Delhi

North East

CC/417/2011

Anchit Kumar Bansal - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC(0395) - Opp.Party(s)

25 May 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 417/11

 

In the matter of:

 

	Anchit Kumar Bansal K-22/7-A, North Ghonda K- Block, Near Hansraj Dairy Gali No.10, Delhi-110053.	Complainant
	Versus
	HDFC (0395) C-1 / 14-A, Yamuna Vihar, Delhi-110053.	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:               DATE OF DECISION      :

13.12.2011 16.05.2018 25.05.2018

 

 

N.K. Sharma, President

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

Ravindra Shankar Nagar, Member

Order passed by Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, Member

 

ORDER

1. Case of the complainant is that he had opened a savings bank account bearing No. 03951000127213 with OP on 03.05.2011. On the basis of the above, a credit card bearing No. 4346 7810 1335 6506 was issued to him by OP after about three months (in August 2011), whose credit limit was Rs. 20,000/-. It has been intimated that the very next day of receipt of the above credit card, calls started coming for taking insurance policy to which the complainant refused but there call from a lady, who informed that she is speaking from head office of OP at Mayapuri, Delhi informing the complainant that he will to take the policy, otherwise his credit card would be deactivated. The complainant has stated that there would be no benefit of card, if the limit of card is reduced on taken the policy to which he was told that the policy would be issued on behalf of the card and rest of the details would be explained by the  executive to the complainant who would be coming to the complainant to give details about the offer. It has been further stated that a boy was sent who introduced himself as Manoj Kumar from Karawal Nagar who told the complainant about a scheme wherein it was stated that Rs. 1,250/- per month shall be payable and the total premium will be Rs. 15,000/- annually and the complainant can take this policy by submitting he relevant documents so that his policy could be activated. It has been stated by the complainant that he had initially refused to submit the documents but the boy pressurized him with the offer and as such the complainant had to submit the documents duly signed by him but the complainant categorically told the executive of OP that policy should not be activated till he visits the OP Bank. However, the very next day there was a message on mobile of the complainant of shopping amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and therefore the complainant immediately called the boy named Deepak who had opened his account and also called up customer care which informed the complainant that the complainant had done shopping some shopping to which complainant replied in the negative since he had taken the card for the first time and did not even know how to operate it and did not have its PIN number, so it was not possible to do any shopping through it. Thereafter, the customer care asked the complainant whether the above card should be deactivated to which the complainant agreed and the said card was blocked. After words there was a call from the same lady of the Bank, who had earlier called from Mayapuri Office of OP asking the complainant as to why the card was blocked when the money deducted from the card was towards the policy payment to which the complainant asked the lady as to why the policy was issued in the first place when the complainant had refused for it till he visits the OP bank himself. The lady stated that he does not have to make the payment of the policy immediately and there would be a letter and statement after which the complainant has to make the payment and his card is being reactivated. The complainant has stated that he had again refused for reactivation of his card and asked for discontinuation of the policy. But the lady stated that the policy would not be cancelled and she will file an appeal in the network. The lady gave her name as well as mobile number and informed that in case the complainant has any query, he should speak with her but due to complainant’s mobile gone defective, her details got deleted. Thereafter on the next day, the complainant visited the HDFC Bank Yamuna Vihar and explained the entire issue to the Manager who asked the complainant to write an application for cancellation of the policy and drop it in the ATM box and the complainant would get reply thereto within 15 days since the policy department does not pertain to them. Accordingly the complainant dropped the letter in the ATM box which had not yet been replied to till date. The complainant has further stated that he had called different persons on phone number 2266682666 on different dates and it was stated that the policy department does not belong to them and his work would be done as per his request. Thereafter the complainant received a statement from OP wherein he was directed to deposit Rs. 15,219.50 Paise by 06.10.2011 regarding which he visited the customer at Karkardoma on 06.10.2011 where he was given a duplicate copy of receiving Rs. 15,000/- and was told that the policy would not be cancelled as it was too late for it and in case he wants to cancel the policy, he can do so by depositing Rs. 15,000/- which shall be refunded to him after 10 years. In case he does not deposit the amount the complainant would be declared as defaulter and he will have to deposit more money and the policy would not be cancelled. Thereafter, when the complainant stated that he wanted to take the policy, he was informed by customer care officials to regularly deposit Rs. 1250/- per month. It was further stated that the payment of Rs. 1250/- would be made from his ATM card for the current year and from the next year he can deposit in cash. The complainant has stated that thereafter he deposited Rs. 1250/- each on 22.10.2011, 05.11.2011 and 05.12.2011 with OP through transfers. A statement was sent to the complainant on 16.11.2011 by OP wherein he was asked to deposit Rs. 14,118.10 Paise by 06.12.2011, after adjusting Rs. 1250/- on 22.10.2011 and Rs. 1250/- on 05.11.2011 (as credited in the account of OP). Contrarily though, he was informed by OP at the time of giving the policy that only Rs. 210/- would be charged on an amount of Rs. 15,000/- payable towards the policy and there would be no other charges levied for one year on the credit card as the policy is being issued on behalf of the card. It has been further stated by the complainant that he has been directed to pay the amount and also to pay the interest and the policy would not be cancelled. Keeping in view the above, the complainant has filed the present complaint and has prayed before this Forum that directions be issued to OP that the above policy should be cancelled and the money deposited by him with OP should be refunded to him and further the credit card should be deactivated, if active as he has already deposited the dues/fees of the said credit card amounting to Rs. 551.50/- on 16.06.2011.

Complainant has annexed copies of payment of Rs. 1250/- made on 22.10.2011, 05.11.2011 and 05.12.2011, copy of receipt of Rs. 15,000/- dated 29.08.2011 vide credit card No. 4346 7810 1335 6506 as initially deposit towards proposal /policy, copy of credit card statement dated 06.10.2011 amounting to Rs. 15,219.50 Paise wherein membership fee/ policy premium charges are levied by OP, copy of credit card statement dated 06.12.2011 amounting to Rs. 14,118.10 Paise and a copy of policy HDFC Life bearing No. 14574623 dated 31^st August 2011 in the name of the complainant for sum assured of Rs. 1,50,000/- and installment premium of Rs. 15,000/- payable for ten years issued by HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, New Delhi-110019.

2. Notice was issued against the OP for appearance and OP entered appearance on 19.01.2012. Written statement was filed by the OP on 09.03.2012 wherein OP took the preliminary objection that the services of the OP did not suffer from any deficiency and the OP had rightly demanded the payment from the complainant and the same does not amounts to deficiency in service and therefore the present complaint against the OP is not maintainable. The OP stated that the complainant had been erratic in making the payment due from him to OP and he has been a habitual defaulter. Further OP stated that the complainant was earlier having credit card no. 4346781013356506 of the OP bank issued to him on his application but the above card was blocked on 30.08.2011 on the request of the complainant and a fresh card bearing                                 no. 4346781013433206 was generated and outstanding of the previous card were transferred to the said new card. Further since the complainant was availing the credit facility of the OP subject to term and condition of the card member agreement which was issued to him alongwith the credit card, he had agreed to be bound by the same at the time of making application for the credit card and that the use of credit card by the complainant is deemed acceptance of the terms and conditions. In addition to above it has been submitted by the OP that complainant was aware of the charges applicable to him when he was issued the credit card and as per the terms and conditions of the credit card, the OP is entitled to levy charges for revolving on the credit facility, for delayed payments, for exceeding credit limit, including other charges as provided therein. Further OP submitted that the complainant entered into various cash retail transactions using his credit card and he was very irregular in making payments towards his credit card account and despite repeated reminders, he failed to clear the dues. In addition to above the OP urged for dismissal of the complaint on grounds of non-joinder of parties since the complainant had purchased insurance policy which is the subject matter of dispute from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd which is a separate and distinct corporate entity different from OP bank and the credit card issued by the OP bank was only a medium of payment of premium for the said insurance policy of which OP was not a beneficiary and the complainant has failed to make the above said insurance company as a party to the dispute and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Further, OP denied the allegations of the complainant in his complaint that he was compelled to purchase insurance policy or that he did not know how to operate credit card and was not in knowledge of PIN number thereof. OP also denied averments of complainant for request of cancelation of insurance policy or denial of reissuance of credit card or payment of premium as per his convenience through credit card/ cash. Lastly OP stated that the charges included in the statement were not towards the insurance policy and the same are late fee and finance charges for nonpayment of credit card, dues and the same are as per the terms and condition contained in the card member agreement that was sent to the complainant alongwith the credit card.  
3. Rejoinder to the written statement of OP was filed by the complainant wherein most of the averments made by the OP in its written statement were denied and it was stated that the complainant had never swiped the credit card and never applied for obtaining any alleged policy and in fact the aforesaid policy had been issued in the name of the complainant fraudulently without obtaining his consent and from the conduct of the OP and HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd, it is apparent that they both are in collusion with each other and are indulged in the unfair trade practices. Further the complainant stated that all the documents pertaining to the credit card were in English language and the complainant does not know to understand the meaning of English language. In addition to above the complainant urged that the credit card has never been swiped or used by the complainant in any manner at any point of time and therefore the question of paying any charges with regard to the same does not arise at all.
4. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the OP wherein OP reiterated its defence as stated in the written statement and exhibited GPA by OP in favour of deponent/ AR, copy of Credit Card Brochure Cum Application Form dated 02.08.2011 signed by the complainant alongwith other relevant documents, card usage guide, copies of credit card statements of September 2011 to January 2012, unit linked proposal form of HDFC Life/ policy duly signed by the complainant dated 27.08.2011 alongwith cover note.
5. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant wherein complainant reiterated his grievance raised in his complaint and also exhibited Policy no. 14574623, ATM transaction record slip dated 22.10.2011, 05.11.2011, 05.12.2011, receipt number AYE92163 dated 29.08.2011, credit card statement dated 06.10.2011 and 06.12.2011 and copy of voter ID card.
6. Written arguments were filed by both the parties. In written arguments filed by the complainant, the complainant delineated the grievance raised by him in his complaint and evidence by way of affidavit and filed copy of credit card number 4346781013356506 and stated that he had never received any other credit card from OP till date. In the written arguments filed by the OP the OP placed on record copies of judgment relied upon by it passed by Hon’ble Apex Court In Bharathi Knitting Co. Vs DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd AIR 1996 (SC) 2508 in which Hon’ble Apex Court while upholding the spirit of Consumer Protection Act (CPA) as a protective legislation to make available in expensive and expeditious summary remedy, opined that there must a finding that the respondent was responsible for deficiency of service causing loss or damage suffered by consumer. When a party to a signed document dispute the binding nature of the same it is for him to prove the term in the contract or the circumstances in which he came to sign the document need to be established. In cases where there is a specific term in the contract, the parties are bound by such terms. Therefore the Hon’ble Apex Court had held that liability undertaken in the contract between the parties should be limited to extent undertaken and dismissed appeal of company and upheld judgment passed by Hon’ble NCDRC. The OP also placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble NCDRC in HDFC Bank Ltd Vs Kanwal Ohri and Ors passed in revision petition 2001 of 12 on 12.08.2014 in which the Hon’ble NCDRC had held that any prudent person, while signing the contract should be aware of the clauses therein and therefore set aside orders passed by  Hon’ble SCDRC Chandigarh and District Forum in disagreement with conclusion of SCDRC and District Forum, thereby dismissing the complaint as unjustified.
7. We have heard the arguments by both the parties and perused the documentary evidence placed on record in support of his case/defence.

In the present case it is not in dispute that a credit card bearing no. 4346781013356506 was issued to the complainant by OP on his request to an application filed by him on 02.08.2011 which was duly signed by him with relevant particulars filed as shown by OP alongwith written statement and the supportive documents duly signed by the complainant pertaining to credit card application in which he had given his approval (yes) consent. However the complainant is disputing the issuance of policy by OP against his wishes / instruction and wrongful charged of Rs. 15,000/- made against his credit card. But on perusal of documents it is seen that HDFC Standard Life Insurance Policy bearing no. 14574623 was taken by filling up Unit Linked Proposal Forum and with relevant particulars and duly signed by him on 27.08.2011 from HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd in which the complainant had duly signed and given his consent for charging annual premium of Rs. 15,000/- towards sum assured policy of 1,50,000/- against his Gold Credit Card taken from OP. HDFC Standard Life Insurance Companyis a separate and distinct and corporate entity different from OP dealing with insurance sector of HDFC and we agree with the submission of OP that the subject credit card was only a medium of payment of premium of said policy of which OP was not a beneficiary HDFC Bank but is associated with the HDFC Bank. The Insurance Policy is a matter of solicitation and the complainant had himself opted for it by submitting his personal identity and residence proof and also nomination made which is duly signed by the complainant. The complainant is bound to pay the premium for the policy opted by him and also to make the payment for the use of his credit card. Therefore the credit card statement generated by OP dated 16.09.2011 has been billed for policy premium of HDFC Standard Life Insurance @ 15,000/- and in fact the complainant himself paid monthly premium of Rs. 1250/- each on 22.10.2011 and 05.11.2011 to OP against the said policy as shown in the subsequent credit card statement dated 06.11.2011. Further in case of late payment the late fee charges as well as finance charges are applicable if the payment is delayed as per the terms and conditions of the credit card. The complainant’s version given in the complaint is most unconvincing and uncorroborated by any documentary evidence and is only a verbal allegation unsupported by cogent proof against OP. In light of the settled provision of law that liability is limited to the extent undertaken in contract and that any prudent person while signing a contract should have been aware of the contents therein, we observe that the complainant has not succeeded in establishing a deficiency of service on the part of OP. Moreover, the complainant has not made the HDFC Standard Life Insurance Co. Ltd as a party in the present matter before this Forum. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no cost to either side.

8.  Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005.
9.   File be consigned to record room.
10.   Announced on 25.05.2018

 

(N.K. Sharma)      President

(Sonica Mehrotra) Member

(Ravindra Shankar Nagar) Member