KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

APPEAL No.21/13

JUDGMENT DTD : 27.01.2014

(Appeal filed against the order in CC.NO.57/2013 on the file of CDRF, Ernakulam order dated: 27.08.2012)

PRESENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mr.K.N.Abdul Gafoor,

S/o.C.K.Kasmi, Rangon,

37/2127 A,                                                                   APPELLANT

Kathrikadavu, Kaloor.P.O

Kochi – 17

(By Adv.S.Reghukumar &

Adv.George Cherian Karippaparambil,

Kochi)

Vs.

ICICI Bank Ltd,

ICICI Bank Crdit Card Division,                              RESPONDENT

M.G.Road, Padma Junction,

Ernakulam

(By Adv.Sheriff Assiciates, Ernakulam)

JUDGMENT

SRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR    : JUDICIAL MEMBER

          The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.57/2013 in the CDRF, Ernakulam. The complainant alleged that he had availed credit facility from the opposite party bank on 12.03.2005 upto a limit of Rs.45,000/- with cash credit withdrawal limit of Rs.9000/-. The complainant was making payments on time without default but the opposite party used to issue bills in wrong address in spite of complainants efforts. The bills were received belatedly each month. However, the complainant paid all amounts as per the bills after deducting late payment charge and service charge. In September 2009 the complainant lost the credit card and thereafter he did not use the facility. Meanwhile in June 2008 the complainant found that five bills have not been served on him. The opposite party issued duplicate bills and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.31,494/- to the opposite party by cheque drawn on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. Thereafter as per letter dated 07.07.08 the complainant requested the opposite party to reverse the wrong entries of late payment charges and service tax. The opposite party promised to do so but did not reverse the entries. In December 2010, the complainant's banker informed him that he is shown as a defaulter as per the credit information report of credit information bureau (India Limited) to a tune of Rs.54,460.84/- . As a result of this unfair trade practice and deficiency in service the complainant suffered mental agony and inconvenience. Hence he approached the Forum for appropriate reliefs.

          2.      The opposite party contended before the forum that the complainant is a debtor and not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. They had issued credit card to the complainant. As per the terms of the facility if the complainant fails to remit the credit facility availed by him within the credit cycle available to him he is bound to pay interest for such unpaid amounts. Initially the credit limit allowed to the complainant was Rs.45,000/-.At his request the limit was increased to Rs.54,000/-. The complainant was not prompt in payment of his dues within the due date. Due to his default the opposite party was forced to charge interest late fee and other charges. This was done as per rules and regulations of RBI. The complainant was aware of the terms and conditions of the facility granted to him. From 2005 onwards the opposite party had issued monthly statements in the residential address of the complainant written by him in the application form for the credit card. When the due amount exceeded the credit limit the opposite party blocked the credit card of the complainant from further use. As on 10.01.2011, the complainant is bound to pay Rs.72, 177/- to the opposite party. In case of default, the opposite party can forward default report to the CIBIL as mandated by law. There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party.

          3.      Before the District Forum the complainant gave evidence as PW1. Exts.A1 to A4 were marked on his side. One witness was examined on the side of opposite party and Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on their side. As per the impugned order the District Forum directed the opposite party to issue detailed and consolidated account statements with regard to the credit card of the complainant for the actual amount availed by him together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum within 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of order. The complainant was directed to remit the amount as per the bill to be issued as per the above directions within 30 days from the date of receipt of the account statement. The opposite party was directed to inform the CIBIL immediately in case remittance of the amount was made. It was made clear that if the complainant failed to remit the amount the opposite party was entitled to realize the amount in accordance with law.

          4.      The relief sought by the complainant as such was not granted. Hence felt aggrieved by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. The only question is whether he has a sustainable case.

          5.      Admittedly, the complainant appellant, availed credit facility from the respondent bank. His grievance is that the opposite party used to issue bills in wrong address. As a result, the monthly bills issued by the respondent used to be received by him belatedly. But the respondent charged late payment chagres and service charge. As a result the appellant was shown as a defaulter as per the credit information report of the CIBIL . This according to the appellant was unfair trade practice. The definite contention of the respondent is that they were forced to charge interest, late fee and other charges only due to the default of the appellant in making payments. As on 10.03.2011 the total amount due from the appellant to them is Rs.72,177/-. So the only question is whether the appellant was served with monthly bills belatedly as claimed by him resulting in payment of the monthly bills belatedly.

          6.      In support of the contention of the appellant the learned counsel for him pointed out that in Ext.B2 credit card application form submitted by him Kaloor.P.O. Is seen corrected as Baloor.P.O. So the contention is that as a result of this correction his monthly bills were initially directed to Baloor in the neighbouring state and later to Cochin and as a result the monthly bills were served belatedly. It is also seen that in Ext.A1 letter issued by the respondent on 12.03.2005 Baloor.P.O appears in the address. But it is difficult to hold that this error in any way had affected or delayed the service of monthly bills for more than one reason. Firstly, the address of the complainant does not stop with “Baloor”.P.O. It continues as Ernakulam, Cochin, Kerala and with pin number. A letter addressed in such a way is not likely to go to a different state. Secondly in Ext.B1 series of statements several in number the complainant’s address is shown as Kaloor.P.O and not as ‘ Baloor’ .P.O. So it is doubtful that the complainant was infact addressed erroneously as claimed by him. Thirdly added to these circumstances the fact remains that the complainant has failed to produce the alleged monthly bills erroneously addressed to him to prove his contentions. So it appears that he conveniently put forward such a contention to hide his default. Hence there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed but without costs.

K.CHANDRADAS NADAR : JUDICIAL MEMBER

Be/