Versus
- HDFC Bank Card Division, #8, L.B. Road, Thiruvanmlyur, Chennai-600041 through its Authorized Person.
- HDFC Bank Card Division, SCO-65, 2nd Floor, Urban Estate, Phase-11, Dugri, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager/Authorized Person. …..Opposite parties
Complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
QUORUM:
SH. SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER
SH. MONIKA BHAGAT, MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:
For complainant : Sh. Atul Sood, Advocate.
For OPs : Exparte.
ORDER
PER SANJEEV BATRA, PRESIDENT
1. Briefly stated, the facts of the complaint are that the complainant had availed the credit card facility named Ragalia Master Card having card No.5522606100642851 from the OPs and made the payment of bills from time to time after usage. The complainant stated that on 01.04.2022 he purchased one mobile and amount of Rs.30,000/- was entered by the OPs in statement of account vide loan No.79392407 on 04.04.2022 and said loan was converted in equated monthly installments. The complainant further stated that as per general practices, the Ops should credit the amount in his account and after that the OPs should have started deducting the monthly installments from his credit card account but they intentionally and deliberately did not credit the amount of Rs.30,000/- in his credit card rather started deducting the monthly installments from bank account. Although the amount of Rs.30,000/- had already been debited from his account on 01.04.2022. Moreover, the OPs are deducting EMIs at a higher rate from the complainant and had not credited the loan amount in his account. The complainant visited the branch of the OPs but nobody paid any heed to his genuine requests and the OPs failed to refund the amount to the complainant. The complainant further stated that due to fault of the OPs, double entry is being shown in his account statement and still an amount of Rs.46,251/- is shown outstanding against him despite the fact that he had paid regular installments to the OPs from April 2022 to October 2022. Even the amount of Rs.30,000/- has been converted into loan to which regular installments have been paid by the complainant but the OPs are showing Rs.46,251/- pending against the complainant. In September 2022 when the complainant contacted the OPs, then they refused to refund the amount rather blocked his credit card. The complainant claimed to have suffered mental agony, financial loss etc on account of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant sent a legal notice through his counsel Sh. Ripudhaman Matkan, Advocate to the OPs but to no effect. In the end, the complainant has prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.30,000/- and to withdraw the demand of Rs.46,251/- being illegal. The complainant also prayed for issuing direction to the OPs to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.15,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Upon notice, none appeared on behalf of the OPs despite service and as such, the OPs were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 01.02.2023 and 26.04.2023 respectively.
3. In support of his claim, the complainant tendered his affidavit Ex. CA in which he reiterated the allegations and the claim of compensation as stated in the complaint. The complainant also tendered documents Ex. C1 is the copy of legal notice dated 10.08.2022, Ex. C2 is the copy of account statement dated 02.03.2022, Ex. C3 is the copy of Aadhar card of the complainant and closed the evidence.
4. We have heard the arguments of the counsel for the complainant and also gone through the complaint, affidavit and annexed documents produced on record by the complainant.
5. Due to absence of the OPs, the uncontroverted facts that emerges from the pleadings and evidence produced on record by the complainant that the complainant, a holder of Ragalia Master Card credit card No.5522606100642851, purchased one mobile on 01.04.2022 by using the said credit card and an amount of Rs.30,000/- was entered by the OPs in his account vide loan No.79392407 on 04.04.2022. This fact is reflected from account statement Ex. C2. The said amount of Rs.30,000/- was converted into loan by the OPs and fixed EMIs against the said loan amount and also started deducting EMIs from the account of the complainant. Although the complainant paid the EMI towards the loan amount but the OPs did not adjust the same in his credit card and showed a balance of Rs.46,251/- as against the complainant. Further the perusal of account statement Ex. C2 dated 02.09.2022 shows that the OPs showed total dues as Rs.43,196/- in his credit card usage and also showed a balance principal outstanding of Rs.13,830.67 as well as balance interest payable Rs.522.54 against the loan amount of Rs30,000/- as on 02.09.2022 itself. In his pleadings, the complainant claimed that he had paid regular installments to the OPs from April 2022 to October 2022 and nothing is due against him regarding the loan amount. In September 2022 he contacted the OPs to refund of his money received by them under the garb of loan amount but they refused to refund the amount. Even the legal notice dated 10.08.2022 Ex. C1 failed to evoke any response from the OPs. Moreover, the exparte evidence of the complainant has gone unrebutted and uncontroverted. As such, the act and conduct of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it would be just and appropriate if the OPs are directed to overhaul the credit card account of the complainant up to date along with waiver of penal charges and unblocking of credit card and also to pay composite cost of Rs.5,000/-.
6. As a result of above discussion, the complaint is partly allowed exparte with direction to the OPs to overhaul the credit card account of the complainant up to date by notionally crediting the amount of Rs.30,000/- as on 04.04.2022 and to waive of consequential penal charges within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. The OPs are further directed to unblock the credit card and also to pay a composite costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
7. Due to huge pendency of cases, the complaint could not be decided within statutory period.
(Monika Bhagat) (Jaswinder Singh) (Sanjeev Batra) Member Member President
Announced in Open Commission.
Dated:02.02.2024.
Gobind Ram.
