DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ERNAKULAM
Dated this the 7th day of September, 2023
Filed on: 15/02/2020
PRESENT
Shri.D.B.Binu President
Shri.V.Ramachandran Member
Smt.Sreevidhia.T.N Member C.C. No. 78/2020
COMPLAINANT
Jobin George S/o George, Kannathukuzhy House, Pallikavu Road, Muvattupuzha-686661
(Rep. by Adv. Tom Joseph, Court Road, Muvattupuzha)
VS
OPPOSITE PARTIES
- M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Opposite to Malayala Manorama Panampilly Nagar, Kochi-682036, Rep. by its Managing Director.
- M/s Kotak Mahindra Bank, ARD department, Ground Floor, Kanakadhamodar Building, Veekshanam Road, Kochi-682035
(Rep. by Adv. Anwar C.K., Ernakulam)
F I N A L O R D E R
D.B.Binu, President
- A brief statement of facts of this complaint is as stated below:
The complaint was filed under section 12 (1) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. The brief facts, as averred in the complaint, are that the complainant had a credit card from the opposite party. During the period of March 14, 2018, to August 5, 2018, the complainant used the credit card for transactions totalling to Rs.100,500. The complainant made two payments into the credit card account: 1) Rs.25,000 through M/s South Indian Bank Ltd., and Rs. 90,000 on May 25, 2018. However, the second payment was reversed on May 28, 2018, due to issues with the opposite party's account.
The complainant made further payments, totalling Rs.140,800, which was Rs. 40,300 more than the amount owed. Despite this, the opposite party demanded Rs. 182,000 to clear the account. The excessive demand seemed to be due to the opposite party's failure to accept the Rs. 90,000 payments on May 25, 2018. The opposite party-imposed penalties and interest without acknowledging that the failure of their system led to the payment's return.
The complainant alleged that these charges were unjustified and that the accumulation of penalties and interest resulted from the opposite party's system failure. Despite the complainant's efforts to explain this, the opposite party included his name in the defaulter list of the Credit Information Bureau India Limited (CIBIL). Consequently, the complainant faced difficulties in obtaining financial assistance from banks and other institutions, causing substantial hardship and financial losses.
The complainant alleged that the opposite party's actions constituted a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant sought relief in the form of having his name removed from the CIBIL defaulter list, closing his credit card account, and receiving Rs. 100,000 as compensation for the emotional distress, pain, and hardship caused by the opposite party's actions.
In conclusion, the complainant has requested the consumer commission to grant the relief sought and cover the costs of the legal proceedings.
2). Notices
The Commission issued notices to the opposite parties, but they did not file their versions. Consequently, the opposite parties are set ex-parte.
3) . Evidence
The complainant had filed a proof affidavit and 3 documents that were marked Exhibit A-1 to A-3.
Exhibit A-1(series): True copy of the credit card monthly statement issued by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-2(series): True copy of the bank statement of the complainant.
Exhibit A-3(series): True Copy of the credit score report.
4) The main points to be analyzed in this case are as follows:
i) Whether the complaint is maintainable or not?
ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice from the side of the opposite parties to the complainant?
iii) If so, whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief from the side of the opposite parties?
iv) Costs of the proceedings if any?
5) The issues mentioned above are considered together and are answered as follows:
In the present case in hand, as per Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, a consumer is a person who buys any goods or hires or avails of any services for a consideration that has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment. The complainant had produced copies of the credit card monthly statement issued by the opposite party. (Exhibit A-1(series). This document revealed that the complainant had paid the requisite consideration to the opposite parties. Therefore, we are only to hold that the complainant is a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (Point No. i) goes against the opposite parties.
The complainant initiated legal proceedings against the opposite party regarding the imposition of penal interest for the credit card amount. The complainant is seeking compensation due to the deficient service resulting from the opposite party's failure to refund the complainant's funds.
The Counsel representing the complainant, Mr. Tom Joseph, argued that the complainant should not be held responsible for paying any additional penalties or interest on the loan amount. The basis of the complaint revolves around the imposition of penal charges and significant interest on the credit card debt. This imposition occurred without taking into account the fact that the complainant had initially credited Rs. 90,000 to the opposite party's account on May 25, 2018. However, due to a system issue, this amount was not accepted and was returned to the complainant's account after three days, as evidenced in Exhibit A2 on page 7.
Exhibit A1 to A3 were presented as evidence on behalf of the complainant, while no response was filed by the opposite party. Instead, the opposite party submitted a 1.A seeking impleadment of their credit card wing, leading to their inclusion as additional OP2. Despite this, they did not provide any representation. Given that the accumulation of the outstanding loan amount occurred due to a system failure that prevented the acceptance of the complainant's deposited money, it was argued that the complainant should not be held liable for any additional penal charges or interest on the loan.
To provide context, the complainant had utilized the credit card facility for a total of Rs. 100,500 and had already remitted Rs. 1,40,800 to repay the due amount, including interest. Therefore, according to him, no further amount is owed to the opposite party. Given these circumstances, the prayer was made to grant the requested reliefs as outlined in the complaint.
The evidence presented included an ex-parte proof affidavit filed by the complainant, and it was unchallenged by the opposite parties. Therefore, the complainant's claims were considered credible and supported by the evidence. Therefore, the complainant requests the commission to grant the relief sought, including compensation for mental agony and unfair trade practices.
The opposite parties’ conscious failure to file their written version in spite of having received the Commission’s notice to that effect amounts to an admission of the allegations levelled against them. Here, the case of the complainant stands unchallenged by the opposite parties. We have no reason to disbelieve the words of the complainant as against the opposite parties. The Hon’ble National Commission held a similar stance in its order dated 2017 (4) CPR page 590 (NC).
The opposite parties had inadequately performed the service as contracted with the complainant and hence there is a deficiency in service, negligence, and failure on the part of the opposite parties in failing to provide the Complainant desired service which in turn has caused mental agony and hardship, and financial loss, to the Complainant.
The opposite parties' failure to challenge the evidence presented by the complainant supports his claim. The complainant's payments exceeded the due amount, making the additional demand unjustified. The opposite parties' actions led to financial hardships, mental agony, and undue stress for the complainant. We find the issues Nos. (II) to (IV) are also in favour of the complainant for the serious deficiency in service that happened on the side of the opposite parties. Naturally, the complainant had suffered a lot of inconvenience, mental agony, hardships, financial loss, etc. due to the negligence on the part of the opposite parties.
In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to compensate the loss sustained to the complainant.
Hence the prayer is partly allowed as follows:
- The opposite parties shall take immediate and necessary actions to ensure the removal of the complainant's name from the CIBIL defaulter list.
- The opposite parties shall close the credit card account of the complainant.
- The Opposite Parties shall pay. Rs. 50,000 to the complainant as compensation for the mental agony and hardships suffered.
- The Opposite Parties shall also pay the complainant Rs. 10,000/- towards the cost of the proceedings.
The opposite parties shall be jointly and severally liable for the above-mentioned directions which shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within 30 days from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the amount ordered vide (i) and (ii) above shall attract interest @9.5% from the date of deposit till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7th day of September, 2023
Sd/-
D.B.Binu, President
Sd/-
V.Ramachandran, Member
Sd/-
Sreevidhia T.N., Member
Forwarded/by Order
Assistant Registrar Order
Assistant Registrar
Appendix
Complainant’s evidence
Exhibit A-1(series): True copy of the credit card monthly statement issued by the opposite party.
Exhibit A-2(series): True copy of the bank statement of the complainant.
Exhibit A-3(series): True Copy of the credit score report.
Opposite party’s evidence
Nil
Despatch date:
By hand: By post
kp/
CC No. 78/2020
Order Date: 07/09/2023
