IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated this the 1st day of January, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 132/2018 (filed on 02-07-2018)
Petitioner : Venugopal S. Pillai,
Sudha Nivas, Ramapuram,
Keerikkadu P.O.
Alappuzha – 690508.
Vs.
Opposite Parties : 1) Manager,
HDFC Bank, Kottayam
Baker Jn. Branch,
CSI Cplx, Baker Jn,
Kottayam – 686001.
2) Manager,
HDFC bank Card Division,
Chennai Bank House No.8,
Old No. 160/161, L.B. Road,
Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai,
Tamil Nadu 600014.
(For Op1 and 2, Adv. V.K. Sathyavan Nair)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief of the complainant’s case is as follows.
The complainant opened an account with HDFC Bank on 04th May 2011. The 1st opposite party made the account as Joint Account by adding complainant’s wife. The first opposite party issued two Credit Cards in the name of the complainant and the other in the name of wife of the complainant with a credit limit of Rs.1 lakh each. The executive of the opposite parties offered the complainant attractive offers for the credit cards like interest free usage, free flight ticket, holiday trip hotel coupons, discount rated food at restaurants, free cinema tickets etc. As a result, the complainant used the credit cards. After a period the complainant realized that the opposite parties are looting him by more than 50% interest and many charges like late payment fee, over limit fee, overdue fee, bank direct remitting fee, membership fee, service tax etc. The complainant contacted the executives of the opposite party and requested them to stop the cards. But they failed to stop the card.
As per the card statement of the complainant from 14-10-2014 to 14-08-2017 the total purchase was Rs.1,25,478.55 and the complainant had remitted a total of Rs.1,94,387.29. This shows that an amount of Rs.68,908.74 was paid than availed and still the card statement shows that there is an outstanding balance of Rs.1,09,503.
In the second card also the situation is the same. An amount of Rs.59,862.80 more was paid in the second card, complainant had requested the Bank to cancel the card, immediately to stop any further charges. But bank officials insisted for clearing the outstanding dues. If there is a delay, then they will add all the above said fee, interest, compound interest etc. every month and that all get accumulated.’
The complainant filed this complaint seeking to call the records of the Bank, to order to set aside the excess amount credited by the above false patterns and to cancel both the credit cards by writing off all the dues and to direct the bank to file rectification statement by cancelling the exorbitant interest and unwanted charges. Hence this case.
On admission of the complaint, the copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the opposite parties, the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant neither hired any service nor has purchased any goods from the opposite parties. The relationship between the complainant and the opposite parties is that of a debtor and creditor based on a contract initiated by the credit card application submitted by the complainant.
The complainant and his wife had availed credit card facility from the opposite party. Both the cards were used for purchases, cash withdrawals and EMI transactions till December 2016 and July 2017 respectively. The bank was not in receipt of complete payment towards his card account since the inception and since 2015 March for the card in the name of Sana Venugopal. The applicable bank charges on the card accounts has been communicated through card user guide and schedule of charges sent along with the credit card. Since the complainant failed to make payment as per schedule he is liable to pay late fee and charges as per card agreement. On the request of the complainant his credit card was cancelled since 13-09-2017. No request has been received for the cancellation of the credit card of Sana Venugopal. This is only a question of clearance of arrear.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked. Opposite parties filed proof affidavit and marked documents Ext.B1 series, B2 series and B3 series.
On going through the complaint, version of the opposite parties and evidence on record, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether the complainant is a consumer of the opposite parties?
- Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Point No.1
Ongoing through the complaint, it is clear that the complainant and his wife had availed credit cards from the opposite parties with a credit limit of one lakh rupees each.
The main contention of the opposite parties are that the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite parties. The complainant has neither hired any service nor had purchased any goods from the opposite parties. He never availed any service from the opposite parties for consideration.
Section2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 reads as follows.
“consumer” means any person who-
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
The opposite party bank had issued credit cards to the complainant and his wife on their application with stipulated scheduling payment conditions. The complainant and his wife had agreed to make the payment on the due dates. This clearly shows that the complainant and his wife were issued with credit card by the opposite parties on the basis of the promise that they will pay the monthly credit card bills on the scheduled payment dates every month. Thus it is clear that the complainant had availed the service of the opposite party bank for a consideration which has been promised and complainant and his wife are consumers of the opposite party as per Section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act 1986.
Point No.2 and 3
On going through the complaint and version of the opposite parties and evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant had availed a credit card from the opposite parties in No.0001018920000049384 and complainant’s wife Sana Venugopal had availed a credit card from the opposite parties in No.00010135300012100781. The complainant had utilized the credit card from 01-10-2014. The credit card of the complainant was closed by the opposite parties on 13-09-2017 on request. As per the card statement dated 14-09-2017 the total dues on the complainant’s card was an amount of Rs.1,16,889.15.
The complainant’s wife Sana Venugopal utilized the credit card and as per the Ext.B1(C) the total dues on the credit card as on 12-09-2017 is Rs.1,13,536.29. Ext.A1 is the letter submitted to the 2nd opposite party by the complainant dated 20-08-2012.
In Ext.A1, the complainant had requested for a one time settlement for settle / closing the credit cards. Ext.A2 is the copy of the complaint submitted before the Banking Ombudsman against the opposite parties with regard to the two credit cards. Ext.A3 is the counter statement filed by the complainant before the Banking Ombudsman. Ext.A4 is the copy of the e-mail from Banking Ombudsman seeking to furnish the feedback / response to the Bank’s contention along with relevant documents, if any. Ext.A5 is the copy of the order of the Banking Ombudsman dated 28-02-2018. Ext.A6 is the copy of the appeal filed before the appellate authority, The Governor, Reserve Bank of India, Customer Education and Protection Department, Central office, Mumbai.
None of the above available evidence proves that the opposite parties have charged more than 50% interest on the credit card bills. Thus we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to prove deficiency of service from the opposite parties with cogent evidence. Point No.2 and 3 is not found in favour of the complainant. The case is dismissed.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 1st day of January, 2022.
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Letter dtd.20-08-2017 issued by petitioner to the 2nd opposite party
A2 – Complaint dtd.03-10-2017 given by the complainant to the Banking
Ombudsman
A3- Copy of counter statement dtd.11-12-17
A4 – Copy of e-mail from Banking Ombudsman
A5 – Copy of order dtd.28-02-18 from the Office of the Banking Ombusman
A6 – Copy of appeal filed before the Governor, RBI.
A7 – Copy of order dtd.23-04-2018 from RBI
A8 – Copy of credit card statement of Sana Venugopal
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – Copy of credit card brochure cum application from of Sana Venugopal
B 1(a) – Copy of HDFC Bank Credit Card Cardmember agreement
B1 (b)- Copy of most important terms and conditions (HDFC Bank)
B2 series– Copy of monthly statement of accounts along with certification (3 nos)
B3– Computer printout of statement of Venugopal Sivaramapillai
B3(a)- Computer printout of statement of Sana Venugopal
By Order
Senior Superintendent
