Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/135/2015

Alok Krishan - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Geeta Gulati

18 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/135/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	03/03/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	18/08/2015

 

 

 

 

 

Alok Krishan, resident of House No.1531, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh.

…............. Complainant.

Vs

 

1.   HDFC Bank Limited, 28, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

 

2.   HDFC Bank Cards Division, P.O. Box No.8654, Thiruvanmiyur, P.O. Chennai, through its Manager.

 

…........... Opposite Parties 

 

BEFORE:   MRS.SURJEET KAUR             PRESIDING MEMBER

          SH. SURESH KUMAR SARDANA     MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Ms. Geeta Gulati, Advocate.
For OP Nos.1 & 2	:	Sh. Puneet Tuli, Advocate.

 

PER SURJEET KAUR, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

          Succinctly put, the Complainant availed the services of the Opposite Parties for the first time in the year 2007 by getting issued a Visa Credit Card in his favour. The Complainant was provided with the Silver Card No. 4617 8720 0023 1695 by the Opposite Parties and thereafter, the credit card was upgraded to Platinum and finally to Signature Card, photocopy of which is at Annexure C-2. It has been averred that since the year 2007, the Complainant had been regularly paying the amount for the services availed to the Opposite Parties, due to which the Opposite Parties without any request from the Complainant upgraded the Card twice. It has been alleged that the Complainant received the Credit Card statement dated 5.9.2013 for the amount of Rs.2363.98/- (Annexure C-3), wherein an amount of Rs.2619.94/- claimed by the Opposite Parties was for the payment made to godaddy.com on 28.7.2013, which amount was neither paid by using the Credit Card by the Complainant nor was authorized to the Opposite Parties to pay to the beneficiary of the amount. The Complainant, without any delay, brought the unauthorized transaction to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties, by making a call to the Bank’s Call Centre on 11.9.2013 vide Complaint No. 31254480239. The Complainant was advised by the Call Centre Executive not to deposit the money and also to submit a written Complaint to the Branch of the Bank. Acting upon the aforesaid advice, the Complainant brought the unauthorized transaction to the knowledge of the Opposite Party No.2 in writing by submitting the Card Holder Dispute Form on 13.9.2013 (Annexure C-4). However, instead of resolving the dispute, the Opposite Parties started harassing the Complainant by making unsolicited phone calls and even got issued a legal notice dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure C-5) through their Lawyer, for recovery of Rs.5264.71/- along with interest and later issued summons from the Court for paying the unauthorized amount before the Lok Adalat (Annexure C-6). It has been alleged that the Opposite Parties also threatened the Complainant either to pay off the whole amount with interest or they would send a default entry to CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Ltd.) to discredit him. Hence, alleging the aforesaid act & conduct of the Opposite Parties as deficiency in service, the Complainant has filed the present Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, seeking various reliefs.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties in their joint written statement while admitting the factual matrix of the case have pleaded that the Complainant had been utilizing the credit card for the purposes of making purchases over the internet. The factum of upgradation of the Credit Card twice has not been disputed by the answering Opposite Parties. It has been contended that in case there was any disputed transaction, as has been alleged by the Complainant, he would have forthwith stopped the usage of the Credit Card and would have blocked the same. However, no such request had been received by the Opposite Parties for the purposes of the blocking of the credit card. It has been asserted that a Complaint was received by the answering Opposite Parties in respect of the alleged transaction, upon which the Complainant was requested to block the credit card. However, the same was not blocked by him. Subsequent to the same, the Complainant was also tried to be contacted by the Bank, but he was not contactable. The Complainant was also called for the purposes of conciliation on 27.3.2014 in terms of the mediation process initiated before the Lok Adalat at Chandigarh however he chose not to even present himself there. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.

 

4.      The Complainant also filed replication to the written statement filed by the Opposite Parties, wherein the averments as contained in the complaint have been reiterated and those as alleged in the written statement by the Opposite Parties have been controverted.

 

5.      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

6.      We have heard the learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties and also perused the record, along with the written arguments filed behalf of both the sides.

 

7.      The case of the Complainant is that as per Annexure C-2 he is the Signature card holder of the Opposite Parties. It has been alleged by the Complainant that from the credit card statement dated 5.9.2013 for an amount of Rs.2363.98P, it came to light that an amount of Rs.2619.94P was claimed by the Opposite Parties for certain online payment to godaddy.com on 28.7.2013 which according to the Complainant was neither paid by him using the credit card nor he authorized the Opposite Parties to pay to the beneficiary of the amount. As per the Complaint, the Complainant immediately intimated the Opposite Parties and brought this unauthorized transaction to their knowledge in writing by submitting a Cardholder Dispute Form (Annexure C-4) dated 13.9.2013. It has been alleged by the Complainant that instead of resolving the dispute the Opposite Parties issued legal notice (Annexure C-5) for recovery of Rs.5264.71P along with interest and later he was issued summons from the Lok Adalat (Annexure C-6). It has been further alleged that he was also threatened by the OPs to send his entry to CIBIL to discredit him. 

 

8.      The stand taken by the Opposite Parties is that in case there was any disputed transaction, the Complainant would have blocked his credit card. It has been urged by the Opposite Parties that even after receiving letter dated 23.9.2013 sent by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant failed to block his credit card. Subsequently, the Opposite Parties tried to contact the Complainant, but he was not contactable.

 

9.      It is evident from Annexure C-4 dated 13.09.2013 that the Complainant filled one Cardholder Dispute Form with a Complaint to Opposite Parties regarding his disputed transaction. But, there is no follow-up action taken by the Opposite Parties even after getting this Form filled. Furthermore, as far as the contention of the Opposite Parties regarding their letter dated 23.09.2013 to the Complainant is concerned, there is no cogent/ authentic evidence on record to prove the despatch of this letter to the Complainant at any point of time. Since the said letter was never received by the Complainant, hence, he is not bound by the conditions of the Opposite Parties for the blocking of the card. It is not understandable that why this particular condition with regard to the blocking of the card was not disclosed to the Complainant at the time of filling of the Cardholder Dispute Form (Annex.C-4). Therefore the categoric stand taken by the Opposite Parties that as the card of the Complainant was not blocked, therefore, requisite action was not taken by them, being devoid of any merit, is declined. The act of Opposite Parties in not conducting the investigation and non-following up the disputed Cardholder form and also issuing legal notice and summons to the Complainant for the recovery of the disputed amount without any relevant enquiry points out towards their involvement in the unfair trade practice, which certainly has caused physical and mental harassment to him.

 

10.      In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. The Opposite Parties are directed, jointly and severally, as under :-

1. To investigate the unauthorized transaction and in case, anything substantial is found, in favour of the Complainant, then the matter, if reported to CIBIL, shall be withdrawn forthwith;  

 

(ii) To make payment of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for causing mental and physical harassment.

 

(iii) To make payment of Rs.7,000/- to the complainant as litigation expenses.

 

 

11.      This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy; thereafter, the Opposite Parties shall pay the amount at Sr.No.(ii) above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint till realization, besides complying with directions at Sr.No.(i) and (iii) above.

 

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

Announced

18^th August, 2015                                              

Sd/-

(SURJEET KAUR)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(SURESH KUMAR SARDANA)

MEMBER