Complainant Rajinder Kumar through the present complaint filed U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (hereinafter, called the Act) has prayed for issuance of necessary directions to the titled opposite parties to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.11,874.1 Paisa vide impugned notice dated 16.6.2015 and Rs.15,736.42 paisa vide impugned notice dated 12.10.2015 being raised by the opposite parties by way of initiating the arbitration proceedings, being the same is illegal, null and void, against the law and instructions and to refund the amount of Rs.20,527/- in his favour, which he has paid under protest. Opposite parties be also directed to pay compensation alongwith litigation expenses on account of mental and physical harassment being suffered by him from the hands of the opposite parties, in the interest of justice.
2. The case of the complainant in brief is that he got opened a Saving Bank Account in the bank of opposite party no.1 bearing No.02651000100511 in the year 2008. He started making transactions in his abovesaid account and after three years of opening of the said Account, the opposite parties have issued Credit Card to him bearing No.4365200000038965. He used to use the said Credit Card by making Shopping etc and he had deposited a sum of Rs.9300/- on 23.7.2012 and thereafter he did not use the said Credit Card for about 2/3 months continuously but the opposite parties have issued message regarding billing circle to him whereby they have demanded Rs.1,46,000/- from him. Actually, he has not used such heavy amount, but inspite of that he had deposited the said sum of Rs.1,46,000/- with the opposite parties on 23.8.2014 and also made request to the opposite parties for cancellation of the said Credit Card by way of moving written application but the opposite parties did not cancel the same. The opposite parties have again assessed his billing circle qua his Credit Card amounting toRs.20,527/- but at no point of time the Credit Card has been used by him as he had stopped using the said Credit Card after 23.8.2014 but held in order to save his respect and to avoid any future complication have deposited Rs.20,527/- and again moved an application to the opposite parties for cancellation of the said Credit Card. The opposite parties through their counsel issued a false notice to him dated 16.6.2015 and made alleged impugned demand of Rs.11,874/- from him against the Credit Card. Actually, the alleged demand of Rs.11,874/- being made by the opposite parties from him is illegal, null and void as nothing remains left to be paid by him towards the opposite parties. He has further contended that he has never used his Credit Card after 23.8.2014, so the imposing amount of Rs.20,527/- and Rs.11,874/- is wholly illegal, null and void. Thereafter, he has moved an application under Right to Information Act before the Public Information Officer of HDFC Bank and demanded the requisite information but they have not given any reply of the said RTI application. Even he has also made reminder of the RTI application on dated 5.10.2015, but of no avail. He has further pleaded that the opposite parties have again issued the impugned notice dated 12.10.2015 and made alleged impugned demand of Rs.15,736/- from him against his Credit Card and have alleged in the impugned notice that if he would not make the payment of the aforementioned amount, they will initiate the proceedings Under Section 62 of The Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Actually, the alleged demand of Rs.15,736/- being made by the opposite parties from him is also illegal, null and void, as nothing remains left to be paid by him towards them. He has made persistent requests before the opposite parties on number of occasions to withdraw the impugned demand of Rs.11,874.1 paisa vide impugned notice dated 16.6.2015 ad Rs.15,736.42 paisa vide impugned notice dated 12.10.2015 and also to refund the amount of Rs.20,527/- in his favour which have been paid by him under protest but of no avail. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence this complaint.
3. Notice of the complaint was issued to the opposite parties who appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply taking the preliminary objections that the present complaint is an abuse of process of law, hence the same is not maintainable in the present form; the present complaint is malifide and opposite parties have been dragged into unwanted litigation. In fact there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Hence present compliant is liable to be dismissed as per provisions of Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act; the complaint is not verified in accordance with provisions of law and deserves dismissal; the complainant has got no locus standie to file the present complaint; the complainant is guilty of his own wrongful act and conduct from filing the present complaint and in order to wriggle out from debt and outstanding stands due towards him, he has filed the present complaint in order to extract money by indulging the innocent opposite parties into unwanted litigation and the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands, hence he is not entitled for any relief under the Consumer Protection Act on account of major concealment. On merits, it is submitted that complainant requested the opposite parties to issue him a credit card facility and keeping in view his request credit card facility was granted to the complainant as per the banking norms. Prior to issuance of credit card thecomplainant duly executed requisite and mandatory documents for availing credit card facility and all the terms and conditions incorporated in the requisite documents were duly read over and explained to the complainant in English as well as in vernacular language i.e. Punjabi and after admitting the same to be correct, the complainant signed and verified the same with his own sweet will, without any pressure or coercion. Complainant was also told about the billing circle of the credit card and grace period within which he has to deposit his billing amount, rate of interest agreed upon and other penal charges on account of default in making the payment of the credit card on the part of complainant, if any, was also well explained to him and after admitting the same he gave his consent in writing to the opposite parties and keeping in view the need of the complainant, credit card was duly issued to him according to the norms of the and business. It is further submitted that the complainant initially started using the credit card facility, but he never remained prompt to repay the amount of the credit facility availed by him well within the billing circle as mentioned on the credit card statement which was duly issued to the complainant month-wise according the usage by complainant. Credit Card statement w.e.f. 19.05.2011 up till 19.7.2015 is placed on record in order to prove the default committed by the complainant while using the credit card facility and complainant cannot be allowed to take undue benefit of his own wrongs. It is admitted that complainant used to use the credit card by making shopping etc. and he had deposited a sum of Rs.9300/- on 23.07.2012. The billing circle of the complainant is 19th of every month and the payment of Rs.9300/- was duly credited in the billing circle/statement dated 19.8.2012. However, it is submitted that complainant was in arrears/outstanding of huge amount which is running due towards him since long back and he was informed by the opposite parties from time to time and requested him to clear his entire credit card outstanding which was supposed to be paid within billing circle as agreed by him monthly. It has been next submitted that as per the credit card statement dated 19.9.2014 i.e. w.e.f. 20.8.2014 upto 19.9.2014, complainant has not deposited entire amount outstanding against him and an amount of Rs.11,128.11 paisa was due against the complainant and the said amount was carry forward month-wise as complainant was never willing to clear and repay the said amount which was later on exceeded on account of penal charges and late payment charges as agreed. All other averments made in the complaint has been vehemently denied and lastly prayed that the complaint may be dismissed with costs.
4. Complainant tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith other documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C9 and closed the evidence.
5. Counsel for the opposite parties tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh. Bhupinder Kumar Astt. Manager (Legal) Ex.OP-1 alongwith other documents Ex.OP-2 to Ex.OP-52 and closed the evidence.
6. We have carefully examined and thoroughly considered the evidence along with its supporting documents as available on records of the proceedings in the backdrop of the arguments as put forth by the learned counsels for both the litigating sides. We find although the complainant has allegedly closed (affidavit Ex.C1) his credit card account (along with its usage) with the OP Bank on 23.08.2014 he could produce on records his closure request (Ex.C5) of 08.01.2015, only. And, further the demand of Rs.20,527/- made on 23.08.2014 was deposited (Ex.C4) after > 04 months on 08.01.2015, only; and that further attracted penalty (penal interest & charges etc) getting reflected as (Ex.C9) demand for Rs.15,736/- as on 12.10.2015. The OP Bank has duly produced the credit card statement w e f 08.06.2011 to 19.07.2015 (Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP52) and that explains the ‘prompt’ of all these ‘demands’. Further, the card-member agreement Ex.OP53, its terms and conditions Ex.C54, the brochure Ex.C55, application Ex.C56, A/c details etc Ex.C57 to Ex.C59 fully explain and justify the issuance of the impugned demand at the OP’s end. We find that the OP Bank has charged ‘interest and other charges’ as per the mutually accepted, consented and duly acknowledged terms & conditions of issuance of the credit card and here the complainant has failed to establish an infringement of any of his consumer rights. Regarding, the non-attendance of the complainant’s RTI application (by the OP Bank), the complainant has always been at liberty to approach the appellate authority and also to avail of other remedy as prescribed under the RTI Act’ 2005. However, we do not find here an infringement of any of the consumer rights of the present complainant at the hands of the opposite party Bank.
7. In the light of the all above, we find the present complaint to be devoid of all statutory merit under the applicable Consumer Protection Act’ 1986 and thus ORDER for its dismissal with however no order as to its costs.
8. Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
May, 12 2016. Member.
*MK*
