DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No. 96/12
K.M. Mishra,
82F, Sector 7,
Jasola Vihar,
New Delhi – 110025 -Complainant
Vs
HDFC Bank Limited,
1107 – 1110, 11th Floor,
Ambadeep Building,
14 K.G. Marg,
New Delhi -Opposite Party
Date of Institution: 15.03.2012
Date of Order: 27.01.2016
Coram:
N.K. Goel, President
Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
As per the averments made in the complaint, the complainant is having the platinum credit card bearing no. 5243681101920174 of credit limit of Rs. 1,75,000/- issued by the OP since long back. The OP did not issue a credit card statement to the complainant in the month of May 2011 though the complainant was willing to make the payment of his credit card bill. He received a credit card statement dated 7.6.2011 in the month of June 2011 wherein the credit card statement showed an amount of Rs. 1,05,552.43p to be paid by the complainant towards the settlement of this statement. The complainant paid Rs. 6500/- in cash to the official of the OP on 26.7.2011 at his residence. However, in the month of Sept. 2011, the complainant received a credit card statement dated 7.9.2011 for payment of the due amount of Rs. 1,12,282.25p in the same manner. The complainant also informed the OP about the cash payment of Rs. 6500/-. However, complainant made several phone calls to the OP but to no avail. Hence, pleading deficiency in service, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing the following directions to the OP:
- to withdraw the bill for the month of June 2011 with respect to the credit card bearing no. 5243681101920174 amounting to Rs. 1,12,282.25p as the same being wrong and illegal,
- to withdraw all the subsequent bills and issue the actual bill as per law,
- to withdraw all the action taken/to be taken against the complainant for recovery of the alleged due amount in respect of Credit Card No. 5243681101920174,
- to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for deficiency in service resulting in mental and physical harassment and agony to the complainant and,
- to pay a sum of Rs. 15,000/- as litigation cost.
In its reply, the OP has stated as under:
“He has deliberately concealed a material fact that he had taken Cash on Call (COC) loan in October 2008. CoC Loan # 1363246 was processed for Rs. 1,61,000/- @ 1.99% interest per month, repayable in 48 months, vide CoC D.D. # 191564 dated 06/10/2008 and dispatched vide First Flight 07/10/2008 (AWB # C03444668) and delivered on 10/10/2008. The CoC D.D. was cleared on 10/10/2008. The loan amount was required to be paid in 48 EMI’s of Rs. 5238.22 each commencing 07/10/2008 and ending September 2012. The May 2011 statement dated 07/05/2011 had an opening balance of Rs. 26057.40; however, the CoC loan was preclosed on 08/04/2011 due to non-receipt of regular payments and the closing balance showed the total outstanding including the preclosed loan amount and applicable fees, i.e., Rs. 107675.70. No specific transactions have been entered in the month of April, 2011. No specific transactions have been entered in the month of April 2011. The current liability of the Complainant is of Rs. 161432.34 as on 01/01/2013.”
It is admitted that an amount of Rs. 6500/- out of outstanding dues aggregating Rs. 1,09,836.59p was received from the complainant on 26.7.2011. It is also admitted that the complaint was sent a credit card statement showing outstanding dues of Rs. 1,12,282.25p from him as of 7.9.11. It is, however, stated that the amount of outstanding was growing every month mainly due to levy of interest charges by the OP on the outstanding dues from the complainant and that the cash payment of Rs. 6500/- made by the complainant on 26.7.2011 was dully accounted for and conveyed to the complainant in the monthly statement of August 2011. Deficiency in service is denied. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
In the rejoinder, the complainant has inter-alia stated that the complainant had voluntarily requested for pre-closure of the loan amount and that he has already made payment of the settlement amount as agreed between him and the executive of the OP for the pre-closure of the loan. It is submitted that the complainant has not been making regular payments since May 2011 because of the disputed bills raised by the OP without providing any details or statements for the same.
The complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. He has relied on the documents Ex. CW/1, CW/2 and CW/3. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Anil Kumar Verma, Legal Manager, has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP. He has relied on the document Ex. OP/1 to Ex OP/4. However, as mentioned in the order-sheet dated 8.9.15 and admitted on behalf of the OP, document Ex. OP/1 is not available on the record.
We have heard the complainant in person and the counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of the parties.
It is an admitted fact (which fact has not been disclosed by the complainant in the complaint) that the complainant had also taken Cash on Call (CoC) loan in Oct., 2008 as detailed in the reply to the complaint. However, according to the complainant, he has paid the entire loan amount as per the settlement having taken place between him and the executive of the OP. However, he has not filed any such document on the record to show about the payment of the loan amount.
In the statement dated 7.6.2011 (copy Ex. CW/2) an amount of Rs. 1,05,552.43p has been shown as outstanding amount. The payment of Rs. 6500/- made by the complainant to the OP has been duly shown in the statement dated 7.6.2011 (Part of Ex. CW/2) and a balance amount of Rs. 1,07,675.70p has been shown in the said statement.
Copy of credit card statement dated 7.5.11 has been filed as Ex. OP/3 from a perusal of which it clearly stands proved that the CoC loan amount of Rs. 74926.44p had been transferred to the credit card account of the complainant on 8.4.2011 and thus the total dues payable by the complainant to the OP had been shown Rs. 1,07,675/-. The copy of statement dated 7.6.2011 is also a part of statement Ex. OP/3 in which the payment of Rs. 6500/- made by the complainant to the OP has duly been accounted for and balance amount has been shown as Rs. 1,05,552/- (not Rs. 1,05,552.43p). In any case, we do not see any reason to disbelieve the version of the OP that on the date of filing of the complaint, the complainant was, in fact, in arrears of the outstanding amount and which he had not paid to the OP.
In view of the above discussion, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N. K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Announced on 27.01.16.
Case No. 96/12
27.1.2016
Present – None
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
