Punjab

Faridkot

CC/14/83

Amanpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

23 Jan 2015

ORDER

      DISTRICT  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM,  FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :        83

Date of Institution :  25.06.2014

Date of Decision :    23.01.2014

 

Amanpreet Kaur d/o Sh Iqbal Singh r/o H. No. B XIII/243, Dr Ambedkar Nagar, Near Kameana Gate, Street No. 2, Faridkot.

                                                                                                                        .....Complainant

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. Circular Road, Faridkot through its Branch Manager.

                                      ....Opposite Party(Op)

 

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:           Sh. Ashwani Kumar Mehta, President,

Smt Parampal Kaur, Member,

Sh P Singla, Member.

Present:        Sh Gurwinder Singh, on behalf of complainant,

 Sh Neeraj Maheshwary, Ld Counsel for OP.

 

 

(A K Mehta, President)

                                                      Complainant Amanpreet Kaur has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against HDFC Bank/ OP for not dialling an EMI of balance amount against Credit Card No. 5242165000367043 pertaining to saving account bearing no. 50100010763652 of complainant and for seeking directions to OP to continue the facility of EMI against said Credit Card and for further directing OP to pay Rs 20,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and inconvenience and Rs 3,000/- as cost of litigation.

 2                                                   Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant is having saving account bearing no. 50100010763652 and got issued Credit Card No. 5242165000367043; that on 5.05.2014, complainant was to purchase a mobile phone through credit card and she made a call to Customer care number of OP and enquired about the finance facility for purchase of new phone and OP confirmed the availability of same and assured for dialling of EMI, if mobile phone is purchased and  accordingly on 5.05.2014 in pursuance of assurance of OP, complainant purchased a mobile phone of SONY with IMEI  No. 351867061147622 vide bill no. 105 dt 5.05.20144 from Friends Communications, Faridkot and payment of Rs 24,250/-was made through Credit Card and Rs 1750/- in cash as insurance money; that on 21.05.2014, complainant  received a letter vide which OP flatly refused to extend finance by dialling an EMI of card account expressing their inability and rather asked the complainant to make payment of whole amount in lumpsum till 30.05.2014, which amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OP; that this act and conduct of OP has caused much harassment and mental tension to complainant for which she has prayed for compensation to the tune of Rs 20,000/- and Rs 3000/-as litigation expenses. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                The Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 2.07.2014, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

  4                                              On receipt of the notice, the opposite party filed written statement taking preliminary objections that complaint involves intricate questions of law and facts, which require voluminous documents and evidence for determination, which is not possible in the summary procedure under Consumer Protection Act and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in Civil Court; that complainant has concealed material facts and documents from this Forum as well as from OP; that there was no offer available in the card of complainant on 6.05.2014, when request of complainant reached with OP as batch settlement amount made to merchant on 6.05.2014 through auth code 081123 and further the easy EMI option is available only in selected merchant outlets and vide letter dt 21.05.2014, the complainant was called upon to check with the merchant before processing the transaction; that complainant was further called upon to check the  availability of  EMI offer with the OP online before finalizing any transaction; that complainant did not get the approval of OP before purchasing the mobile and did not even check the same from the merchant and therefore, request to convert the purchase in EMI was refused vide letter dt 21.05.2014 and complainant was aware of the fact that there was no EMI offer against  credit card of the complainant on the date of purchase of mobile and that is why the complainant herself wrote a letter dt 16.05.2014; that current outstanding due on card no. 5242-1650-0036-7043 on 8.09.2014 is Rs 28,579.49/-; that complainant is not consumer of OP and complainant cannot compel the OP to convert the purchase in EMIs as a financial institution cannot be compelled to provide loan or financial assistance as a matter of right and complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint and providing of various services by the bank is not to be adjudicated before this Forum under Consumer Protection Act; that complainant has not impleaded the concerned merchant from whom, the mobile has been allegedly purchased and therefore, complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. However, on merits, OP has denied all the allegations levelled by complainant being wrong and incorrect and reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering opposite party; that all other allegations and allegation with regard to relief sought too were refuted with a prayer that complaint may be dismissed with costs against the answering opposite party.

   5                                              Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them.  The complainant tendered in evidence her affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-7 and then, closed the evidence.

6                                                  In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh Aman Gupta, Manager Debt Department, HDFC Bank, Faridkot as Ex. OP-1 and documents Ex OP-2 and  Ex OP-3 and then, closed the evidence.

7                                                            We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                               Ld Counsel for complainant contended that complainant has a Saving account in the OP Bank and OP Bank has also issued a credit card to the complainant and deduct charges for the same from the account of complainant and as such, complainant is a consumer of the OP. He contended that complainant was to purchase a mobile phone and as complainant was not in a position to pay the whole of the price, therefore, complainant enquired from the OP Bank as to whether complainant can pay the bill of the mobile phone  in instalments and the concerned official of the OP Bank told the complainant and her husband on phone that price of the mobile bill can be paid in instalments and the conversation of the complainant with concerned official of the OP Bank was recorded and compact disc is proved on the file as Ex C-2 and Punjabi transcription of conversation is proved on the file as Ex C-7  and the call detail is proved on the file as Ex C-4 showing that complainant enquired from the concerned official on phone. He contended that after the purchase, the Bank refused to receive the price of the mobile through EMI or instalments and asked the complainant to pay the total amount as per bill issued by the Bank. He contended that the act and conduct of the OP Bank is an unfair trade practice and it caused harassment and mental agony to the complainant and as such, complainant is also entitled to compensation and litigation expenses and as such, complaint is required to be allowed.

9                                     The ld counsel for OP contended that complainant has concealed the material facts and as such, complainant is not entitled to any relief from the OP. He contended that offer of instalments was not available on the credit card of the complainant on 6.05.2014 and complainant purchased the mobile on 5.05.2014 and as such, was not entitled for EMI or instalments on the date of purchase and this fact was known to the complainant and that is why he made a request to the OP Bank to convert the price of the mobile phone in EMI but the same was refused vide letter dated 21.05.2014. He also contended that OP Bank cannot be compelled to charge the outstanding amount of the loan in instalments from the complainant. He also contended that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank nor any such deficiency has been proved by the complainant who is duty bound to prove deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank in order to be entitled to relief claimed in the complaint and complaint is required to be dismissed.

10                                                  It is admitted fact that complainant is having saving account in the OP Bank. It is also admitted fact that complainant was issued a credit card by the OP Bank. The case of the complainant is that she purchased a mobile after enquiring from the concerned official of the OP Bank as to whether the sale price of the mobile would be converted into EMI or in instalments or not and when the concerned official of the OP Bank confirmed that the sale price would be converted into EMI and instalments, then, the complainant purchased mobile but OP Bank sent a bill for payment of total sale price of the mobile. The contention of the OP Bank is that on the day of purchase of mobile i.e 5.05.2014, the complainant was not having any EMI facility on the credit card and as such, complainant is not entitled to EMI or instalment facility and is liable to pay the total amount of the mobile to the Bank. Complainant has proved her affidavit Ex C-1 in which she has again reiterated all the allegations of the complaint. It is admitted fact that OP Bank issued letter Ex C-3 dt 21.05.2014 requiring the complainant to pay the total outstanding amount as facility of EMI is not available on the credit card of the complainant. This letter further shows that   sometimes OP-Bank gives offer of EMI and sometimes said offer is withdrawn. In this eventuality, the only alternative to the complainant is to enquire from the OP Bank as to whether the offer of EMI facility is available to the complainant or not for making a particular purchase. Even it is mentioned in the letter Ex C-3 dt 21.05.2014 that complainant is to enquire about the latest EMI offer or other deals available on the credit card. Complainant has proved telephonic conversation through compact disc Ex C-2 and the Punjabi transcription of conversation is proved on the file as Ex C-7 and it clearly shows that before purchase of mobile phone by the complainant, a conversation for this purpose with the concerned official of the OP Bank took place on 28.04.2014 and 5.05.2014 and it shows that concerned official told the complainant that EMI or instalment facility is available on the credit card of the complainant and if she purchases mobile phone then, purchase price would be converted into EMI and only thereafter, complainant purchased the mobile phone. As such, it does not lie in the mouth of OP Bank that on the day of purchase i.e 5.05.2014 EMI facility was not available on the credit card of the complainant as it is a trade mal practice on the part of OP Bank. If the complainant has purchased the mobile phone on the assurance of concerned official of the OP Bank that purchase price of the mobile phone would be converted into EMI, then, at this stage after the purchase of mobile phone by the complainant, the OP Bank can not recover the purchase price of the mobile in lumpsum as it would be a trade mal practice on the part of OP Bank and it would also amount to deficiency in service on the part of OP Bank. As such, complainant is entitled to pay purchase price of the mobile phone in instalments as was assured by the concerned official of the OP Bank.

11                                In the light of above discussion, the complainant has succeeded in proving her case on the file and the same is hereby allowed with costs in favour of complainant and against the OP Bank and OP Bank is directed to recover the purchase price of the mobile phone in EMI facility available in the Bank and OP Bank is also burdened with Rs 3000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by the act of the OP Bank and complainant is also entitled to recover Rs 2000/- on account of litigation expenses from the OP Bank. OP Bank is directed to comply with the order within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, complainant is entitled to proceed against OP Bank under Section 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of cost as per law. File be consigned to the record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 23.01.2015

Member                 Member       President      (Parampal Kaur)     (P Singla)          (A K Mehta)