Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

365/2006

L.Panigrahi,M/S.Orissa Stevedors Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank,Manager & another - Opp.Party(s)

M/S.P.C.Charikumar

02 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   20.10.2005 
                                 Date of Order :   02.02.2017
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
     2nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT             
                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I
             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
C.C.NO. 365/2006
THURSDAY THIS  2nd  DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
L. Panigrahi, 
Branch In-charge, 
M/s. Orissa Stevedors Limited, 
New No.4, Old No.19, II Floor, 
Narayana Appan Street, 
Mannadi, Chennai 600 001.                 .. Complainant. 

                       ..Vs.. 
1. HDFC Bank, 
Rep. by its Branch Manager, 
Credit Card Division, 
Anna Salai, 
Chennai 600 002.  

2. HDFC Bank Limited, 
Rep. by its Chairman, 
4th Floor, Old Building, 
26-A Narayana Properties, 
Chandivali, Andheri East, 
Mumbai 400 072.                                           .. opposite parties. 

Counsel for the Complainant              :  M/s. P.C. Harikumar
Counsel for the opposite parties         :  M/s. Deepa Hari Govind 

ORDER
THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT 
    This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties   under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards deficiency in service and mental agony caused by the opposite party and also to pay cost of the complaint.   
1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows: 
     The complainant has got Savings bank account, credit card account and other accounts with the various banks at various places.   The complainant at any point of time, never approached the opposite party for any services either for credit card or any of the services offered by the opposite party.    While the fact is so on 9.6.2004, the complainant received a letter from the opposite party bearing No.001500/2004 1531 31625 dated 9.6.2004, through courier.   After opening the letter, the complainant was very much shocked and surprised and in fact he was unable to digest the contents of the letter, since in the said letter, the opposite party informed the complainant that as if he had applied for credit card to the opposite party  and the opposite party , after considering his application and financial status, reject the complainant’s application and thereby disapproved the credit card, since the complainant does not have credit standing or financial stability to the satisfaction of the opposite party.    
2.    The allegation contained in the said letter is amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.   Being the multi-national bank, they have a lot of infrastructure available in the banking institution and before sending the letter to any customer, first it is the foremost duty of the concerned officer to verify that whether the contents of the letter is reasonable and whether he is passing any defamatory statement against the customer.  But the said letter was issued by the opposite party in a lethargic manner and even without applying their mind.    
3.    As soon as the said letter was received, the complainant spoke to one Guruprasad, who is working in the opposite party’s bank and he has given evasive reply.   Hence the complainant has no other alternative except issuing a letter  on 24.6.2004, wherein the complainant categorically informed the opposite party that he had not offered any application for credit card.  In such circumstances, how the opposite party could have sent his sort of frivolous, vexatious and untenable letter to the complainant. 
4.    Hence the complainant has no other alternative except to cause legal notice to the opposite party on 10.7.2014, whereby demanded  a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards their unfair trade practice and deficiency in service and thereby caused dis-reputation to the complainant’s character in the officer as well as in the business place.   Hence the complaint. 
5. Written Version of  opposite parties are  in brief as follows: 
This opposite party herein after called the bank denies all allegations  save those that are specifically admitted herein.  During June 2004, the complainant had applied for a credit card with the bank and while furnishing the details required in the said application form, he had given his address as No.91/1, Chinmaya Nagar II Stage, Virugambakkam, Chennai 94 and that besides this information, the other information furnished were not matching with the actual details and there was a mismatch in the details furnished. 
6.    The bank without any intentions on their part and in a pleasing manner vide their letter dated 9.6.2004 informed the complainant their inability to offer him the credit card and that such non approval of the application, does not reflect his credit standing or his financial stability.  That this particular aspect of the letter about non approval of the credit card, has been taken in the wrong sense by the complainant resulting in the present complaint with false and untenable allegations, which are unwarranted.  
7.    Further the complainant having sustained no financial loss with the bank, had taken the letter in bad spirits, which indeed reiterated that it did not have any bearing on the financial ability of the complainant.   The complainant instead of ignoring the same, had made various advices, suggestions and allegations about the welfare of the employees of the bank, which is not germane to his alleged complaint.   
8.    The entire  complaint suffers infirmity and has absolutely no cause of action and mere legal notice served on the bank does not confer any better right to the complainant to seek redress before this Forum for the alleged mental agony and the question of deficiency does not arise in the case, as the offer made for credit card did not conclude into a contract and hence there was no concluded contract.   It is submitted that the compensation claimed by the complainant is beyond reasonable imagination and connected which is without any cogent evidence or material for it to be considered.  As it is settled principle  that there should be evidence on record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant.   In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected totally.        
9.       In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the opposite parties.  
10.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this 
        Forum is:   

1.     Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the  
     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?
11.  Point No.1
      On perusal of the evidence of the complainant it is learnt that without submitting any application by the complainant for services for credit card with the opposite party, the complainant received a letter on 9.6.2004 which  is marked as Ex.A1 through courier, with contents that the opposite party informed the complainant that as if he applied for credit card with the opposite party and after consideration an application and financial status rejected, the application and disapproved the credit card, since the complainant does not have credit standing or financial stability to the satisfaction of the opposite party.  In this regard the complainant has sent letter Ex.A2 to the opposite party but not any reply and therefore the complainant sent a legal notice Ex.A3 t the opposite party and even then the opposite party has not come forward to comply the demand of Ex.A2.   It is further narrated that the attitude of the opposite party is clearly leads to deficiency of service which caused unnecessary mental agony and hardship to the complainant. 
12.    On the other hand on going through the evidence of the opposite party it is stated that during June 2004 the complainant had applied for a credit card with the bank and in the application form given his full address and after due consideration of the application the bank without any intentions on their part  and in a pleasing manner Ex.A1 was sent to the complainant which does not reflect his credit standing or his financial stability and without any proof to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered to the complainant and has to be rejected totally. 
13.    At this juncture on careful perusal of the rival submissions put forth on either side it is crystal clear that the opposite party bank has sent Ex.A1 letter which read as follows: 
“We thank you for your recent application for an HDFC Bank credit card.  We have received your application thoroughly and regret our inability to offer you our card at this stage. ….
Please be assured that the non approval of the credit card application does not reflect on your credit standing or your financial stability. “
Ex.A1 is equitant to Ex.B1 which is one and the same.   In this circumstances,  it is pertinent to note that,  the opposite party is affirmed that there was an application sent by the complainant for issuance of credit card.  If it is so, the opposite party ought to have produced the said application before this forum in order to establish the averments mentioned both in his written version as well as in his proof affidavit.  But in spite of the complainant written a letter Ex.A2 and sent Ex.A3 legal notice, the opposite party has not come forward to explain the contentions, how it was happened.  Therefore, though the burden of proof shifted to the shoulder of the opposite party, the opposite party has not chosen to produce any relevant evidence or the application supposed to have submitted by the complainant  to the opposite party before this forum, which clearly shows that there is no such application submitted by the complainant for the service of the credit card from the opposite party bank.  
14.    At the outset, if for argument sake, it is taken as that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party  in the absence any contra as narrated by the  opposite party, but the attitude of the opposite party  sending of Ex.A1 without any official of the complaint clearly amounts for unfair trade practice  which certainly leads to deficiency of service and caused unnecessary mental agony and hardship to the complainant.   Therefore, the claim made by the complainant cannot be easily thrown out.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.  
15.    POINT No.2 
As per the decision arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties with cost. Thus the point No.2 is also answered accordingly. 
In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite parties  1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant.  
The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.        
         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  2nd   day  of  February 2017.  
 
MBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.
Complainant’s side documents: 
Ex.A1. 9.6.2004     - Copy of letter from the opposite party. 
Ex.A2- 24.6.2004    - Copy of reply to the opposite party from the complainant. 
Ex.A3- 10.7.2004    - Copy of the legal notice.  

Opposite parties’ side document: - 
Ex.B1- 9.6.2004    - Copy of letter from the opposite party. 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.