DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATIALA.
Consumer Complaint No.371 of 26/09/2018 Decided on: 03/10/2019
Hardeep Singh Dhaliwal son of Mohinder Singh, aged 53 years, resident of House No.16, Maharaja Yadvindra Enclave, Nabha Road, Patiala.
….Complainant
Versus
- HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (West), Mumbai – 400013.
- The Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Leela Bhawan, Patiala-147001.
..…Opposite Parties
Complaint U/S 11 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act.
QUORUM
Smt. Inderjeet Kaur, Member
Sh. B. S. Dhaliwal, Member
ARGUED BY:
Sh. Hardeep Singh complainant in person.
Sh. Sanjay Khanna Adv. counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
B. S. DHALIWAL, MEMBER
1. Briefly stated, case of the complainant is that he was issued HDFC Regalia credit card by the OP in 2017. This credit card was applied by the complainant upon incessant solicitation by the agents of the OP Bank upon their solemn pledge that the card is a special offer and carry no burden of annual or monthly membership fee etc. To make this promise a documentary proof, the complainant got the same written on the first page of the application form which is in possession of the OP.
2. It is alleged that OP broke their solemn pledge and in the monthly statement dated 14.6.2018 billed the complainant on account of annual membership fee of Rs.2500/-. The complainant protested by sending email to OP which they responded vide email dated 25.6.2018 revealing that complainant had been billed because he did not meet annual spending threshold of Rs.3,00,000/-. Complainant again protested via email dated 27.6.2018 stressing that response dated 25.6.2018 did not address the most vital issue and requested OP to withdraw the charges else he shall be forced to move the consumer court but the OP repeated the same story.
3. It is alleged that complainant was forced to pay the charges under protest though he reminded the OP via email dated 4.7.2018 that all expenses towards legal proceedings shall have to be borne by the OP, but they maintained their illegal position via cryptic emails dated 5.7.2018 and 11.7.2018,
4. It is further pleaded that via emails dated 10.7.2018 and 12.7.2018, the complainant requested the OP to mail him the scanned copy of the application form which the OP denied on flimsy grounds of security reason. It is further alleged that action of the OP is a brazen violation of the solemn pledge, unethical and unlawful, It amounts to unfair trade practice.
5. On this backdrop of the facts, complainant has prayed for following reliefs. OP be directed :
i) To revert Rs.2500/- into the account of the complainant.
ii) To award appropriate compensation for causing harassment.
iii) To award appropriate litigation costs.
iv) To award appropriate penalty for indulging in unfair trade practice.
6. Upon notice, OP appeared and contested the complaint by filing written reply. In reply OP raised preliminary objections that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant himself chose the Regalia facility of the credit card and executed necessary documents in favour of the OP. Since the complainant has challenged the documents executed by him, therefore, this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and only remedy lies with the civil court as complicated questions of law are involved in the complaint. Other legal objections are that complainant has no cause of action to file the complaint and that complaint is false and frivolous and is liable to be dismissed with special costs of Rs.20,000/-.
7. On merits, OP has denied the averments of the complainant and reiterated its stand as taken in the preliminary objections and as detailed above. It is also pleaded that complainant executed the application form and also submitted driving license, PAN card and identity card of PSPCL. Loan application was executed by the complainant after understanding the entire contents. It is denied that the agents of the OP bank incessant solicitation that there is a special offer and carry on burden of annual or monthly membership fee etc, as alleged. It is also asserted that demand of Rs.2500/- is legal and complainant is bound to pay the same as he opted for the credit card Regalia facility. It is further mentioned that in the said facility it was clearly mentioned that if the complainant spent Rs.3,00,000/- in 12 months then he is not liable to pay Rs.2500/- as annual charges, but the complainant himself has violated the said condition and has not spent Rs.3,00,000/- in 12 months, therefore, he is liable to pay Rs.2500/- per month as annual charges. After controverting all the other averments of the complainant, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
8. In support of his case complainant tendered into evidence his affidavit Ex.C-A, copy of aadhaar card Ex.C-1, copy of account statement Ex.C-2, copy of email Ex.C-3 (consisting different emails Ex.C-3/A to Ex.C-3/J) and closed evidence.
9. On the other hand, OP tendered into evidence affidavit of Raveena Bedi Ex.OP-A, copy of application Ex.OP-1, copy of DL Ex.OP-2, copy of PAN card Ex.OP-3, copy of Identity card Ex.OP-4, copy of confirmation of application Ex.OP-5 and closed evidence.
10. We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP.
11. The complainant after reiterating his version as taken in the complaint has further submitted that he has demanded the copy of the application from the OP to decide the controversy, although the OP has not supplied the same to the complainant despite his repeated requests, but it is brought on record as Ex.OP1. It is categorically mentioned on the application “no amount/one time/monthly charges”. Therefore, when the OP has already offered the credit card without any further amount/one time/monthly charges, the OP cannot claim annual charges of Rs.2500/- which they are claiming from the complainant. It amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, complaint be accepted in terms of the prayed relief.
12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP has submitted that in order to decide the controversy this Forum has to examine all the relevant documents. Ex.OP-5 is most important document by description itself and for containing the detailed terms and conditions. The annual/ renewal fee of Rs.2500/- is mentioned. The renewal fee waiver is only in case when the card holder spends Rs.3,00,000/- in 12 months. This fact was brought to the notice of the complainant repeatedly in response to his emails also. Therefore, complaint is abuse of process of law. It is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
13. We have carefully gone through the record and have considered the rival contentions.
14. The complainant has challenged demand of Rs.2500/- as annual renewal fee claimed by the OP. Version of the complainant is that he is not liable to pay any charges and his version is based on handwritten words on his application form “no amount/one time/monthly charges”, but this writing is not specific and does not exonerate the complainant from any other liability/charges. The application form supplimented with document containing terms and conditions (Ex.OP-5) were submitted duly signed by the complainant. On the basis of this application and Ex.OP-5 he was issued Regalia credit card. These documents proves that Annual/Renewal fee of Rs.2500/- is payable. It is further mentioned that renewal fee is waived in case, card holder spends Rs.3,00,000/- in 12 months.
15. It is not the case of the complainant that he used to spend Rs.3,00,000/- and fulfill all the other conditions. Complainant himself has agreed to pay the annual renewal fee, therefore, he cannot escape from his liability only on the basis of pen written wording mentioned on the application form. It is well settled that agreement is on the basis of some specific terms and conditions which are mentioned in the documents executed by the complainant i.e. Ex.OP-1 & Ex.OP-5. In case the complainant was promised some exclusions from any annual renewal charges then this fact was to be specifically mentioned in the document (Ex.OP-5). Writing with pen on the Form mainly to allay the apprehension of the complainant for hidden charges not to exclude from the charges expressly mentioned in the most imporant document (Ex.OP-5) and agreed by the complainant. Therefore, contents of this document (Ex.OP-5) which is duly signed by the complainant are to prevail upon the alleged wording pointed out by the complainant.
16. The net conclusion is that no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Opposite party.
17. Resultantly, complaint stands dismissed, it being without any merits.
18. The complaint could not be decided in the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of cases.
19. Certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of costs under the rules. Thereafter file be indexed and consigned.
PRONOUNCED
DATED: 03/10/2019
B. S. DHALIWAL INDERJEET KAUR
MEMBER MEMBER
