IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.
Present: HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE. S. TAMILVANAN, PRESIDENT
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
F.A.No.25/2012
(Against the order in C.C.No.369/2009 dated 13.07.2010 on the file of the District Forum, Coimbatore.
WEDNESDAY, THE 20th DAY OF DECEMBER 2017.
1. The Manager,
Citi Bank N.A.,
766 – Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
2. Citi Bank. N.A.,
766 – Anna Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
3. The Manager,
Citi Bank,
No.657, Tri Star Tower,
Avinashi Road,
Coimbatore – 600 018. Appellants/Opposite Parties
Vs
J. Chandran,
11/176- A, Nanjanand Village & Post,
Udagamandalam,
The Nilgiris – 643 004. Respondent/Complainant
Counsel for the Appellants/Opposite Parties : M/s. S. Namasivayam, Advocate.
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant : M/s. R. Shivakumar, Advocate.
This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 08.12.2017 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following:-
ORDER
THIRU.K. BASKARAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER.
The opposite parties who suffered a order at the hands of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Coimbatore at the instance of the complainant have come before this Commission by way of this appeal.
1. The factual matrix behind this appeal is as follows;- That the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Forum, Coimbatore, alleging inter alia that he availed the credit card service offered by the opposite parties who are bankers and also availed a top-up loan of Rs.50,000/- on 21.12.2006 from the 2nd opposite party and the amount payable by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party on that date was Rs.77,588/- including outstanding debit balance of Rs.27,588/- which was repayable in 41 Equated Monthly Instilments (EMIs) at Rs.2960.16 P with diminishing interest at the rate of 28% per annum; pursuant to the said loan the complainant had repaid Rs.1,27,940/- till March 2009 and as such he had paid an excess amount of Rs.36,075/- which was received and acknowledged by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties; that when the complainant wanted to surrender the said credit card and sent a letter on 21.11.2008 to the 1st opposite party requesting the procedures for surrendering the said card and the balance amount to be paid if any and the 1st opposite party gave a vague reply by stating that the outstanding balance was Rs.4,048.36 P and in another letter it was replied by them that there was a balance of Rs.3,886.41 and thereafter the complainant was asked to pay Rs.50,647.04 P whereas even the 1st opposite party in a reply dated 03.12.2008 informed that there was a balance of Rs.4048.36 only ; that the opposite parties were not consistent in their stand as to what was the amount outstanding or paid in excess in respect of that credit card account. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to refund the excess amount of Rs.36,075/- paid by the complainant and to cancel the credit card issued to the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs and they should also inform the same to the CIBIL for deleting the name of the complainant from the defaulters’ list.
2. The opposite parties denied all the complaint allegations and further alleged that besides availing top up loan of Rs.50,000/- in the month of December 2006 which made the total debt outstanding of the complainant to Rs.77,588/- but the complainant had only paid 19 EMIs and paid only the minimum amount due which was calculated on the basis of usage on the card and the complainant had also used the credit card to effect purchases and had also withdrawn cash through ATM and hence as on 23.01.2010 the total amount due and payable by the complainant to the opposite parties under the said credit card was Rs.65,851.34 P and also the alleged repayment mentioned in the complaint are in respect of usage of the credit card which could be proved by the opposite parties by filing the credit card statement at the time of filing proof affidavit. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and consequently the complaint has to be dismissed.
3. Based on the pleadings, the learned District Forum framed two points and by way of answering them it held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties which was proved by the complainant and hence the complainant was entitled to the relief claimed and accordingly the complaint was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties/appellants have come before this Commission by way of this appeal.
4. In the memorandum of grounds of appeal, the opposite parties had set out some defence as contended in their written version.
5. The point for consideration is whether the appeal has to be allowed and the order of the learned District Forum dated 13.07.2010 made in CC-No.359/2009 has to be set aside?
6. Point:- The simple case of the complainant is that the respondent/complainant had paid an excess amount of Rs.36,075/- in his credit card account and hence the opposite parties were bound to refund the same in addition to the compensation and costs. The definite defence of the opposite parties before the learned District Forum was that the payment alleged to have been made by the complainant were not for the repayment of the top up loan and the previous debit balance by way of EMIs but towards the usage of the credit card in the various transactions made by the complainant and the opposite parties could easily establish the same by filing the relevant credit card account statement along with the proof affidavit during enquiry in that case. For the reasons best known to the opposite parties, they had neither filed any proof affidavit nor any documents for the purpose of proving the pleadings made in their written version. Hence, the learned District Forum has rightly held that in the absence of any evidence the defence version could not be accepted and further held that the complainant had proved his claim through his documents marked as Exhibits A1 to A13 and it rightly allowed the complaint. We do not find any reason or ground to interfere with the lawful findings recorded by the learned District Forum.
7. For the reasons stated above, we hold that the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore dated 13.07.2010 made in C.C.No.369/2009 could not be interfered with and thereby this appeal cannot be allowed and the point is answered accordingly.
8. In the result, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed with cost of Rs.5000/- payable by the appellants/opposite parties to the respondent/ complainant.
K. BASKARAN, S. TAMILVANAN,
JUDICIAL MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
