Rajasthan

StateCommission

A/283/2015

Standard Chartered Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madhukar Sonkhia s/o Ghanshyam Das - Opp.Party(s)

Abhishek Bhandari

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,RAJASTHAN,JAIPUR BENCH NO.1

 

 

FIRST APPEAL NO: 283/2015

 

Standard Chartered Bank, H-8, Bhagwat Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur & ors.

Vs.

Madhukar Sonkhia s/o Ghanshyam Das r/o House No. 151, Above Shop No. 130, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur.

 

APPEAL NO: 341/2015

 

Madhukar Sonkhia s/o Ghanshyam Das r/o House No. 151, Above Shop No. 130, Kishanpole Bazar, Jaipur.

Vs.

Standard Chartered Bank, H-8, Bhagwat Bhawan, M.I.Road, Jaipur & ors.

 

Date of Order 31.8.2016

 

Before:

Hon'ble Mr.Vinay Kumar Chawla-Presiding Member

2

 

Mr.Abhishek Bhandari counsel for the Bank

Mr.Pramod Kumar counsel for the complainant

 

BY THE STATE COMMISSION

 

Both these appeals arise out of the judgment dated 19.12.2014 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur 3^rd by which the complaint was allowed.

 

Brief facts are that the complainant is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank. In his complaint he has submitted that he has been using this credit card and he paid timely payment to the bank. He had taken a loan of Rs.3,28,371/- in October 2007 and he has been paying the monthly installments on time, even then the bank has levied late fee charges in the statements and every time he makes request for reversing the late fee charges and the bank reverses it. He has submitted that from February 2010 to October 2010 in every statement late fee charges were levied which were later on reversed. He filed the complaint for service deficiency on the part of the bank. The opposite party submitted before the learned DCF that in January 2010 EMI

3

 

was due on 28.1.2010 but payment was received on 2.2.2010. Thus, under the agreement late fee charges were payable by the complainant. It submitted that EMI for February 2010 was not deposited and late fee charges were levied. However, in view of the good will of the complainant these charges were reversed in April 2010. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite party. The learned DCF after considering the submission of both the parties only directed that in future the bank will issue statements of the correct amount and no undue penalty or late fee charges will be levied. However, he ordered that bank should pay Rs.21,000/- as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- as cost of prosecution. The bank has challenged this judgment in Appeal No. 283/2015. The bank has prayed that the learned DCF has not found any deficiency on the part of the bank even then the bank has been asked to pay compensation of Rs.21,000/-.

 

The complainant has filed Appeal No. 341/2015 praying that the learned DCF has not granted relied prayed for in the complaint.

 

 

4

 

We have heard both the counsels and have perused the record.

 

It is not disputed that late fee charges are leviable if the payment are not made on time and it also cannot be disputed that EMI due on 28.1.2010 was paid on 2.2.2010. However, late fee charges levied for this delay had been reversed in the statement in April 2010 and late fee levied in February 2010 was also reversed in May 2010. Late fee charges levied in July 2010 were reversed in statement of August 2010. In September 2010 and October 2010 late fee charges were also levied but it has not been proved by the complainant whether he did make the payment of amount outstanding in September 2010 and October 2010 on the due date. He has submitted his pass book only upto August 2010 and there is no way to find out whether the payment in September and October were made in time. The learned DCF was right in rejecting the prayer regarding quashing all these amounts as the late fee charged in February 2010 and March 2010 had been reversed. There seems to be no merit in the appeal filed by the complainant against this judgment.

 

5

 

As regards the deficiency in service on the part of bank in levying these charges, we do not agree with the findings of the learned DCF as the first payment in February 2010 was made after the due date and late fee was later reversed by the bank. This cannot amount service deficiency. In view of this the bank cannot be asked to pay any compensation to the complainant for any service deficiency. The order of the learned DCF to that extent is set aside and the rest of the order is maintained.

 

 

(Vinay Kumar Chawla)

Presiding Member

 

 

nm