Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu, President

1.       Complainant has filed the instant complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 on the allegations that complainant is account holder of opposite party vide Saving bank A/c No.50100055968449 since 2014. In the year 2019 complainant had made a payment of Rs.62,000/- approximately through his Credit Card No.5459648814084738. The complainant was called by executive member of the opposite party over phone and complainant was connivances to made the said payment through regular EMI'S amounting to Rs.4660/- and thereon and complainant agreed with the same. First EMI was AUTOPAY SI-MAD on 01.02.2019 and thereafter regularly EMI'S were debited from the account of complainant vide different entries of debit. It is pertinent to mention here that the said EMI'S were paid to the opposite party with effect from 01.02.2019 to 12.04.2022 amounting to Rs.1, 35, 937.72 NP. That complainant has informed opposite party regarding the said entries but complainant was astonished when opposite party told him that an amount of Rs.85, 614/- is still outstanding against the complainant. It is matter of great dismay and surmises that already complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,35,937.72  and still opposite party is demanding Rs. 85, 614/- from the complainant. The complainant approached opposite party and requested opposite party to quash the said amount, but with no effect. The opposite party was asked many times to quash the amount, but the opposite party flatly refused to do so. Hence this complaint. Vide instant complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs:-

a)       Opposite Parties may be directed to pay quash the illegal demand of Rs.85,614/- in respect of Credit Card no.5459648814084738.

b)      To refund the amount of Rs.73,000/- approximately.

c)       To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation on account of mental tension, harassment and deficient services.

d)      To pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- as costs of litigation expenses.

e)       And any other relief which this Commission may deem fit and proper be granted to the complainant in the interest of justice and equity.

2.       Opposite parties appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written reply taking preliminary objection therein inter alia that the contents of the complaint are false, frivolous and vexatious in nature, as such the complaint is neither tenable in law nor on facts. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed in limine. The complainant had suppressed several material facts from the Commission and has not approached this Commission with clean hands. Except all the allegations and averments stated to be true herein below, all the allegations and averments made in the Complaint are not true and correct and the same are denied in its entirety by the Opposite Party, as if the same are specifically and categorically traversed herewith. The Jurisdiction of the case not falls under Ld Commission whereas the cause of action as narrated under the present complaint relates to Credit Card and as per the terms and conditions of the CMA, "Any dispute arising out of this card agreement shall be subject to the arbitration law having seat of arbitration at Mumbai". The relevant clause of card member agreement is mentioned in the Para No.4 of the Complaint. The present reply is filed through its authorized signatory Harpreet Nath who is authorized to file the present reply and more over he is well conversant with the facts of present case. Further alleges that the complainant approached the opposite party for the issuance of credit card through online application and at the time of applying for the credit card, the complainant online accepted the application form, its term & conditions, its Most Important Term & Conditions etc. and after reading and understanding the terms and conditions for the issuance of credit card. Thereafter, the opposite Party had issued a Credit Card at the request of the Complainant. Further alleges that the complainant had choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due printed on the monthly statement of his credit card and he also choose the balance outstanding can be carried forward to subsequent statements. Till date, the complainant never cleared balance outstanding amount. Hence, the complainant was charged with Finance Charges which are payable at the monthly percentage rate on all the transactions from the date of transaction till they are paid back. Finance Charges are debited to the complainant's account till the outstanding on the card is paid in full. When the customer carries forward any outstanding amount a finance charges calculated by average Daily Balance Method, will apply to balances carried forward and to fresh billings. In the present case, the complainant never cleared his outstanding dues in one billing cycle. So, he was charged with finance charges. The Complainant had been using the said credit card as per his requirement from time to time. The complainant with malafide intention presented cooked up story so as to wriggle out the liability of the transaction done on the credit card in a secure environment. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement and cannot allege any contrary much less in this frivolous complaint. Further alleges that the CMA alongwith Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) was delivered to the Complainant alongwith the Credit Card and Schedule of charges applicable, which cannot be denied by the Complainant. At the time of issuance of credit card "Credit Card Service Guide" was provided to the Complainant. The amount paid and spends by the complainant on the card in question is duly shown in the Credit Card statement. The complainant not paid the credit card outstanding amount within prescribed time and deposited the same as per his convenience and the complainant had choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due printed on the monthly statement of his credit card. For purpose of convenience and better understanding the charges referred to in the CMA were extracted and notified separately to the complainant under the head 'Most Important Terms and Conditions' (MITC). This document contains complete information on "Fees & Charges", "Cash Advance Fee", Late Fee charges", "Finance Charges" etc., the "Schedule of Charges" were also explained in the MITC, which are applicable to all the customers of the Bank including the Complainant. The Complainant was duly aware of the fact that timely payment has to be made towards the credit card dues. The relevant clause of the CMA is reiterated here "Timely payment towards the card dues is essential and it is a condition of this Agreement that all payments towards Minimum Amount Due must reach HDFC Bank on or before the Payment Due Date indicated in the monthly Statement of Account. If the Minimum Amount Due is not paid by the Payment Due Date, a late payment fee as specified in the tariff sheet will be debited to the Card Account and is subject to change at the discretion of HDFC Bank. Non-payment of Card Dues shall also render the Card member liable to risk of instant withdrawal of the Card Membership without prior notice." Further "the due date for payment (which presently would be approximately 20 days from the statement date)is the last date by which the payments should reach the bank. It may be noted that the due date is only a convenience to enable statements to reach the Card member and also to provide time to provide time to process the Cardmember's payments. Future transactions on the account may be declined if the payment is not received within the due date and all transactions will attract service charges from the date of purchase. Complainant is liable to pay the due amount as per the statement issued by the Bank against credit card. The complainant is not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Act. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party. On merits, it is submitted that on 12.12.2018, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.32,694/-, on 31.12.2018, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.4,650/- and on 09.01.2019, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.12,561.42/-through his credit card. These transactions duly reflected in the statement dated 12.01.2019. Previous to this statement, the complainant had to pay the amount of Rs. 41,705.07/- to the bank outstanding against him which was duly reflected in the statement dated 12.01.2019. As per statement dated 12.01.2019, total due was Rs. 93,027/- and Minimum Amount Due was Rs.4,660/-. The complainant had chosen to pay only Rs.4,660/- which is duly accounted in the statement dated 12.02.2019. The complainant is only paying the minimum amount due. So, he was charged with Finance Charges on monthly basis on the outstanding amount due against him. Remaining facts mentioned in the complaint are denied and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint is made.

3.       In order to prove his case, complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C1 along with copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C7.

4.       To rebut the evidence of complainant, Opposite Parties tendered in evidence affidavit of Sh.Harpreet Nath, Legal Manager Ex.OP1/A alongwith copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP75.

5.       During the course of arguments, ld. counsel for both the parties have mainly reiterated the same facts as narrated in the complaint as well as written reply. The case of the complainant is that in the year 2019 complainant had made a payment of Rs.62,000/- approximately through his Credit Card No.5459648814084738 and the said payment was converted into regular EMI'S amounting to Rs.4660/- and thereon and complainant agreed with the same. First EMI was AUTOPAY SI-MAD on 01.02.2019 and thereafter regularly EMI'S were debited from the account of complainant vide different entries of debit. The said EMI'S were paid to the opposite party with effect from 01.02.2019 to 12.04.2022 amounting to Rs.1,35,937.72. However, it is matter of great dismay and surmises that already complainant had deposited a sum of Rs.1,35,937.72  and still opposite party is demanding Rs.85,614/- from the complainant. The complainant approached opposite party and requested opposite party to quash the said amount, but with no effect.

6.       Ld. counsel for the Opposite Parties has repelled the aforesaid contentions of ld. counsel for the complainant on the ground that the complainant had choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due printed on the monthly statement of his credit card and he also choose the balance outstanding can be carried forward to subsequent statements. Till date, the complainant never cleared balance outstanding amount. Hence, the complainant was charged with Finance Charges which are payable at the monthly percentage rate on all the transactions from the date of transaction till they are paid back. Finance Charges are debited to the complainant's account till the outstanding on the card is paid in full. When the customer carries forward any outstanding amount a finance charges calculated by average Daily Balance Method, will apply to balances carried forward and to fresh billings. In the present case, the complainant never cleared his outstanding dues in one billing cycle. So, he was charged with finance charges. The Complainant had been using the said credit card as per his requirement from time to time. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement. Further alleges that the CMA alongwith Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC) was delivered to the Complainant alongwith the Credit Card and Schedule of charges applicable, which cannot be denied by the Complainant. At the time of issuance of credit card "Credit Card Service Guide" was provided to the Complainant. The amount paid and spends by the complainant on the card in question is duly shown in the Credit Card statement. The complainant not paid the credit card outstanding amount within prescribed time and deposited the same as per his convenience and the complainant had choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due printed on the monthly statement of his credit card. For purpose of convenience and better understanding the charges referred to in the CMA were extracted and notified separately to the complainant under the head 'Most Important Terms and Conditions' (MITC). This document contains complete information on "Fees & Charges", "Cash Advance Fee", Late Fee charges", "Finance Charges" etc., the "Schedule of Charges" were also explained in the MITC, which are applicable to all the customers of the Bank including the Complainant. The Complainant was duly aware of the fact that timely payment has to be made towards the credit card dues. The relevant clause of the CMA is reiterated here "Timely payment towards the card dues is essential and it is a condition of this Agreement that all payments towards Minimum Amount Due must reach HDFC Bank on or before the Payment Due Date indicated in the monthly Statement of Account. If the Minimum Amount Due is not paid by the Payment Due Date, a late payment fee as specified in the tariff sheet will be debited to the Card Account and is subject to change at the discretion of HDFC Bank. Non-payment of Card Dues shall also render the Card member liable to risk of instant withdrawal of the Card Membership without prior notice." Further contended that on 12.12.2018, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.32,694/-, on 31.12.2018, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.4,650/- and on 09.01.2019, the complainant had made the payment of Rs.12,561.42/-through his credit card. These transactions duly reflected in the statement dated 12.01.2019. Previous to this statement, the complainant had to pay the amount of Rs. 41,705.07 to the bank outstanding against him which was duly reflected in the statement dated 12.01.2019. As per statement dated 12.01.2019, total due was Rs. 93,027/- and Minimum Amount Due was Rs.4,660/-. The complainant had chosen to pay only Rs.4,660/- which is duly accounted in the statement dated 12.02.2019. The complainant is only paying the minimum amount due. So, he was charged with Finance Charges on monthly basis on the outstanding amount due against him.

7.       We have perused the rival contention of ld. counsel for both the parties and also perused the record. The case of the complainant is that In the year 2019 complainant had made payment of Rs.62,000/- approximately through his credit card, thereafter the said payment was converted in to regular EMI’s of Rs.4660/- and the EMI was Autopay SI-MAD. The complainant w.e.f. 01.02.2019 to 12.04.2022 had paid Rs.1,35,937.72 to the opposite parties, but despite that an amount of Rs.85,614/- was demanded by the opposite parties. On this, Opposite Parties have taken the plea that the complainant had choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due printed on the monthly statement of his credit card and he also choose the balance outstanding can be carried forward to subsequent statements. Hence, the complainant was charged with Finance Charges which are payable at the monthly percentage rate on all the transactions from the date of transaction till the outstanding on the card is paid in full. We have perused the Credit Card Statements produced on record by the Opposite Parties. In the Credit card statement dated 01.02.2019 (Ex.OP34) under the heading Account  Summary it is mentioned that Opening Balance Rs.41,705.07 - Payment/Credits Rs.2090.00 - Purchase/Debits Rs.50,657.14 - Finance Charges Rs.2754.51 and Total Dues Rs.93.027.00. From the above it is clear that the previous outstanding amount of the complainant was 41,705.07 and amount deducted from the account of the complainant is Rs.2090.00 against the amount of Rs.41,705.07 and the other amount spent by the complainant through credit card is Rs.50,657.14 plus Finance Charges of Rs.2754.51 in this way total amount outstanding as per the statement dated 01.02.2019 was Rs.93,027/- but against the amount of Rs.93,027/- only Minimum Amount an amount of Rs.4660/- was deducted from the account of the complainant, as complainant himself has choose to pay only for the Minimum Amount Due. Similarly, in the Credit Card Statement dated 04.03.2019 against the Total due amount of Rs.92,701 an amount of Rs.4640 was paid. We have also perused the Credit Card Statements from dated 01.04.2019 (Ex.OP37) to 12.05.2022 (Ex.OP75). From all the credit card statements, it is evident that against the total Outstanding amount, Minimum due amount was being paid by the complainant for the aforesaid period. However, he having not made full payment of the credit card dues, so the finance charges and late fee etc. continued to be added to his credit card account and as a consequence, the said dues was going increased. So, in this way, despite making the payment of Rs.1,35,937/- an amount of Rs.85,614/- was still outstanding against the complainant. Hence, the complainant failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.

8.       In view of the above discussions, there is no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

Announced in Open Commission.