HSBC Corporation Limited V/S Yavanthi Shivakumar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2553

Yavanthi Shivakumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HSBC Corporation Limited - Opp.Party(s)

SMM

04 Dec 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2553

Yavanthi Shivakumar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
HSBC Corporation Limited HSBC Corporation Limited,						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2553/2008 COMPLAINANT Mrs. Yavanthi Shivakumar, Aged about 34 years, Wife of Mr. Shivakumar, Residing at No. 61, Lakshmi Nilaya, 2nd Cross, BDS Layout, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore 560 045. Advocate (S.M. Manjunatha) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY 1. M/s. HSBC Corporation Limited, Card Product Division, Post Box No. 5080, Chennai 600 028. And also at M/s. HSBC Corporation Limited, M.G. Road, Near by Mittal Tower, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K.R. Ganesh) O R D E R 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 reverse all the extra and illegal charges levied and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the credit card holder of the OP having a credit limit of Rs.1,16,000/-. She is prompt and regular in repaying the amount in due. Thereafter complainant sought for the cancellation of the said credit card in the month of November and December 2007. Accordingly OP raised the final bill towards the full and final settlement for Rs.9,103/-. Complainant paid the said amount promptly and she got an endorsement that her account is cancelled, but thereafter the lapse of 5 months or so she was shocked to receive the monthly bill in April 2008 claiming an amount of Rs.1,803.15 as late fee charges and subsequently also the bills were sent for the month of July, that too claiming Rs.3,392/-. Complainant though made repeated requests and demands to OP to get correct its mistake, but it went in futile. She even got issued the legal notice on 25.09.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have sent only the demand bill for the month of November and December 2007 and complainant paid Rs.9,103/-, it is not towards the full and final settlement of the out standing due. In order to close the account complainant has to pay all the outstanding dues. There is a delay in payment of the amount in due caused by the complainant. Hence as per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP is at liberty to collect late fee charges including the interest, penal charges, etc. OP has followed the banking norms, practice and RBI guidelines. When complainant became due of certain amount they raised the bill and sent it to the complainant. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for either of the relief. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 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. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the credit card from OP having limit of Rs.1,16,000/-. According to the complainant she is prompt and regular in repaying the amount in due. But this fact is denied by the OP. According to the complainant she sought for cancellation of the said credit card in the month between November and December 2007. So complainant is not very much sure on which date she sought for cancellation of her so called credit card account. According to OP complainant is in due of certain amount with respect to the transactions from 15th November 2007 to 14th December 2007. She has not paid the same till up to January 2008. So there is a breach and violation of terms and conditions with regard to the repayment of the amount in due. 7. According to complainant OP accepted her offer and agreed to close the account by raising a bill for Rs.9,103/- towards the full and final settlement and she paid the same. Of course OP admits the receipt of the said amount. But according to OP the said amount is paid only towards the outstanding dues of November and December transaction not towards the full and final settlement. 8. We have gone through the documents produced by the litigating parties, nowhere OP has stated that it has received the said amount towards the full and final settlement of the outstanding dues. Of course it agreed to cancel the account keeping its right and liberty to make demand of the outstanding dues and that is what OP has done. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement complainant is liable to pay the interest, late fee charges, etc. We are of the view that OP diligently and strictly adhered to banking norms, practice and R.B.I guidelines in raising the subsequent claim and sent the bill for the month of April. When complainant failed to respond then they sent the bill in the month of July 2008. The receipt of the said demand bills is not at dispute. Admittedly complainant has not paid the said amount of Rs.1,803/- with respect to April 2008 bill and Rs.3,392/- with respect to July 2008 bill. Under such circumstances complainant has become the defaulter and in our view a defaulter cannot allege a deficiency in service. 9. As already expressed by us in the above said paras, there is no proof that OP has received Rs.9,103/- towards the full and final settlement of the outstanding dues agreeing to cancel the said card. It is established that the said payment is received in part. When that is so, there is a burden rests on the complainant to establish that she had paid all the dues with respect to the said credit card. But here we find complainant has failed to establish the same. 10. On the close scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint, in our view it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Hence the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so aggrieved with regard to the subsequent bills Civil Suit was the proper remedy to redress the grievance, if so advised. So viewed from any angle, we find the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (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 30th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 26.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 30th JANUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2553/2008 COMPLAINANT Mrs. Yavanthi Shivakumar, Aged about 34 years, Wife of Mr. Shivakumar, Residing at No. 61, Lakshmi Nilaya, 2nd Cross, BDS Layout, K.R. Puram Hobli, Bangalore 560 045. Advocate (S.M. Manjunatha) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTY 1. M/s. HSBC Corporation Limited, Card Product Division, Post Box No. 5080, Chennai 600 028. And also at M/s. HSBC Corporation Limited, M.G. Road, Near by Mittal Tower, Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (K.R. Ganesh) O R D E R 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 reverse all the extra and illegal charges levied and pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant is the credit card holder of the OP having a credit limit of Rs.1,16,000/-. She is prompt and regular in repaying the amount in due. Thereafter complainant sought for the cancellation of the said credit card in the month of November and December 2007. Accordingly OP raised the final bill towards the full and final settlement for Rs.9,103/-. Complainant paid the said amount promptly and she got an endorsement that her account is cancelled, but thereafter the lapse of 5 months or so she was shocked to receive the monthly bill in April 2008 claiming an amount of Rs.1,803.15 as late fee charges and subsequently also the bills were sent for the month of July, that too claiming Rs.3,392/-. Complainant though made repeated requests and demands to OP to get correct its mistake, but it went in futile. She even got issued the legal notice on 25.09.2008. Again there was no response. Hence complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP they have sent only the demand bill for the month of November and December 2007 and complainant paid Rs.9,103/-, it is not towards the full and final settlement of the out standing due. In order to close the account complainant has to pay all the outstanding dues. There is a delay in payment of the amount in due caused by the complainant. Hence as per the terms and conditions of the agreement OP is at liberty to collect late fee charges including the interest, penal charges, etc. OP has followed the banking norms, practice and RBI guidelines. When complainant became due of certain amount they raised the bill and sent it to the complainant. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. The entire complaint is devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for either of the relief. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 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. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 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: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant availed the credit card from OP having limit of Rs.1,16,000/-. According to the complainant she is prompt and regular in repaying the amount in due. But this fact is denied by the OP. According to the complainant she sought for cancellation of the said credit card in the month between November and December 2007. So complainant is not very much sure on which date she sought for cancellation of her so called credit card account. According to OP complainant is in due of certain amount with respect to the transactions from 15th November 2007 to 14th December 2007. She has not paid the same till up to January 2008. So there is a breach and violation of terms and conditions with regard to the repayment of the amount in due. 7. According to complainant OP accepted her offer and agreed to close the account by raising a bill for Rs.9,103/- towards the full and final settlement and she paid the same. Of course OP admits the receipt of the said amount. But according to OP the said amount is paid only towards the outstanding dues of November and December transaction not towards the full and final settlement. 8. We have gone through the documents produced by the litigating parties, nowhere OP has stated that it has received the said amount towards the full and final settlement of the outstanding dues. Of course it agreed to cancel the account keeping its right and liberty to make demand of the outstanding dues and that is what OP has done. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement complainant is liable to pay the interest, late fee charges, etc. We are of the view that OP diligently and strictly adhered to banking norms, practice and R.B.I guidelines in raising the subsequent claim and sent the bill for the month of April. When complainant failed to respond then they sent the bill in the month of July 2008. The receipt of the said demand bills is not at dispute. Admittedly complainant has not paid the said amount of Rs.1,803/- with respect to April 2008 bill and Rs.3,392/- with respect to July 2008 bill. Under such circumstances complainant has become the defaulter and in our view a defaulter cannot allege a deficiency in service. 9. As already expressed by us in the above said paras, there is no proof that OP has received Rs.9,103/- towards the full and final settlement of the outstanding dues agreeing to cancel the said card. It is established that the said payment is received in part. When that is so, there is a burden rests on the complainant to establish that she had paid all the dues with respect to the said credit card. But here we find complainant has failed to establish the same. 10. On the close scrutiny of the allegations made in the complaint, in our view it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. Hence the complainant did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so aggrieved with regard to the subsequent bills Civil Suit was the proper remedy to redress the grievance, if so advised. So viewed from any angle, we find the complaint appears to be devoid of merits. Hence the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (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 30th day of January 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.