Delhi

South Delhi

CC/68/2010

RAJEEV BHARGAVA - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC BANK LTD - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

 

Case No.68/2010

Rajeev Bhargava and Archna Bhargava

7315, D-7, Vasant Kunj,

New Delhi 110070

 

….Complainant

Versus

HSBC Bank

F-43, NDSE Extn-I

New Delhi 110070

        ….Opposite Party

    

 Date of Institution    : 01.02.2010      

 Date of Order            : 18.01.2023      

 

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

 

ORDER

 

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

 

1.     Complainant has requested to pass an award directing HSBC Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to refund Rs.9,217.23/- which wrongly charged as interest & late payment charges; (ii) to refund the debit card charges charged till date alongwith interest (iii) to withdraw their false report if made to CIBIL (iv) to close  the  saving account & give NOC (v) to provide exemplary of  damages of Rs.9,00,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, harassment etc.

 

2.      Brief facts of the case are as under:

The Complainant was holder of Credit Card No.5425051300028148 with OP-Bank. The Complainant  No.1 & 2 were having saving bank account with the OP-Bank at NDSE-I.  The OP did not issue ATM card in the name of Complainant No.2 but had been debiting cost inspite of many complaints in the matter. The complainant further stated that no bank statement was issued for March-April, 2007 despite repeated requests. The OP- Bank informed the outstanding dues of Rs.24,165.68/- and same was made in good faith. In the following months, an interest of Rs.1,404.03/- was charged  wrongly. The same was reversed later on realizing their mistake. After 05 months, the Bank statement for March-April, 2007 was made available on 19.09.2007. It was noticed that the OP-Bank had charged an interest of Rs. 3,577.89/-. It was brought to the notice of OP which they promised to reverse. The OP-Bank charged Rs.2,052.12/- as finance charges. In October-November, 2007 the OP-Bank reversed Rs.1,024.55/-  and retained Rs.1,187.89/- as finance charges. In December-January, the OP-Bank charged Rs.772.03/- and later on January-February, 2008 reversed the same and put up Rs.235.54/- as finance charges. Every time, new representative of OP-Bank used to give reply assuming that they were not aware of the earlier correspondence with complainant. In disgust, the complainant  returned the card and paid the money deducting their  share of agreed interest amount. The  OP-Bank sent another credit card with same number and the complainant started getting threat  calls from Mumbai mobile no. The Complainant wrote to customer care. Thereto, the complainant was assured that no such calls will come but that did not happen. This  mobile number was a temporary number which was used by Complainant while travelling in Mumbai. It is not a recorded mobile  number in the records of OP. The complainant returned the card twice but another  card was received, which was also returned on 15^th March, 2008. The card was sent after confirmation from their call-centre that all charges had been waived off but threating call continued.

 

3.      On 20.06.2008, the Complainant was asked to pay Rs.802.62/- with interest or matter would be reported to CIBIL vide letter because of adverse credit history. It was further stated that no purchase shall be allowed whereas the Complainant did not have any credit card of OP. Ultimately, the complainant was asked to Pay Rs.7,678.08/-, which was paid under protest. The threatening call were never stopped despite payment. Letter were also sent on 26.09.2008 and 07.12.2008 in this regard.

 

4.      OP at New Delhi South Extension debited the account every year since, 2003 as ATM charges for Archna Bhargava who is Complainant No.2 here. The OP-Bank had not refunded this amount for nor-existing of ATM card. The ATM card & cheque book of Complainant No.1 was returned to close the account but it was not closed. In this way, OP-Bank had not conducted itself as required and adopted unfair practices which amount to deficiency of service.

 

5.      OP, on the other hand, filed its reply interalia raising some preliminary objections. The OP-Bank stated that the complainant was issued credit card on September 11, 2003 and made last successful transactions on September 01, 2004. The debit card was issued on October 16, 2006 and closed on March 28, 2009. It was closed on request of complaint on the ground that same was lost. The sharing of information with CIBIL is normal procedure for every customer and is not specific with the complainant. The Complainant is bound by the terms & conditions. He also raised some question of facts and law, which can be solved by civil court.

 

6.      The OP-Bank contended that in terms of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Consumer Unity & Trust Vs CMD-1995(1) CPJ State Commissioner – the instant complaint is not maintainable as there is no deficiency or negligence on the part of OP. Hence, the complaint may be dismissed  on this ground only. Further, OP-Bank has also stated that this Commission does not have jurisdiction to decide the matter of CIBIL as per Section 31 of Credit Information Companies Regulations Act, 1995 except Hon’ble High Court   & Supreme Court.

 

7.      Such dispute should have been settled in arbitration as per Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996.  It was further stated that credit card unit is at Noida OP-Bank had denied the issuance of credit card number as mentioned above. It was denied that complainant was not issued any debit card. The photocopy of same is annexed at Annexure ‘A’.  The OP-Bank further annexed the photocopy of Bank statements for 15 April to 14 May  2007 and 15 May, 2007 to 14 June, 2007 reflecting bonafide of OP for reimbursing the alleged amount of Rs.1,403.03/-. The OP-Bank had further annexed the Bank statement for the  period October 2007 to November 2007 denying the alleged charges. The OP-Bank has denied the charges levelled against therein vide its reply. OP-Bank has further maintained that there was no-deficiency of service. Hence  complaint is devoid of merit.

 

8.      Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. The case was listed for many times either complainant was not present or OP did not put up its presence. On 23.08.2022, the clerk of the complainant was present but none appeared on behalf of OP-Bank. It was considered appropriate to decide the case on merit on the basis of documents and written submissions. The clerk also requested vide letter to decide the case on merit on the basis of document & written submissions. Accordingly, case was reserved for orders.

 

9.      This Commission has gone into entire material on record. Due consideration was given to the submissions as well. It was primarily noted from the complaint that the OP-Bank charged (i) Interest wrongly or excessively on the payment of credit card charges such as Rs.1,404.03 in April-May, 2007 which was  reversed later on, Rs.3,577.89 an amount of Rs.2,052.12 as finance charges, but OP-Bank reversed Rs1,024.55  and Rs.1187.89 as finance chares,Rs.772.03 also charged in January-February but reversed  the same and put up Rs.235.54 as finance charges. On 20.06.2008,  Rs.802.62 was asked to pay and lastly an amount of Rs.7678.08 which was paid under protest.

 

10.    As stated above, the complainant raised the issue of alleged charges of Rs.3577.99 levied in statement of account which are not unlawful by any  stretch of imagination  as stated by OP-Bank in its reply. Further the OP-Bank accepted this fact of crediting of Rs. 911/- and Rs.112/- to the account of complainant and this  reflects the bonafide act of OP. Likewise an amount of Rs.772.03  was also reversed in December-January statement as maintained by OP-Bank. It is noticed from the above, wherever, the charges were found levied excessively, were reversed. This fact was accepted by the complainant as well as OP-Bank.

 

11.    The complainant had stated in its written arguments that “we never used the word that HSBC charged unlawfully. A gross misinterpretation of our statement…” and further clarified that the OP-Bank charged interest of Rs.3577.89 (including finance charges) on the outstanding of Rs.51,428.96 (April Statement). The cheque which was deposited by complainant in time was processed and released on 09.04.2007 instead of last date. This is a kind of clarification and nothing adverse should be construed for this amount.

 

12.    Another issue was of issuance of ATM Card for Archna Bhargava, another complainant. The complainant stated vide para 20 of its complaint that OP-Bank had been debiting every year since 2003 for ATM Card of Archna Bhargava. The OP-Bank specifically replied vide its evidence-in-affidavit that complainant No.2 was issued credit card on September 11, 2003 and last successful transaction on the said credit card was done on 01.09.2004. The Complainant stated that when they applied it was added on imaginary Primary Card of Rajeev Bhargava but it was surrendered and closed. The OP-Bank clarified the position as mentioned above, moreover, the complainant had not specified amount charged for the card of Archna Bhargava. It being unspecified is not considered. As regards to averment of OP-Bank for consideration of such nature of case in Civil court and Arbitration & Reconciliation Act, 1996. There is no bar for consideration of case under CP Act, 2019 as well.

 

13.    After having considered the facts and circumstances in the matter, this Commission finds that there is no deficiency of service on the part of OP-Bank. Wherever, charges were found levied, the same were reversed as has been discussed above in detail. The other aspects of complaint have also been dealt extensively herein above. In view of the above, the commission is of the considered opinion that there is no shortage of obligation and deficiency of service on the part of OP. Wherever any negligence was brought to the notice, the same was rectified also. As such, the complaint fails and is rejected.

          No order as to costs.

File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.