JUDGEMENT

          Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted that he received one HDFC Bank Credit Card Visa Gold 4346 7820 0103 3883 free of cost.  In the month of December-2012 along with their covering letter dated 21.12.2012 and as per Agreement Card was valid till December-2015 and most important terms and conditions issued by the HDFC Bank which was sent through courier to the complainant.

          During the first week of June-2013, in order to make payment of Medical Bill of his close relative, the said card was handed over to the cashier, however to his surprise the cashier was unable to swipe the same and being load shedding the cahier said that may be the swiping machine is malfunctioning.  So, the complainant paid the bill in cash.  During first week end of June-2013 he took few of his business associates to a restaurant for dinner and the said card was handed for making payment and the cashier of the restaurant was unable to swipe the same citing reason that the card is either inoperative and/or blocked and / or cancelled.  So, complainant was shocked to hear the same and was embarrassed in from of his business associates.

          However, complainant suffered a lot and was embarrassed in from of his business associates with no fault of the complainant.  Further he was unable to buy an electronic gadget with a limited discount period, nor he could avail an offer for discounted vacation.

          But allegation of the complainant that the bank had intentionally, arbitrarily and without any prior information to him had blocked and cancelled the said card, initially he tried to contact HDFC Bank’s representative over phone but he was unable to get any response.  Thereafter he visited HDFC Bank 4, Clive Row, Kolkata-700001 Branch along with the letter dated 26.06.2013 but they refused to accept and directed him to send the letter to HDFC Bank Card Division Chennai and in the above circumstances, complainant for harassment and embarrassment caused by such unfaithful act of the op sent notice to HDFC Bank Credit Card Division, Chennai which was received by the Bank on 03.07.2013 and the said letter dated 26.06.2013 issued to HDFC Bank regarding closure of his credit card effective from 31.05.2013 and he was completely shocked and practically privileges and services attached to my card membership have been withdrawn permanently effective 31.05.2013 and even assuming the letter dated 31.05.2013 was dispatched on same day by HDFC Bank, under no circumstances, he received the letter on the same date and in view of the above circumstances, it is unfair practice for which the complainant has filed this case for relief.

          On the other hand op by filing written version has submitted that complainant is guilty of suppression, misrepresentation and distortion of material facts.  But in course of the op bank’s investigation into the same did not bother to disclose the name and other details of the same as per the clause ‘ACCPTANCE’ as mentioned in the page no.5 of the Card Member Agreement and as per clause- the card member must note that the card will be honoured only when it carries the signature of the primary or add-on-cardmember, as applicable and the card will be normally be honoured by Merchant Establishment displaying the Visa/Master Card (as applicable) symbol, card promotional material or Visa/Mastercard as applicable symbol displayed on any premises are not a warranty that all goods and services available at those premises can be purchased on the card.

          It is also mentioned in the said clause that the bank is not responsible or liable for refusal by any Merchant to accept the Card for any reason whatsoever.  However, any Merchant/Bank refusal may be reported to the Bank, detailing the name of location, date and time of the transaction and other details that will assist the Bank in any investigations it may decide at its discretion to conduct.  Under the above circumstances, it was not possible for the op bank to unearth the actual position and it may kindly be noted that the complainant did not disclose the said vital information even before this Ld. Forum and this case is not tenable.

          Further it is submitted that complainant applied for a value plus credit card with the present op bank on 31.05.2007 and the op bank thereby issued the initial card No.4346772004230081 to the card holder in the year 2007 which remained un-used.  Then after some time the op bank issued a renewed-link-card to the card holder vide No.434677200423673 which also remained un-used for long.  In the same manner the op bank once again issued another renewed-link-card vide no.4346782000750586 that remained un-used in the same manner.  At present the card holder is holding the card no.4346782001033883 which is the latest renewed-link-card that was availed by the complainant in the year 2012 and this was also not used.  Such conduct of the complainant lead the concerned cards get blocked due to security reasons for non-usage.

          Since complainant never used the credit cards since 2007-12 and it was blocked in the year 2012.  No statement of account was generated as per terms Card Member Agreement, Most Important Terms And Conditions for using the credit card that in all the material point of time the Credit Card of the complainant was blocked due to continuous non-usage for security reasons and for the sake of protecting the customer interest.

          It is further alleged that the action of the op bank in blocking the complainant’s credit cards due to security reasons for long non-usage has in no way caused any prejudice to the complainant.  The complainant has avoided disclosing the names and other required details of the Merchant outlets where he had purportedly faced the alleged problem.  In this context it is further stated that the credit card account is not linked to any bank account, so, the contention of the complainant regarding any relation of the incidence of closure of the account of Smt Pushpa Devi Mohata as indicated in the complainant do not have relevance and for which the present complaint should be dismissed.

                                                     Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the argument and advanced by the parties and also considering the entire fact, it is clear that the complainant applied for Value Plus Credit Card with the present op bank on 31.05.2007 and bank already issued the initial card being No.4346772004230081 to the card holder in the year 2007, but that was found un-used for which op bank issued a renewed-link-card being No.4346771100423673 which also remained un-used for long time. So again op bank issued another renewed-link-card being No.434678000750586 that remained un-used in the same manner and subsequently the present card was issued being No.4346782001033883, it is the latest renewed-link-card that was availed by the complainant card holder in the year-2012 and this was also un-used and fact remains for continuous non-usage of the card since 2007-2012 for security reasons, the op bank locked the same with effect from 31.05.2013.

          Most interesting factor is that the latest card was issued on 21.12.2012 but that was not used till 31.05.2013 for 6 months for which it was blocked.  But present complainant used the card after 31.05.2013.  But he has not mentioned in which medical shop, he handed over it and that was not accepted.  It is also not stated for which restaurant that was placed and it was found blocked and fact remains as per conditions of the agreement, it is fact that complainant must have operated it from the date of issue within 6 months.  But truth is that since 2007 and till 31.05.2013, complainant did not use it.  So, for security reasons it was blocked.

          Another factor is that all the cards were issued free of cost and as because no transaction was made.  Then under any circumstances, complainant is not a consumer of the bank in view of the card, in view of the fact the card was used free of cost and when no transaction slip was generated then it can safely be said that the card was blocked rightly by the op bank for security reasons.

          Most interesting factor is that in the complaint no document is produced by the complainant to show that prior to 31.05.2013 he used the card by any means and it is admitted position that no transaction slip was generated for non-usage of the same , so non-usage of the same by the complainant is proved and it was not used within 6 months from the date of issuance.  At the same time complainant after receipt of the present card did not disclose the information as required as enumerated in the card usage guide and further the acceptance clause also is not applied by the complainant.  So, considering all the above fact and materials we have convinced to hold that as per terms and conditions of Card Member Agreement and Card Usage Guide, complainant did not act even after receipt of the same and it was not used for long period for which it was blocked on and from 31.05.2013.

          So, we are convinced to hold that after that complainant has no right to used the same and if actually complainant had desire to use it, he may report after receipt of the card and comply the guideline clause of Card Usage Guide Line “ Disclosure of the information and holding acceptance” but that had not been done.  So, considering all the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that for which complainant is not a consumer of the op and further the whole complaint is based on surmise and for some ill purpose it has filed and we have gathered that op bank had no fault when no account was generated for non-usage of the said credit card.  In the result we find that there is no merit in this complaint and practically complainant has failed to prove any negligency and deficiency on the part of the op, rather it is proved that op discharged their liability with all protections and rightly blocked the same for non-usage of the same since 2007 to 31.05.2012.

          Thus the complaint fails.

          Hence, it is

                                                          ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest with cost of Rs.2,000/- against the op and complainant shall have to pay the same to the op at once.