DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.68/2018
Manish Sharma
S/o Sh. Anand Mohan Sharma
R/o -197 Vipin Garden Main
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059
Office at: 5/15, LGF, Sarvapriya Vihar
New Delhi-110016
….Complainant
Versus
Kotak Mahindra Bank
Through Its Branch Manger
33, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV,
Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi-110024
Also At:
Credit Card Department
Kotak Mahindra Bank
27 BKC, C 27, G Block
Bandra – Kurla Complex
Bandra (E), Mumbai
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 01.03.2018
Date of Order : 23.12.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
Member: Sh. U.K Tyagi
1. Complainant has requested for directions to Kotak Mahindra Bank (hereinafter referred to as OP) (i) to defreeze the Saving Bank Account No. 48114495314 and Credit Card No. 4166-4643-0155-1354 of the complaint; (ii) to correct the CIBIL Credit history of the Complainant; (iii) to waive the late payment/interest and other charges as shown in Annexure-H (iv) to allow the compensation of Rs.75,000/- towards harassment, mental agony etc. (v) Rs.25,000/- towards litigation charges etc.
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The Complainant is maintaining Saving Bank account No.4811495314 at Lajpat Nagar Branch of the OP-Bank. Statement of account from 01.02.2017 to 31.01.2018 is annexed as Annexures-A. He was offered by OP-Bank to apply for credit card. Visa Credit Card No.4166-4633-0155-1354 was issued by the OP-Bank. He purchased LED TV & other purchases worth of Rs.60,292/75 in October, 2016. Due date of this payment was 08.12.2016, which was showing minimum payment of Rs.3,014/64 in his credit account. He made payment of Rs.3,100/- on 08.12.2016. The same day, he received one more message of credit of Rs.60,292/75 from the OP-Bank. As above purchases were on EMIs. As such, a consumer dispute arose between them as goods were purchased on EMIs and how message of credit of Rs.60,292/75 was shown on his credit card account. The OP-Bank failed to appreciate the perfect banking and credit facility management. The OP deliberately and arbitrarily blocked the credit card and bank Account number as mentioned above without any prior notice. Not only, the OP deducted large amount from account but also the agents of OP visited and gave repeated reminders. CIBIL record of the complainant was also damaged. It was contended by the Complainant that he had written e-mail to the reply of OP Sh. Sunil Tripathi stating that he is ready to pay the amount subject to keep aside the mistake committed by OP, but no heed was given. The copy of said e-mail is attached at Annexure-E. Aggrieved with illegal act and unlawful trust practice of OP, the complainant got the legal notice sent to OP. Per contra, the OP sent Demand Notice on 03.11.2017 for payment of Rs.1,92,060/30 including interest & other charges. Again Demand Notice for payment of Rs.2,11,249/88 on 11.01.2018 was issued. His salary amount was also forfeited on 20.04.2017. His saving bank account & credit card were also blocked.
3. OP, on the other hand, filed its reply, interalia raising preliminary objections. The complainant had agreed at the time of availment credit facilities that any dispute between parties shall be referred to sole Arbitrator to be appointed by OP. It is, stated that the arbitration proceedings have already been initiated and award is likely to be passed and complainant is well aware of the arbitration proceedings.
4. It was further averred that the complaint is devoid of cause of action hence, liable to be rejected at the threshold. Further, it is contended that the complaint is based on false, frivolous and baseless allegations. The complainant has failed to follow the obligation of maintaining the financial discipline as per credit card facility. The Complainant had authorized OP to debit total amount due on his credit card for monthly purchasing from his account every month as would be evident from card application form. The present complaint hold no value as there had been no discrepancy in service of the OP.
It is also denied that complainant was ready to pay the aforesaid amount in EMI, which was allowed by the Customer Care Facility. It is further submitted that if complainant wanted to convert-purchases to EMI, then it was always open for him to send SMS to convert purchases into EMIs. The Complainant had never opted for conversion of purchases into EMIs. The OP has also denied the charge of sending the recovery agents. It is also denied that CIBIL of the complainant was damaged due to OP. OP has specifically denied the charge of deficiency in service and any negligence in rendering service to the customers. Therefore, the complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.
5. Both the parties have filed written submissions and evidence-in-affidavit. Written statement is on record so is rejoinder. Oral arguments were heard and concluded.
6. This Commission was taken through the material placed on record and due consideration was given to the oral arguments. Consumer dispute started from the fact that complainant had the facility of credit card of the OP and purchased the goods such as LED TV and other goods amounting to Rs.60,292/75 in October, 2016. The contention of the complainant is that the said purchases were on EMIs and first EMIs was due on 08.12.2016 for Rs.3,014/64. The complainant made the payment of Rs.3,100/- as first EMI was due on 08.12.2016. The same day, the Complainant got the message of credit of Rs. 60,292/75 on his credit card account. The same was taken up with OP on 09.12.2016 through e-mail by the complainant and desired to know the whereabouts of this payment. Since at the time of the purchase, it was agreed upon between the parties that the payment schedule of this amount shall be through EMIs.
7. The OP had maintained that since the complainant did not exercise the option to pay the due amount through EMIs, hence, it cannot be automatically taken that the said purchases to be paid through EMIs. Hence, the OP resorted to debit the amount from the saving account of the complainant. It was also asserted by OP that the complainant had given authority to debit the due amount from the Saving Bank Account of the complainant. Further, the OP relied upon the application Form. The same was examined by this Commission also and could lay hands on the relevant information as contended by OP. Some portion of the application form could not be read due to small print/font. It is also apt to ponder over the contention of the OP that the evidences/annexures were not shared with them, hence, refrained from giving any satisfactory response. It would be relevant to mention that the Bank-statement which is the document of the OP-Bank, could not have been denied. The complainant is relying heavily on these documents, however other documents which were not commented upon by the OP, are the email i.e correspondence sent by the Complainant. By way of denial of the statement of account is to escape from contractual obligations. Complainant had categorically stated that he is not denying the adherence to terms & conditions. As per credit card facility, the complainant was allowed two mode of payment either through EMIs or one time payment. At the time of purchase, he was told that the payment can be made to OP without interest in EMIs to which complainant agreed and paid first EMI on 08.12.2016.
8. The Complainant also contended in response to the OP contention that the cause of action accrued when OP blocked credit Card on 20.02.2017 and further arose when OP arbitrarily debit the amount from saving bank account of the complainant and transfer to credit card account.
9. As regards arbitration proceeding before the Sole Arbitrator, the evidence to this effect was not placed before this Commission. This Commission also is of the view that this ground of OP for maintainability does not hold goods in the absence of any substantive document.
10. Succinctly, after having considered the material placed and examination of various facts as narrated above, the Commission is of the considered view that OP could not succeed in his case and fails to provide substantive documents and tried to escape from the response on its own document i.e statement of account & other email etc. Hence, OP is directed to (i) defreeze the Saving Bank Account 4811495314 (ii) Credit Card No.4166-4643-0155-1354 of the complainant (iii) get the CIBIL credit history corrected; (iv) waive the late payment charges/interest as applicable. The other requests of complainant as laid down in prayer of the complaint are not acceded to. The above order should be given effect within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which, Rs.25,000/- shall be levied additionally and to be paid within 03 months.
File be consigned to the record room and order be uploaded on the website.
