimed interest and other charges including finance charges which will be reflected in the monthly statement of November 2005 which was received in December 2005 against RBI Rules and Guidelines.  The opposite parties also levied separate processing fee and other amounts in two separate EMI’s proves the deficiency in service.  Further the contention of the complainant is that while contacting the first opposite party centre staff over phone they admitted the mistake and explained that it would be rectified in subsequent month but all the monthly statements having no iota of any such rectification or  correction in figures.   On the other hand the complainant received December 2005 statement in January 2006 without any change.   The complainant also paid the amount of Rs.3,000/- as demanded by the opposite party with the  fond hope that due statement will be furnished by the opposite parties.   But all of a sudden in a statement of  February 2006 the 1^st opposite party insisted to pay a sum of Rs.5018.45 immediately without any stipulation of date.  While contacting the staff the complainant was asked to pay Rs.1221.91 only.   Since the opposite party has not forwarded the correct monthly statements  the complainant  issued a notice dated 20.4.2006. 

7.     One Mr. Vincent  belongs to Nungambakkam Branch of 1^st opposite party called the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.6129.79 immediately.  Otherwise he will send Hooligans and used filthy language.  The opposite parties also levied late fee of Rs.342.14 and finance charge Rs.142.65 etc. fraudulently Hence the complainant is compelled to pledge his jewels and paid the amount to 1^st opposite party.   Further the complainant contended that  as per the June Month statement the complainant  excessively paid a sum of Rs.4,025.72 and asked the  1^st opposite party to refund the same.  Further the contention of the complainant is that on 15.10.2005 the complainant purchased articles worth Rs.13390/- only but the 1^st opposite party in July 2006 statement mentioned as Rs.13990/- (i.e.) with interest once the amount is treated as EMI, claiming interest arbitrarily cannot be permitted.

8.     The learned counsel for the opposite parties contended that the complainant is credit card holder of the 1^st opposite party is admitted.   The contention of opposite parties is that  several offers and facilities will be provided to the complainant  like free life time card are false and all imaginary.   The complainant after accepting the conditions and voluntarily signing the application the credit card was issued on 29.3.2005 which is not denied.  

9.     Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the discrepancy of statement of accounts is false.   Even there is a discrepancy it should be questioned within 30 days of receipt of such statement.   But no such rule produced in this Forum.   Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the entire statement of accounts for period of 4.5.2005 and upto 4.2.2007 as per Ex.B1. is very clear with regard to all transaction, opening balance credit debits dues minimum amount due date etc.  The complainant cannot plead ignorance about the applicable charges as per terms and conditions in usage of credit card.  The statement of account issued by the opposite parties to the customer as mandated by RBI.  But the opposite party has not produced any RBI Rules or Guidelines to show the levy of penalties, Finance charges etc. in unethical nature. Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the complainant opted for Dial An EMI wherein the complainant upon his purchase with merchant establishment can convert such charges into a loan and repay the same in easy monthly installments.   In this case, during the month April 2005 the complainant had converted his transaction worth Rs.7400/- and in month of November 2005 Rs.6800/- in the month of April 2006 Rs.13390/- into EMI.  Accordingly the charges, interest were levied as per terms and conditions in the application duly signed by the complainant.

10.    The allegation of complainant is that the conversion of Dial An EMI will not attract interest for 6 months is imaginary and it should be proved by the complainant.   As per Ex.B2 letter dated 9.5.2006 the complainant was duly informed in detail regarding the queries raised by him.   The allegation of error entry in the statement of accounts are false and imaginary.   There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.  Further the contention of the opposite parties is that the claim of Rs.20,000/- paid towards interest on pledging of jewels has no connection with the opposite parties.

11.    Further the various claims of complainant are imaginary and has no connection with the transaction in the impugned case.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this forum is of the considered view that  the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 2^nd  day of March 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1-             - Copy of monthly statement of Oct’05 to Oct’2006

Ex.A2- 20.4.2006 - Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A3-             - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A4-             - Copy of Jewels receipt.

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.B1-       -       - Copy of credit card statement.

Ex.B2-             - Copy of letter to the complainant to the opposite party.

 

MEMBER –I                       MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT