Delhi

West Delhi

CC/08/383

BHOODEV PRASAD - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

17 May 2017

ORDER

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (WEST)

                                        GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI

  150-151, Community Centre, C-Block, JanakPuri, New Delhi – 110058

 

                                                                                            Date of institution: 15.05.2008

Complaint Case. No.383/08                                                Date of order:17.05.2017

IN  MATTER OF

Bhoodev Parshad Rathore S/o Shri Mawasi Ram R/o E-200, Krishan Vihar, Delhi-110086.                                                                                                       Complainant

VERSUS

M/s. HSBC Bank through the Authorized Officer, Branch at-34, Central Market, West Punjabi Bagh, Near Guru Nanak Public School, New Delhi-110026.                                                                                                                                          Opposite party

ORDER

R.S. BAGRI,PRESIDENT

            Shri Bhoodev Parshad Rathore here in the complainant named above has filed the present consumer complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against M/s. H.S.B.C. Bank hereinafter in short referred as the opposite party with averments that the complainant had credit card no. 4476 9299 8797 5296 of the opposite party since September, 2007. The complainant made payments to the opposite party in time regularly. The opposite party did not disclose bill date and did not issue statement of account regularly. Which resulted in to heavy penalty. The opposite party also provided balance transfer facility of Rs.39,000/- in favour of ICICI Bank. The complainant made several calls to the opposite party for verification of the balance transfer facility. But the facility was not unsuitable, therefore, the complainant declined the balance transfer facility. The complainant sent legal notice to the opposite party with request to rectify the defect and remove miscalculations/ over charges and make credit entries in his account. There upon the opposite party sent statement of account of the complaint for the period  21.10.07 to 21.11.07, 22.11.07 to 22.12.07, 22.12.07 to 21.01.08 and 22.01.08 to 21.02.08 showing balance transfer of Rs.39,000/- by cashier order. Therefore, the complainant has suffered mentally, physically and financially.  There is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence the present complaint for directions to the opposite party to adjust all amounts payable and receivable between the parties, withdraw illegal, excessive, over charges and flimsy demands, issue corrected  statement of account and pay a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of mental, physical and financial harassment and Rs.5,500/- as litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

After notice the opposite party appeared and filed reply while raising preliminary  objections of cause of action, complaint is false and frivolous, maintainability of the complaint in this forum, concealment of true and correct facts and the complaint is false, frivolous and malafide so liable to be dismissed.  

However, on merits, it is admitted that the complaint was holding credit card no. 4476 9299 8797 5296 of the opposite party. But asserted that the complainant  was made aware of the billing date and last date of payment. The opposite party supplied correct certified copies of statement of account to the complainant. The credit card issued in September 2007 was closed in July, 2008 due to irregular payment/ non-payment towards the credit card. The opposite party provided timely statement of bills and statement of account to the complainant. The amount of Rs.39,000/- was transferred  through transfer facility in favour of ICICI Bank on request of complainant. On request of the complainant the amount was reversed in his account. All other allegations of the complaint are denied and once again prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

The complainant filed rejoinder of the reply of the opposite party controverting stand of the opposite party and reiterating his stand.

            When Bhoodev Prashad Rathore complainant was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, he tendered in evidence his affidavit narrating facts of the complaint. The complainant  in support of his case also relied upon photocopies of representation dated 08.01.08, postal receipt dated 08.01.08, representation dated 26.02.08, letter dated 19.02.08, legal notice dated 01.03.08, postal receipt dated 04.03.08, letter dated 24.03.08, letter dated 26.03.08, statements of account for the period 21.10.07 to 21.11.07, 22.11.07 to 21.12.07, 22.12.07 to 21.01.08 and 22.01.08 to 21.02.08 and legal notice 04.04.08.

When the opposite party was asked to lead evidence by way of affidavit, they filed affidavit of Shri Ram Pal Gautam, authorized representative of the opposite party narrating facts of the reply. The opposite party relied upon Annexure-A statement of account of credit card of the complainant, Annexure-B transcription of telephonic conversation between complainant and employee of the opposite party, Annexure-B1 CD of conversion,  Annexure-C reply  dated 26.03.08 of the legal notice of complainant, Annexure-D details of credit card of the complainant, Annexure-E statement of account as on 01.09.08 of credit card of the complainant.

The parties also submitted written arguments in support of their respective contentions. We have heard Shri R.L. Srivastava, advocate learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record carefully and thoroughly.

            After having heard both the sides at length and going through the record carefully and thoroughly, it is common case of the parties that the complainant was having credit card no.4476 9299 8797 5296 of the opposite party. The complainant was using the credit card. The opposite party closed the credit card in July, 2008.

            The case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not disclose bill date and last date of payment. The opposite party also did not issue statement of account in time.  Therefore, the complainant had to pay penalties. Whereas, the case of the opposite party is that the opposite party was told bill date and last date of payment to the complainant. They also issued statements of account in time. The complainant did not pay the amount in time. Therefore penalty was imposed on the complainant.

            The complainant in support of his version has filed his affidavit, legal notices and statement of account.  The affidavit of complainant is rebutted from the affidavit of Shri Ram Pal Guautm AR of the opposite party supported by Annexure-A statement of account, Annexure-B conversation between complainant and employee of the opposite party and Annexure B-1 CD of the conversation.

Except affidavit of complainant there is nothing on record to prove that there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. The complainant is to required to prove unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. But the affidavit of the complainant only which stand rebutted from the affidavit of Shri Ram Pal Gautam, AR of the opposite party is not sufficient to prove deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. The statement of account are certified under the banking companies evidence act. Therefore, the statement of account are perse admissible in evidence. Perusal of the Annexure-A statement of account supported by Annexure-B transcription of conversation between complainant and AR of the opposite party and Annexure-B/1  CD, the opposite party has been able to prove that the complainant was told bill date, last date of payment and also issued statements of account of the credit card of the complainant in time. But the complainant did not pay the amount in time.  The balance transfer facility of Rs.39,000/- was allowed to the complainant on his request. Therefore, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Whereas, the complainant himself is negligent in using credit card facility. Hence, there is no unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

Resultantly, there is no merit in the complaint. The complaint fails and is hereby dismissed. File be consigned. 

Order pronounced on : 17.05.2017

• Copy of order be sent to the concerned parties free of cost.
• Thereafter, file be consigned to record.

                  

 

 

(PUNEET LAMBA)                                                                          ( R.S.  BAGRI )

               MEMBER                                                                                         PRESIDENT