PER MR.B.S.WASEKAR, HON’BLE PRESIDENT

1)              The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the complainant, he is holder of credit card bearing no.5452 2610 0013 3579, issued by opponent in the year, 2005.  The complainant has provided all the details as per KYC procedure. Till February, 2013 the complainant paid all the charges. He was using the credit card for fuel expenses.  He did not receive the credit card statement for the month of March, 2013.  Therefore, he contacted opponent bank. The opponent bank told him that, his verification details does not match.  On enquiry he was told that, changes were made in his address, telephone number and e-mail address on telephonic request.  He informed the opponent that, he never requested for change in his details.  The complainant was told about recent transaction to purchase jwellery of Rs.58,000/- at M/s.Kundal Jwellers.  The complainant refused this transaction. The complainant was told that, his card bearing no.5452 2610 0013 3579 was already blocked and new card had been issued in February-March, 2013 and dispatched to new address as per request.  The complainant issued a notice through e-mail dated 20/05/2013.  The opponent replied and submitted that, investigation is started.  The complainant received duplicate statement for the month of June, 2013 for amount of Rs.23371/-.  The complainant received legal notice demanding amount of Rs.27405.38.  Once again the stranger tried to operate credit card at the same place at M/s.Kundal Jwellers for the amount of Rs.1,75,000/-  but the same was decline as the card was blocked on the request of complainant.  This happened due to negligence of the opponent.  On enquiry the complainant was told about Adhaar Card given by the stranger, which was not of the complainant.  The opponent issued four new cards blocking the earlier card negligently. Thereby, the complainant suffered financially and mentally. Therefore, the complainant has filed this complaint to direct the opponent to waive off the amount and interest and to reinstate the credit card facility of the complainant.  He has also claimed to direct the opponent to issue letters to all the banks regarding credit worthiness of the complainant.  He has claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of reputation and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/-.

2)     Opponent appeared and filed written statement. It is submitted that, the complainant is not a consumer.  Credit card no.5452 2610 0013 3579, was replaced by new card no. 5452 2610 0061 9577 in April, 2013 and finally by card no.5452 2610 0036 0871 in May, 2013.  Those were replaced on the request of the complainant.  The opponent was sending statement at the address given by the complainant.  It is the same address given in this complaint.  Investigation was started and credit for the amount of Rs.58,000/- was  given and dispute was closed in favour of the complainant.  No charge was levied for the transaction of Rs.58,000/-.  The cards were replaced on the request of the complainant.  The complainant is bound to pay the balance amount.  The statements were issued to the complainant at the address updated by him.  The complainant is not regular in paying the amount since, 2013. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opponent. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled for the relief as prayed and the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost. 

3)                 After hearing both the parties and after going through the record, following points arise for our consideration.

POINTS

REASONS

4) As to Point No.1 :-  There is no dispute that, credit card no.5452 2610 0013 3579 was issued in favour of the complainant by the opponent in the year, 2005 and he was using it till 2013.  Therefore, the complainant is the consumer of the opponent. 

5) As to Point No.2 & 3 :-  There was no dispute till the complainant was using credit card bearing   no.5452 2610 0013 3579.  According to the opponent on telephonic request earlier credit card was blocked and new credit cards were issued in April and May, 2013.  Four new credit cards were issued and statements were issued and sent to the address given by the complainant.  According to the opponent, it is the same address which is mentioned in this complaint. In the complaint the address of the complainant is Flat No.103, Blue diamond, Next to HP Petrol Pump, Juhu road, Juhu, Mumbai-49.  The opponent has produced copies of the statements issued to complainant.  On perusal of these statements the address of the complainant in statement dated 06/03/2013, 06/04/2013 and 06/05/2013 is  Shri Sai Siddhi Co-Op Society, 4 floor, Flat no.409, Garage Gali Bhavani Shankar Cross Road, Mumbai-MHS028. In the written statement and in the written notes of argument the opponent has stated that, statements were sent to the complainant at the same address written in this complaint. As stated above the address given in the statement is totally different from the address given in the complaint and also given to the opponent at the time of issuing first credit card.  It is pertinent to note that, the bank is the trustee of public money but surprisingly the opponent bank issued new credit card merely on telephonic request, without verifying the personal details of the complainant.  The copy of the Adhaar Card was also not of the complainant.  It was mandatory for the opponent bank to verify the personal details of the customer before issuing the new credit card.  There is no dispute that, credit card bearing no.5452 2610 0013 3579 was issued in the year of 2005.  It was in operation till February, 2013.  But thereafter opponent bank issued four new credit cards without verifying the personal details of the complainant.  It is apparent negligence of the opponent bank for which the complainant is suffering.  It is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the opponent bank. Therefore, the complainant is not liable to pay any amount to the opponent bank.  In the complaint and in the written notes of argument the complainant agreed for outstanding amount of Rs.12881/-.  The opponent bank is entitled to recover this amount from the complainant without any interest or charge.  Opponent bank is not entitled to recover any other charge from the complainant.  Therefore, it is necessary for the opponent bank to issue letter in favour of the complainant that, he is not defaulter.  It is also necessary for the opponent bank to inform all other banks, Financial Institution that, the complainant is not the defaulter. Due to negligence of the opponent bank the complainant suffered in his reputation and also the complainant was mentally harassed therefore, he is entitled for the compensation from the opponent bank.  The complainant has claimed compensation amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for loss of reputation and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental harassment.  We think it is excessive claim. The compensation of Rs.50,000/- will be the reasonable compensation for  loss of reputation and mental agony.  Besides this the complainant is entitled for litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.  Hence, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Complaint is allowed.

2. It is hereby declared that, the opponent bank is deficient in service. Except the amount of Rs.12881/- opponent bank is not entitled to recover any amount from the complainant.

3. The opponent is directed to address letter to all the banks regarding credit worthiness and that the complainant is not defaulter.

4. The opponent is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- (Rs.  Fifty thousand only) to the complainant towards the compensation for loss of reputation and mental agony.   

5. The opponent is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rs.Ten thousand Only) to the complainant as litigation cost. 

6. The above order shall be complied with within a period of one month from today.

7. Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of cost.

 Pronounced on 30^th  August, 2016