DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

D.B.S. Bhullar S/o Shri H.S. Bhullar, resident of #1542, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                                                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]      HDFC Bank, Sector 37, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

[2]      HDFC Bank Cards Division, P.O. Box 8654, Thiruvanmiyur, P.O. Chennai – 600041.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA              MEMBER

                    SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                    MEMBER

Argued By:       Sh. Jagtar Kureel, Advocate for the Complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the Opposite Parties.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

1.                 The instant complaint relates to alleged deficiency in service by the Opposite Parties by not providing the first bill for the credit card issued to the Complainant on time. 

                    The Complainant is an account holder of Opposite Party No. 1 and had been issued a ‘Platinum Plus Card’ by HDFC Bank. The Complainant has since been using this credit card from time to time. After getting the credit card the Complainant had used it for the first time in January 2010, but the bill was not supplied to him on time, hence he could not make payment of the dues payable.

                    When the Complainant received a later bill dated 16.02.2010 for `1,924.16/-, he was surprised to know that there was an outstanding balance of `420/- against which certain charges had been levied by the Bank, which included late fee, finance charges - retail, finance charges – cash, service tax and cess tax.  All subsequent bills issued by the Opposite Parties have been received by the Complainant. In protest of these excess charges, the Complainant has not been making payment to the Opposite Parties against all the bills issued thereafter, but is continuing to use the credit card from time to time. Hence not only his dues to the bank are mounting but the bank has also levied various charges as per their norms on the said card.

                    The Complainant has thus, filed this complaint with a prayer that the Opposite Parties be directed to quash their illegal demands and issue a bill only as per the usage of the Complainant, besides paying compensation and costs of litigation.

2.                 After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the Opposite Parties.

3.                 Opposite Parties in their joint reply have maintained that when the Complainant had taken the credit card facility it was his duty to ensure that the amount payable against the usage of the credit card was paid on or before the due date, failing which he was liable to pay overdue and late payment charges.  To sort out the matter even a reconciliation notice was issued to the Complainant. However, he choose not to settle the matter. An amount of `8678/- has thus become payable on 31.10.2011.  

                    On merits, Opposite Parties have admitted that the Complainant had applied for and obtained a credit card from the bank after making a proper application. However, in case a credit card holder does not receive a bill in time, he can obtain the details by calling their 24 hours helpline of the bank. Denying all other allegations, Opposite Parties have stated that the Complainant should have paid all the charges, and later he could have lodged a complaint for reversal of the excess charges. No such complaint was ever filed by the Complainant. In fact, steps have even been taken by the Opposite Parties to bring about a reconciliation with the Complainant, but the Complainant apparently does not seem interested. Opposite Parties have, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.                 Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.                 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

6.                 The bills placed on record by the Opposite Parties show that the first bill showed an usage of `420/-. The second bill which has also been placed on record by the Complainant shows an opening balance of `420/- besides, monthly usage and charges levied thereon. It is evident that the Complainant is adopting an attitude  of a square peg in a round hole by refusing to make payment to the Opposite Parties, despite using the credit card just because the first bill for `420/-  was not received by him. All later bills have been duly received and usage of the credit card is continuing. The attitude of the Complainant is not expected of an educated customer. As stated by the Opposite Parties the Complainant was even called for reconciliation vide letter dated 20.07.2011, but the Complainant failed to settle the matter amicably.

7.                 The relationship of the parties being of a customer and service provider, it must be pointed out that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K. Gupta, 1994(1) CLT 1 (SC) , has held that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act have to be construed in favour of the consumer to achieve the purpose of the enactment as it is a social benefit oriented legislation.  Also in case Kulwinder Kaur Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India, 2007(1) CLT 303 (Pb.), it was held that if two view are possible, the one which helps the consumer should be taken.

8.                 In the light of above judgment and to promote cordial relationship between the customer and the service provider, we take a lenient view and dispose off this complaint with a direction to the Opposite Parties to waive off the charges/ penalties imposed in the second bill as a consequence of non-payment of the first bill. All late payment charges and finance charges for all subsequent bills and during the pendency of this dispute be also waived off, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. However, purchases (amount spent), service tax and cess tax as applicable will be payable by the Complainant. The bill dated 1.3.2010 also shows a cash withdrawal by the Complainant of `1,000/- against which `300/- has been charged by the bank. This amount will not be claimed by the Complainant. No compensation or costs.   

9.                 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

12^th March, 2012.                                                

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER