Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

50/2012

R.Dinesh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

V.S.Chandrasekaran

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed :10.02.2012

Date of Reservation      : 27.08.2022

Date of Order               : 26.09.2022

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                           : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,   : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.50/2012

MONDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

Mr. R. Dinesh,

S/o. Mr. M. Renganathan,

No.6, Kumaran Street,

Chitlapakkam,

Chennai – 600 064.                                                     ...  Complainant

 

Vs-

1.The Head Customer Connect &

     Principal Nodal Officer,

   HSBC Bank,

   96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

   Mylapore,

   Chennai – 600 004.

 

2.The Manager,

   Customer Service,

   HSBC Bank,

   96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

   Mylapore,

   Chennai – 600 004.

 

3.The Asst. Vice President

   Customer Service,

   HSBC Bank,

   No.96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,

   Mylapore,

   Chennai – 600 004.

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. K. Thangavelu

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. R&P Partners

On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by President, Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages with interest @12% p.a towards mental agony and suffering and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards legal fees along with costs.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The case of the Complainant is that he had not availed any Credit Card from the Opposite Parties. During 3^rd week of September 2010, the recovery Agent of Opposite Parties visited his house and demanded him to pay a sum of Rs.2,85,673.49p alleged to be check under Credit Card No.4384599989829063 and created a scene. The alleged Credit Card did not belonged to him and he had not purchased any materials using the said  card. On 04.10.2010 he had intimated the 1^st Opposite Party to look into the issue, in which he had explained about deliberate fraud committed by some agents misusing his name and also mentioned about the address found in the card statement was wrong and also sought for details of application form, Photos, address Proofs, Credit Card sanction letter, Credit Card delivery acknowledgement against producing Photo I.D, statement of accounts and the copy of the signed receipt issued while collecting cash by the Agent. Further had issued a legal notice dated 28.10.2010 to the Opposite Parties and to the Commissioner of Police Station, to enquire into the alleged fraud committed by the agents in respect of the said Credit Card. The 2^nd Opposite Party had replied vide reply dated 22.11.2010, that the said card was delivered through Blue Dart Courier under Bill No.44128619474 on 24.05.2008 and the same was received by one Rajesh, alleged to be his  brother. The 1^st Opposite Party by its reply dated 14.12.2010 had confirmed the said facts and enclosed the application form alleged to be signed by him. The name of his mother is Rajeswari and he is the only son. Hence, on information and confirmation given by the Opposite Parties, the person said to have collected the card by name Rajesh alleged to be his brother was false and the name of his mother was mentioned wrongly. Further the details of his mother was mentioned as house wife, as she was a retired Reader in English Department, Sri Meenakshi Government Arts College for women at Madurai, apart from the same his signature was found to be forged and did not pertain to him. The 3^rd Opposite Party by its letter dated 07.01.2011 had requested for 7 days to review the issue. The 3^rd Opposite Party sent a letter dated 14.01.2011 to provide his Pan Card and Driving License Copy to enquire further into the issue. Thereafter the 3^rd Opposite Party on regular intervals through their letter correspondences had requested only time to look into the issue and to take necessary action. He had earlier lodged a complaint on 22.11.2010 with the Banking Ombudsman. Further he had sent several reminders in writing to the Opposite Parties to take action against the alleged fraud committed by the agents of their bank, inspite of receipt of the reminders no action was taken to detect the alleged fraud. Instead on 10.01.2012 through another agent threatened his mother to settle the dues over landline. Because of threatening black mailing by the alleged agents of the Opposite Parties, not only him, his parents were also subjected to mental torture. He and his father was made to sent several reminders to the Opposite Parties explaining he has nothing to do in respect of Credit Card issued to a wrong person. It is a clear case of fraud and forgery which the Opposite Parties had not taken any action and responding positively. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

The Opposite parties submitted that the Complainant had applied for Gold Credit Card with them by filing the application form on 25.04.2008, filed all required details and signed the same agreeing to abide by the terms and conditions. Only on scrutiny they had sent the Credit Card and the same was received by one Rajesh, who claimed to be his brother, who shown his Driving Licence. On receipt of the card, the same was used for purchases from 26.05.2008 to 30.05.2008, for which sums were payable. The Complainant had not even paid the minimum amounts and the amounts were outstanding under the said card with effect from 2^nd September, 2008. Only thereafter the representative of the Opposite Parties visited Complaint’s house in September 2010 and sought for the outstanding dues of Rs.2,85,673.49p under the said Credit Card, as per the card statement for the period 03.08.2010 to 02.09.2010. on receipt of the letter dated 04.10.2010 issued by the Complainant, launched investigation and found that all proceedings were complied and card was in fact applied for by the Complainant. They had sent a reply dated 14.12.2011 with all relevant documents to the Banking Ombudsman, to whom a complaint was lodged by the Complainant. on 25.11.2010 and on receipt the said complaint was closed by Banking Ombudsman. They have also issued a separate reply to the Complainant, wherein answered each and every charge of the Complainant and also provided the very same document furnished to Banking Ombudsman. Having not satisfied with the actions taken by them. The Complainant sent letter after letter to the Opposite Parties disputing his liability. No wrong has been done to the Complainant; it is the Opposite Parties who suffers monetary loss by issuing him Credit Card. The allegations of the Complainant with regard to fraud cannot be gone into, without elaborate evidence, as the proceedings before the Commission, being summary in nature. Further, they had issued Credit Card to the Complainant after due investigation and no fault can be attributed to the Opposite Parties. The Credit Card outstanding of the Complainant had been sold to M/s. J.M Financial Asset Reconstruction Company Private Ltd, which has taken over the account along with the Credit Card liability, if any claim to be made to the said company. As on date of taking over a sum of Rs.4,08,367.50 is due and payable and the Complainant. Though deficiency of service alleged by the Complainant, unable to prove the same, as the same needs thorough investigation including adduce of oral and booking evidence which would also require examination of witnesses. They have also conducted internal enquiry which would also have to be examined to prove its case all of which is beyond the scope of this Commission. The complaint is devoid of merits and they are not liable to pay any sum towards compensation. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed. 

4.   The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-32 were marked. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and Ex.B1 to Ex.B-7 were marked on their side.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled?

Point No.1:-

        The important point that had arisen to decide whether the subject Credit Card was issued to the Complainant after due verification and investigation as claimed by the Opposite Parties and whether the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service.

        From the perusal of Ex.A1 the family ration card issued by Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department, the members of the family reflects, M.Ranganathan, R.Rajeswari, R.Dinesh and R.Amudha, being father of the Complainant, mother of the Complainant, the Complainant and the sister of the Complainant, respectively. Further from Ex.A-1, the address of the Complainant is very clearly mentioned as ‘6, Kumaran Street, Chitlapakkam, Chennai – 600 064” after shifting his residence from Madurai. The address as found in Ex.A-2 , the driving licence of the Complainant, is “3B/5, D.D.Road, Balarangapuram, Madurai-625 009, the earlier residential address found in Ex.A-1. On perusal of Ex.A-3 the letter dated 04.10.2010 the Complainant had explained the incidents that had taken place in his residence and sought for the proof submitted for issuance of alledged Credit Card, viz, Application form, Photos, Address Proofs, Credit Card sanction letter, Credit Card delivery acknowledgement against producing Photo ID, statement of Allotment for all the months and copy of signed receipt given by the agent at the time of collecting cash. Though the Opposite Parties admitted that they have provided the Application Form, marked as Ex.B-2, Credit Card delivery acknowledgement against producing Photo ID, Statemnt of accounts, for the rest of the details, mainly for Address proof, no documents were found to be provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, except by pleading that proceedings were complied and in fact the card was applied for by the Complainant. Further the Opposite Parties had contended that the Credit Card has been delivered to one Rajesh, who claimed to be the brother of the complainant and also contended that they had issued the Credit Card to the Complainant after due investigation. As discussed earlier as per Ex.A-1 the Ration Card, it is clear that the complainant does not have any brother, except a sister and further if at all, the Opposite Parties would have received Ex.A-1, they would have verified the address filled in the application form, Ex.B-2, and they would have provided the copy of the same to the Complainant, as the address of the Complainant found to be a different one than the one in Ex.A-1.

        Further in the application form (Ex.B-2) provided by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, the name of the mother of the Complainant found to be wrong, as per Ex.A-1, her name found to be R.Rajeshwari, whereas in the said Application form Ex.B-2, her name has been mentioned as R.Lakshimi before marriage and also as R.Jayalakshmi and the occupation of his mother was mentioned as House wife. Though the complainant had constantly corresponded and contacted the Opposite Parties and provided all the required documents to the Opposite Parties, as found in Exs.A-4 to Ex.A-12, the Opposite Parties, in spite of receipt of all the required documents from the Complainant, though initially denied the allegations of the Complainant under Ex.A-13, letter dated 27.06.2011 thereafter under Exs.A-14, A-27, A-28, A-29 being the letters of Opposite Parties dated 07.12.2010, 01.07.2011,31.01.2011, 08.02.2011, 01.03.2011, 09.03.2011,29.03.2011, 18.05.2011, 26.05.2011, 03.06.2011, respectively, sought time to review the issue conclusively, but had not taken any steps to resolve the issue as assured and instead had sent a letter dated 09.06.2011 demanding a payment of Rs.3,93,76029p. In the letter dated 04.07.2011, Ex.A-31 sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant, they had again sought for time to resolve the issue, but inconsistently by their letter dated 08.07.2011, Ex.A-32, had demanded a sum of Rs.4,08,367.50p from the Complainant.

        On discussions made above and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the Opposite Parties had issued their Credit Card without verifying the details provided in the application form, Ex.B-2, further had delivered their Credit Card to the address mentioned in Ex.B-2 which does not belong to the Complainant would clearly shows that they had issued their Credit Card to a person, who had misused the name of the Complainant and to cover the wrong done on the part of the Opposite Parties, made the Complainant to sustain severe mental agony and suffer a lot. Further the contention of the Opposite Parties that this Commission cannot decide the nature of allegations of the Complainant with regard to fraud is not sustainable, as it is apparent from the Application Form, Ex.-B-2 and the correspondences sent by the Opposite Parties as found in Exs.A-14, Ex.A-17, Ex.A-19, Ex.A-20, ExA-22, Ex.A-25, Ex.A-27, Ex.A-29 and Ex.A-31, that the Credit Card was not issued to the Complainant. Hence we hold that the negligent act of not verifying the details mentioned in Ex.B-2 and demanding the outstanding dues in respect of their Credit Card, when the same was found to be not applied by the Complainant and not issued to the Complainant, clearly amounts to deficiency of service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and caused serious mental agony to the Complainant. Accordingly, Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3:

As discussed and decided Point No.1 against the Opposite Parties, the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3000/- towards cost. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s.. Accordingly, Point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony caused to the Complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a from the date of receipt of this order till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 26^th of September 2022.

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

Ex.A1	20.05.2009	True Xerox copy of the Ration Card, evidencing the address proof of the Complainant
Ex.A2	05.03.2001	True Xerox copy of the Driving Licence NO.TN 59 20010002055, issued in the name of the Complainant, evidencing his signature
Ex.A3	04.10.2010	True Xerox copy of the letter sent to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A4	28.10.2010	True Xerox copy of the Legal Notice sent to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A5	03.01.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A6	24.01.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A7	05.02.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A8	25.02.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A9	04.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A10	24.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A11	14.05.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A12	27.06.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Complainant to the Opposite Parties
Ex.A13	22.11.2010	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A14	07.12.2010	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A15	13.12.2010	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A16	14.12.2010	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A17	07.01.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A18	14.01.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A19	31.01.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A20	08.02.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A21	09.02.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A22	01.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A23	09.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A24	14.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A25	29.03.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A26	01.04.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A27	18.05.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A28	26.05.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A29	03.06.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A30	09.06.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A31	04.07.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant
Ex.A32	08.07.2011	True Xerox copy of the letter sent by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

Ex.B1	17.12.2020	Deed of Appointment of substitute Attorney in favour of Mr.Stephan Dique to act on behalf of HSBC
Ex.B2	24.04.2008	Credit card application Form signed by the Complainant
Ex.B3	20.05.2008 to 01.11.2008	Credit Card Account Statement
Ex.B4	03.08.2010 to 02.09.2010	Credit Card Account Statement
Ex.B5	25.11.2010	Complaint filed by Complainant to Banking Ombudsman
Ex.B6	14.12.2010	Reply by Opposite Party to the Banking Ombudsman along with supporting documents for the aforesaid complainant
Ex.B7	23.07.2021	Intimation letter sent to the Complainant by the Opposite Parties

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT