DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA

CC.No.404 of 09-08-2011

Decided on 25-11-2011

Sandeep Garg S/o Sh. Madan Lal Garg, Resident of H.No.5146, Cozy Home, Nai Basti, Gali No.6, Bathinda, aged about

 38 years. .......Complainant

Versus

1. HDFC Bank, G.T.Road, Bathinda, through its Branch Manager.

    

2. HDFC Bank Cards Division, P.O. Box 8654, Thiruvanmiyur, P.O. Chennai-600041, through its Manager.

......Opposite parties

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

QUORUM

Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President

Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member

Smt. Sukhwinder Kaur, Member

Present:-

For the Complainant: Sh. Vikas Singla, counsel for the complainant

For Opposite parties: Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite parties

ORDER

Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President:-

1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as an ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant is holding a credit card No.5243 6810 0038 6402 issued by the opposite parties with the credit limit upto Rs.2,17,000/-. The complainant has alleged that at the time of issuance of the said credit card, the bank had assured the complainant to supply the copies of the statement of account regularly but they have not been supplying the copies of the statement to him regularly rather the opposite parties have been imposing unnecessary charges upon the complainant from time to time including Cess Tax, interest/finance charges, hidden charges, late Fee etc and he was not satisfied with their services. He approached the opposite party No.1 repeatedly and also contacted on Customer Care number 01725056200 and 01725056230 on 20.04.2011 and 21.04.2011 respectively and has been requesting to provide the details of the charges imposed by the opposite parties but they did not supply any details rather the bank is demanding the huge amount from him although the same is not due against him. The complainant also tried to contact with the opposite parties on customer care number 18004254332 but they did not attend his calls. The complainant has further alleged that whenever, he used to purchase any policy, the opposite parties induced him to pay the amount in monthly installments with assurance that no finance/interest charges will be imposed but despite that the opposite parties have been imposing huge amount on account of finance charges upon the complainant. Since the opposite parties have failed to provide the adequate services to the complainant, he does not want to continue his dealings with the opposite parties and wants to surrender the aforesaid credit card. The complainant has stated that he is ready to make the payments of the dues against him if the opposite parties are ready to waive off the unnecessary charges imposed by them. The complainant has also issued a legal notice dated 21.06.2011 upon the opposite party No.1 in this regard, but to no effect. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint.

2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties after appearing before this Forum, have filed their joint written statement and pleaded that this complaint is barred by limitation and has taken the support of the case reported in 2002(2) CLT 105, 2009(2) CLT 541, 2003(2)CLT 491 and 2011 (1) CLT 262 (SC). The complainant obtained the credit card by submitting the application dated 21.09.2005 and charges were being levied from that date as per terms agreed upon. When the card dispatched to the customer, it is expressly understood that the moment, the card member signs on the reverse of the card or start using it, he/she would be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions set out in the Card Member Agreement. The Card Member Agreement along with Most Important Terms and conditions are delivered along with the Credit Card and the schedule of charges applicable are detailed in the MITC which fact cannot be denied by the customer. The opposite parties have further pleaded that the timely payment towards the card dues, is essential and it is a condition of Card 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 same is not paid within the payment due date, late payment fee and finance charges would be levied on the card account as specified in the tariff sheet 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. This is applicable for all the customers of the opposite parties bank including the complainant. The complainant is aware of all the terms and conditions regarding the same. On merits also, the opposite parties have denied that the statements of account are not being issued to the complainant regularly and the opposite parties are imposing unnecessary charges rather the complainant agreed for charging of various charges against the use of said credit card. The complainant signed the same of his own accord after fully understanding the terms and conditions including various charges and agreed to be bound by the same. The complainant was fully aware of the charges and interest being charged from the very beginning. The complainant has been very irregular in making the payments. The opposite parties have pleaded that the interest free period for a purchase in any statement period will apply if the outstanding balance on the card account for the previous statement period is paid in full by its due date. If the outstanding balance on the card account, is not paid in full by its due date, finance charge will be levied on any new purchase and any related debited charge from the day on which the purchase is transacted on the card account and on the outstanding account balance on the card account from the 1^st day of last statement period. As on 06.08.2011, a sum of Rs.16,881.20 is due and recoverable from the complainant. All the transactions against the credit card account are shown in the statements. The complainant has availed 3 cash on call loan facilities vide No.1271255, 1272352 and 885807 for a sum of Rs.33,000/-, Rs.40,500/- and Rs.60,000/- in August, 2008 & August, 2007 respectively. Further, the customer also availed a Dial An EMI Loan vide No.2665740 for a sum of Rs.5,589/- in November, 2010 from the Bank.

Details of Loans:-

The opposite parties have further pleaded that the repayment of monthly installments of the aforesaid cash on call loans facilities were debited from credit card as per terms and conditions. The complainant has utilized the credit card facilities many times but did not deposit the used amount in stipulated period and he has been defaulter to maintain credit card facilities. He has violated the terms and conditions the card agreement. So, the Bank has the right to pre-close the loan account due to non-receipt of regular payments and the said terms and conditions are mentioned in detailed in card member booklet on Page-20 under the “Installment Programs” sub heading “Personal Loan” clause “F” & “H”. The charges will be levied on the out standing balance in case the arrears are not paid in full.

3. Parties have led their evidence in support of their respective pleadings.

4. Arguments heard. Record alongwith written submissions submitted by the parties perused.

5. The complainant is holding a credit card No.5243 6810 0038 6402 with credit limit upto Rs.2,17,000/-. The complainant has alleged that the opposite parties have not been regularly providing the copies of the statements and have been imposing unnecessary charges upon the complainant from time to time including Cess Tax, interest/finance charges, hidden charges, Late Fee etc and the complainant is not satisfied with their services. The complainant has further submitted that he has been repeatedly approaching and contacting the opposite party No.1 on Customer Care number 01725056200 and 01725056230 on 20.04.2011 and 21.04.2011 respectively for providing the details of charges imposed by the opposite parties but they did not supply any details. He has also tried to contact the opposite parties on customer care number 18004254332 but they had not attended his calls. The complainant has further submitted that whenever, he used to purchase any policy, the opposite parties induced him to pay the amount in monthly installments with assurance that no finance/interest charges will be imposed but despite that the opposite parties have been imposing huge amount on account of finance charges upon the complainant. The opposite parties have failed to provide the adequate services to the complainant and he does not want to continue his dealings with the opposite parties and wants to surrender the aforesaid credit card. He is also ready to make the payments of the dues against him if the opposite parties are ready to waive the unnecessary charges imposed upon him. The complainant has also sent a legal notice dated 21.06.2011 to the opposite party No.1.

6. The opposite parties have taken the legal objections that the present complaint is barred by limitation as the complainant has obtained the credit card by submitting the application dated 21.09.2005 and charges were being levied from that date as per terms agreed upon. When the card dispatched to the customer, it was understood that the moment, the card member signs on the reverse of the card or start using it, he would be deemed to have accepted the terms and conditions set out in the Card Member Agreement. The Card Member Agreement along with Most Important Terms and conditions are delivered along with the Credit Card and the schedule of charges applicable are detailed in the MITC and the timely payment towards the card dues, is essential and its condition of Card 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 same is not paid within the payment due date, late payment fee and finance charges will be levied on the card account as specified in the tariff sheet and is subject to change at the discretion of HDFC Bank. The opposite parties have further argued that the non-payment of card dues shall also render the card member liable to risk of instant withdrawal of the Card Membership without prior notice. This is applicable for all the customers of the opposite parties bank including the complainant. The complainant is aware of all the terms and conditions regarding the same. The opposite parties have been giving the statements of account regularly to the complainant and are imposing the charges as agreed. The complainant signed the same after fully understanding the terms and conditions including various charges and agreed to be bound by the same. The complainant was fully aware of the charges and interest being charged from the very beginning. The complainant has been very irregular in making the payments. The interest free period for a purchase in any statement period will apply if the outstanding balance on the card account for the previous statement period is paid in full by its due date. If the outstanding balance on the card account, is not paid in full by its due date, finance charge will be levied on any new purchase and any related debited charge from the day on which the purchase is transacted on the card account and on the outstanding account balance on the card account from the 1^st day of last statement period. On 06.08.2011, a sum of Rs.16,881.20 is due and recoverable from the complainant. All the transactions against the credit card account are shown in the statements. The complainant has availed 3 cash on call loan facilities vide No.1271255, 1272352 and 885807 for a sum of Rs.33,000/-, Rs.40,500/- and Rs.60,000/- in August, 2008 & August, 2007 respectively. The customer also availed a Dial An EMI Loan vide No.2665740 for a sum of Rs.5,589/- in November, 2010 from the Bank. The detail has been given in above mentioned previous paras. The repayment of monthly installments of the aforesaid cash on call loans facilities were debited from credit card as per terms and conditions. The complainant has utilized the credit card facilities many times but did not deposit the used amount in stipulated period and he has been defaulter to maintain credit card facilities. He has violated the terms and conditions of the card agreement. The Bank has the right to pre-close the loan account due to non-receipt of regular payments and the said terms and conditions are mentioned in detailed in card member booklet on Page-20 under the “Installment Programs” sub heading “Personal Loan” clause “F” & “H”. The charges will be levied on the out standing balance in case the arrears are not paid in full. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant had remained silent for the period of 6 years and had been using the card for 6 years without making any complaint regarding non-issuance of the statements.

   The opposite parties have further submitted that they have been providing the loan account statement regularly and loan account statement vide Ex. C-12 and Ex. R-15 has been placed on file by the complainant which shows that from the very beginning, the charges are being levied regularly. The opposite parties have further argued that the burden of proving the deficiency in service is on the person who alleges it and has taken the support of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case cited in 2000(1) CLT 33(SC). The complainant has himself placed on file Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-6 which shows that the complainant was getting regular statements of account. The complainant signed credit card application Ex. R-12 and even signed the declaration that he is bound by terms and conditions of the card and regarding charges of the bank from time to time. The most important terms and conditions containing various charges Ex.R-14 and Ex.R-11 i.e. usage guide is provided to the customer. The legal notice issued by the complainant, was duly replied by the opposite parties.

7. These are undisputed facts between the parties that the complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite parties bearing No. 5243 6810 0038 6402 having credit limit upto Rs. 2,17,000/-. His allegation is that the opposite parties are not supplying to him account statements regularly and imposing un-necessary charges from time to time including Cess Tax, Interest/Finance Charges, Hidden Charges, late fee etc., On the other hand the pleadings of the opposite parties is that the complainant has signed credit card application Ex. R-12 and even signed a declaration therein and hence, he is bound by the terms and conditions of the card. Despite this, the objections of the opposite parties are that complainant is barred by limitation and this Forum cannot adjudicate the matter in controversy as it relates rendition of accounts and pricing of services by bank. In this regard, the opposite parties have taken support of the cases reported in 2003(1) CLT 337 (NC), 460 (NC), 2002(2) CLT 105 (SC), 2009(2) CLT 541, and 2011 (1) CLT 262 (SC) for limitation.

8. A perusal of Ex. R-12 reveals that complainant has signed the credit card application on 21-09-2005 accepting the terms and conditions of the card. The complainant has produced Ex. C-1 but has concealed the back portion of Ex. C-1 and has not produced that on file. The back side of card Ex. R-17 has been produced by the opposite parties, shows that the usage of card, itself amounts to accepting the terms and conditions. The relevant portion written at the back side of Ex. R-17 is reproduced as under :-

   “...The use of this card is governed by the terms and conditions of ICICI Bank’s Credit Card Agreement...”

   Moreover, as per general practice of the banks, the Usage Guide and other terms and conditions are always provided by the bank alongwith the card itself. Accordingly, in the present case, Usage Guide is Ex. R-11 which contains all the terms and conditions of the card of the complainant. Hence, this Forum is of the view that the customer/complainant is bound by the terms and conditions which he has signed while obtaining the ATM/Credit Card.

9. A perusal of credit card Ex. C-1 shows that complainant obtained the credit card in 10/2005 valid upto 03/2012. As per Ex. R-15 the complainant was getting the statements and was making the payments as per those statements till he turned defaulter in making the payments. The charges i.e. finance charges, late fee, cess tax etc. have been levied by the opposite parties since from the date of issuance of card. The statement Ex. R-15 is of 73 pages. From the second page onwards of this statement, it has been shown that the complainant is paying the amount as per account statement provided to him from time to time. The charges i.e. finance charges, late fee, cess tax etc. have been levied by the opposite parties since from the date of issuance of card and the complainant has been paying the same and the matter regarding such charges was already in his knowledge since then. Hence, the cause of action arose to the complainant in the year 2005 when he firstly paid the amount of such charges. Thus, this complaint is barred by limitation. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case titled 2009(2) CLT 541 State Bank of India Vs. B S Agricultural Industries (1) wherein it has been held :-

   “..(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24A – Limitation -Cause of action to the complainant accrued on June 7,1994 and complaint filed on 5-5-1997 – Neither application for condonation of delay nor any sufficient cause shown – The question of condonation of delay in filing the complaint does not arise – Complaint barred by time and ought to have been dismissed as such – The appeal allowed – The order of Fora below liable to be set aside and complaint dismissed as time barred.”

9. The next contention of the opposite parties is that the present case is relating to the pricing of the service by the bank which cannot be tried and adjudicated by the Consumer Fora under the ’Act’. A perusal of documents placed on file by the parties reveals that in the present case, the matter in controversy is regarding the pricing of banking services i.e. imposition of different charges by the bank on the credit card user i.e. the complainant. Hence, this Forum is of the view that the matter in controversy cannot be adjudicated by this Consumer Fora. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case titled Archana M. Kamath Vs. Canara Bank and others, 2003(2)CLT 267 wherein it has been held:-

   “Banking service – Cheques – MICR cheques – Imposition of Bank charges for supply of – Order of National Commission holding that question relating to pricing of such services are not within jurisdiction of the Forums upheld.”

10. . The last contention of the opposite parties is that the matter involved in the present case is regarding rendition of accounts. A scrutiny of documents placed on file, reveals that the matter in dispute between the parties is regarding charges, which as per complainant are not leviable and he alleged that he is not entitled to pay the same whereas the pleading of the opposite parties is that they have been charging the same since from the date of issuance of card and he is liable to pay the same. Hence, this Forum is of the view that the case in hand is regarding rendition of accounts, which cannot adjudicated in summary procedure by this Forum as voluminous, detailed and elaborated evidence is required. The support can be sought by the precedent laid down by Hon’ble H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla, in case titled Manmohan Sharma, Proprietor Novelty General Store Vs Dhillon Kool Drinks and Other, 2009(3)CLT 487, wherein it has been held:-

    “Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 14 – Summary jurisdiction – Dispute regarding settlement of accounts – Appellant complainant alleges to have sent a particular amount by way of bank drafts and the respondents having not supplied the goods of the value thereof – Appellant claims for refund of a particular amount under different heads – Respondents do not admit what is alleged by the appellant – Dispute between the parties prima facie appears to be a case of rendition/settlement of accounts which cannot be sorted out in the summary proceedings under the CP Act – Dismissal of complaint by District Forum upheld subject to the direction that appellant if so advised will be free to approach the Civil Court for grant of admissible relief, if any, as per law.”

11. Therefore, in view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is liable to be dismissed on various grounds as detailed above, hence it is dismissed without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Authority for redressal of his grievances, if so advised and permitted by law.

    A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record.

Pronounced in open Forum

25-11-2011

(Vikramjit Kaur Soni)

President

(Amarjeet Paul)

Member

(Sukhwinder Kaur)

Member