DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/ 146/2014
No. DF/Central/
Sh. Hari Ram Yadav
R/o H. No. RZ -668,
Block-K,
Power Line, West Gopal Nagar,
Phase-II , Najafgarh,
New Delhi -110043
……..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
HDFC Bank Ltd.
Through its Manager
Office at: Express Building
Bhadurshah Zafar marg,
New Delhi-110001
..…..OPPOSITE PARTY
ORDER
Rekha Rani, President
- Sh. Hari Ram Yadav ( in short the Complainant ) has filed the instant complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (in short the Act) as amended upto date alleged therein that he was having a savings bank account no. 04381570002920 at HDFC bank , Thana Road, Najafgarh, New Delhi ( in short the OP). One representative of the OP bank contacted the complainant telephonically and offered him loan and credit card facility which complainant refused. One day the complainant was shocked to receive a credit card no.
-
- On receipt of notice of the instant complaint OP appeared and contested the claim vide its written statement. It is stated that complainant had specifically requested for the issuance of credit card and accordingly credit card no. 4617863000272151 was issued to the complainant on 31.03.2010 with an add-on card in the name of Omwati. It is also stated that complainant while applying for the said credit card agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement pursuant to which credit card was issued to him. It is submitted that use of the credit card by the complainant is deemed acceptance of the terms and conditions. It is further submitted that details of the payment of fees and service charges, interest, payment and monthly repayments to card member’s card account, statement of account, details as to Lien and right of set off etc are explained in the card member agreement. Further it is submitted that complainant made various cash retail transactions using his credit card which are reflected in monthly statements which were issued to the complainant. It is stated that complainant was irregular in making payments towards his credit card account and despite repeated reminders he failed to clear the dues. It is also stated that on the complainant’s request the said loan facility was pre-closed on
-
- Both sides have adduced evidence by way of affidavits and we have heard Sh. Sunil Aggarwal counsel for the OP and have perused the case file.
- Complainant has alleged that matter was settled between the parties fully and finally for a sum of Rs. 19,300/- and he accordingly paid Rs. 15,000/- on 14.02.2013 , Rs. 3200/- on 13.05.2013 and Rs 1100/- on 18.05.2013 to the OP.
- Learned counsel for OP has vehemently disputed that matter was ever settled between the parties. Learned counsel for OP has drawn our attention to Delhi Govt. Mediation & Conciliation report dated 21.08.2015 which indicates that matter was not settled between the parties before the mediation center.
- Complainant submits that he did not apply for any credit card facility with OP and OP on its own credited an amount of Rs. 22,000/- in his credit card account no. 4617863000272151. Per contra Learned counsel for the OP has drawn our attention to Credit Card Brochure-cum- Application form which is stated to have been duly signed by the complainant in Hindi on the date 25-03-2010. He has further drawn our attention to another document titled most important document available at page 12 of case file which is also stated to have been signed by the complainant. Learned counsel for OP has also drawn our attention to its reply dated 29/07/2010 available at page 89 of the case file which is in reference to the complainant’s letter dated 22.07.2010. The reply reads that auto debit facility was activated on his credit card based on his request made at the time of applying for the credit card and auto pay facility was activated on his card account to debit his savings bank account no. 04381570002920 available with the bank for the total amount due in his credit card account on monthly basis and therefore the payment was debited from his savings bank account. It was also stated that cash on call loan facility was processed by the OP on the request of the complainant on 03/06/2010 after verifying his signatures available in Bank records with the documents received.
7. Learned counsel for OP has argued that complaint is made with respect to an amount of Rs. 22,500/- allegedly credited in account of complainant way back on 04.06.2010 whereas the complaint was filed on 30.04.2014. It is argued that if the complainant received an amount from the OP without his consent he should have protested and not waited for four years.
- Complainant has not placed on record any settlement which was allegedly arrived at between the parties according to which he was liable to pay Rs. 19300/- only to the OP. It was argued on behalf of the complainant that he neither signed any application nor any documents for availing credit card facility from the OP. OP has placed on record credit card application form which is stated to have been signed by the applicant/ complainant on the date 25.03.2010. Complainant however stated that he did not sign any document. Signatures of Hari Ram Yadav in Hindi with date 25.03.2010 appears on Credit Card Brochure cum Application Form.
- This forum in summary proceedings cannot adjudicate whether the signatures of Hari Ram Yadav bearing date 25.03.2010 on the credit card Brochure- cum -application form are actually of the complainant or not. In Oriental Insurance Company ltd Vs Munimahesh Patel , IV
(2006) CPJ 1 (SC) a Civil Appeal No. 4091 of 2006 was filed before the Apex Court against judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi (in short the commission). The commission had upset the order of the State Commission and held that the appellant (insurance company) was liable to payRs 5 lacs with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of complaint. The commission accepted that there was no dispute regarding the genuineness of the insurance policy but it noted that there was dispute about disclosure made in the proposal form. It accepted that she was not employed as statedin the proposal form. Commission did not consider it necessary to go into that question and held that though there may have been some information given which had no relation with the actual state of affairs, yet the factum of the accident resulting in death and policy was not in dispute and, therefore, the claim of the complainant was allowed. Appellant had brought on record a copy of the proposal form in which the complainant was shown as a teacher. It was specific stand of the appellant that there was concealment of fact regarding the occupation of the complainant’s wife the insuredin the proposal form and complainant was not entitled to any relief. Hon’ble Apex Court held that commission was not justified to deal with the matter in view of disputed factual position. Hon’ble Apex Court observed:
“10. Proceedings before the Commission are essentially summary in nature and adjudication of issues which involve disputed factual questions
should not be adjudicated. It is to be noted that Commission accepted that insured was not a teacher. Complainant raised dispute about genuineness of the documents (i.e. proposal forms) produced by the appellant.
11.The Commission having accepted that there was wrong declaration of the nature of occupation of the person insured, should not have granted the relief in the manner done.
12. The nature of the proceedings before the Commission as noted above, are essentially in summary nature. The factual position was required to be established by documents.
Commission was required to examine whether in view of the disputed facts it would exercise the jurisdiction. The State Commission was right in its view that the complex factual position requires that the matter should be examined by an appropriate Court of Law and not by the Commission.”
10. Proceedings before this forum being summary in nature it cannot be adjudicated whether signatures of Hari Ram Yadav with date 25.03.2010 appearing on the Credit Card Brochure- cum- application form are of the complainant or not. But there is substance in the plea of the OP that having used the credit card complainant cannot dispute the same. Complainant has failed to prove that OP agreed to settle his dues fully & finally at Rs. 19,300/- and on receipt of the same agreed to issue NOC. The complaint is accordingly dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 09th Day of July 2018.
