<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 26.05.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 21st AUGUST 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SRI. SYED USMAN RAZVI MEMBER <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.1181/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Udayabhaskar Pallapolu,<br /> F2, H.No.15, Abbayappa Layout,<br /> 5th Cross, N.S Palya,<br /> BTM 2nd Stage,<br /> Bangalore – 560076.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited., Card Products Division, <br /> Post Bag 29128, 52/60,<br /> M.G. Road, <br /> Mumbai – 400001.<br /> INDIA.<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.K.R.Ganesh.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. SBI (State Bank of India)<br /> SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt Ltd.,<br /> DLF Infinity Towers,<br /> Tower C, 12th Floor,<br /> Block-2, Building 3,<br /> DLF Cyber City,<br /> Gurgaon – 122002.<br /> (Haryana) INDIA.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to refund Rs.31,175/- and pay some compensation on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant is the OP.1 credit card holder, which had the validity from March 2007 to March 2009. Due to personal emergency and some inevitable reasons he had access this card for a total amount of Rs.31,661/- on various dates in between 1st of August 2007 to 12.11.2007. Towards the outstanding due he made payment of Rs.2,887/- as a minimum payment on various occasions between 30.08.2007 to 22.10.2007. Thereafter as per the statement received by him that he is in due of Rs.31,174/- he dropped the cheque for the said amount drawn on SBI OP.2 in HSBC cheque drop box. It was issued on 21.11.2007. But the statement which he received for the month of January shown an outstanding due of Rs.32,178/-. He immediately contacted the OP.1 and told them about the dropping of the said cheque, they replied they have not received it. He got it confirmed from OP.2 that the said cheque is cleared. With all that due to the harassment caused by the OP.1 he was again forced to issue the second cheque for Rs.32,000/- and that cheque is encashed by the OP.1. When he demanded OP.1 to refund the cheque amount with respect to the earlier cheque which he has sent bearing No.796107 was not considered. Thus he felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On issuance of notice though OP.2 was duly served remained absent. Hence OP.2 is placed ex-parte. On appearance, OP.1 filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP.1 they have acted as per the terms and conditions of the credit card transactions. Complainant is holding the credit card No.4384 5999 9159 9274 and availing their service, the limit of which was up to Rs.33,000/-. Actually complainant used the said card extensively in the month of August and September. In order to repay the said amount complainant issued cheque No.796107 for Rs.31,175/-. The said cheque was drawn in favour of credit card No.4384 5999 1599 2274. The cardholder is Kirti Bodade. Accordingly the said cheque was cleared as per the due process with respect to the beneficiary of the cardholder. No amount is paid with respect to the transactions held by the complainant by using his credit card. No fault lies with the OP, subsequently complainant issued the second cheque and it is taken into consideration. Both the cheques issued by the complainant refers to different credit cards. Under such circumstances no fault lies with the OP. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service of any kind the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the present complainant is the OP.1 credit card holder bearing No.4384 5999 9159 9274 which was valid from March 2007 to March 2009 having a credit limit of Rs.33,000/-. As admitted by the complainant himself he transacted heavily between August 2007 to September 2007 and the total credit limit availed is Rs.31,661/-. Towards the said amount he paid only minimum charges of Rs.2,887/-. That means to say complainant has not cleared the entire amount as contemplated. Hence OP sent the bill claiming an amount of Rs.31,174/- payable by 04.12.2007.<br /> <br /> 7. Now it is the grievance of the complainant that in pursuance of the demand made by the OP he sent a cheque No.796107 dated 21.11.2007 drawn on OP.2 for a sum of Rs.31,175/- and dropped the said cheque in OP.1 drop box. But to his utter shock OP.1 has come up with the defence that it has not received the amount and that cheque is not realized to his account. OP sent the statement for the month of January wherein an amount of Rs.32,718/- was shown as in due. Though complainant tried his level best to convince the OP.1 that he has already paid the said amount. OP.1 didn’t heed to his request. He even got confirmed from OP.2. OP.2 has stated that it has already cleared the said cheque. With all that OP.1 started using pressure on the complainant, threatening him that his name will be listed in defaulters. Being afraid of the same he has issued second cheque bearing No.820844 drawn on November 21, 2007.<br /> <br /> 8. The cheque cardholder name is Ravichandra Kumar T not the complainant it so with the first cheque also. What made him to issue both the cheques on a same day that is on November 21, 2007 is not known. Hence for this reason the allegation of the complainant that OP used force of recovery of the said amount cannot be believed. When he contacted OP.1 regarding the clearance of the said cheque, he got confirmed it on 31st March 2008. All these transactions are self contradictory. If he got intimation from OP.2 about the clearance of the said cheque on 31.03.2008 how he could he issued the second cheque for Rs.32,000/- on 21.11.2007 is not known.<br /> <br /> 9. Complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card use and utilization. We have gone through number of documents produced by the OP with respect to the said disputed cheque. Main card number is shown as 4384 5999 9159 9274 which is nothing to do with the complainant credit card. In addition to that if the cheque given by the complainant was honored in favour of Kirti Bodade and Prasad Bodade. Nothing prevented the complainant to proceed against them if at all there is a wrong credit of any amount. As the cheque was issued with respect to credit card belonging to the said persons it was received by the OP.1 and it was cleared as per the rules in due process. That act of the OP.1 can’t be termed as deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 10. Viewed from any angle we find the present complaint allegation appears to be devoid of merits. As such complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 21st day of August 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />