Punjab

Faridkot

CC/17/395

Hari Paul - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Anil Kumar Chawla

29 Apr 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, FARIDKOT

 

Complaint No. :          395 of 2017

Date of Institution :      13.12.2017

Date of Decision :        29.04.2019

 Hari Paul son of Inder Sain resident of Ghasi Ram Street, Near Gandhi Memorial High School, Kotkapura Tehsil Kotkapura District Faridkot.

.....Complainant

Versus

 

1. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Card Division, PO Box No.8654,Thiruvanmiyur PO Chennai-600041.
2. The Manager, HDFC Bank, Faridkot Road, Kotkapura.

                                                                                      ......OPs

Complaint under Section 12 of the

Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

Quorum:     Sh Ajit Aggarwal, President,

                    Smt. Param Pal Kaur, Member.

Present:       Sh Anil Chawla, Ld Counsel for Complainant,  

 Sh Ravinder Parkash Goyal, Ld Counsel for OPs.

 

ORDER                                                                                                               

(Ajit Aggarwal, President)

                                    Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against OPs seeking directions to Ops to close the credit card of complainant and to refund the illegal charges and for further directing Ops to pay Rs.50,000/-as compensation for harassment and mental agony besides litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/- to complainant.

 

cc no.- 395 of 2017

2                                      Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that complainant was having a credit card bearing no.5520 8800 0037 0713, which is lost. Complainant cleared all the dues against said credit card and vide application dated 2.05.2017, requested OPs to close the said credit card, but till date OPs have not closed his credit card and are charging amount against said card from complainant. Complainant made several visits to the office of ops and requested them to close his credit card but all in vain. All this amounts to deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of OPs. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint alongwith compensation and litigation expenses besides main relief. Hence, the present complaint.

3                                                Ld Counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 19.12.2017, complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite party.

4                                              On receipt of the notice, OPs filed reply taking preliminary objections that complaint in hand is bad for misjoinder and non joinder of necessary parties and it has not been filed against proper persons and therefore, it is not maintainable in the present form and is liable to be dismissed. However, on merits, OPs have denied all the allegations of complainant being wrong and incorrect and asserted that when credit card was delivered to complainant, he was provided all terms and conditions as given in Card Member Agreement to him with credit limit of Rs.31,000/-. It is further averred that credit card can be closed only after clearance of all the amount due and outstanding towards usage of and late payment of card. Amount of Rs.9,034.74 is due towards said credit card and as per terms and conditions, bank is entitled to collect charges for revolving on credit

cc no.- 395 of 2017

facility, for delay payments including other charges. all particulars and details of usage and payment ad closure have been provided in said Card Member Agreement in addition to monthly statement of account issued to complainant, which reflects the requisite details of credit card limit, purchases, payments and applicable charges and schedule of charges is provided in MITC ie most important terms and conditions. Further submitted that amount in question is due towards complainant and without clearance of due and outstanding charges against said credit card by complainant, it cannot be closed by answering OPs. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of answering OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

5                                              Parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The ld Counsel for complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1 and documents Ex C-2 to C-6 and then, closed his evidence.

6                                               In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Counsel for OP-1 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ashish Handa Ex. OP-1, documents Ex OP-2 to Ex OP-7 and then, closed the evidence on behalf of OPss.

7                                               We have heard learned counsel for parties and have very carefully perused the affidavits & documents placed on the file by complainant as well as opposite party.

8                                              From the careful perusal of record and after going through the arguments advanced and evidence led by counsel for complainant and Opposite parties, it is observed that case of the complainant is that complainant was having a credit card bearing no.5520 8800 0037 0713, which is lost. He

cc no.- 395 of 2017

cleared all the dues against said credit card and vide application dated 2.05.2017, requested OPs to close the credit card, but OPs have not closed his credit card and are illegally and unlawfully charging amount against said card from him. grievance of complainant is that despite repeated requests OPs have not done any thing needful and did not close the said credit card and are being charging amount against said card. It amounts to deficiency in service  and action of OPs in not redressing the grievance of complainant has caused huge harassment and mental agony to him. He has prayed for accepting the present complaint. In reply, plea taken by OPs is that there is no deficiency in service on their part as they have fully complied with the terms and conditions of their bank. Credit card issued to complainant cannot be closed because some amount is still outstanding against that credit card. It can be closed only after clearance amount due towards usage said credit and clearance of that amount which is due to late payment of card. Amount of Rs.9,034.74 is due towards said credit card and as per terms and conditions of bank, they are entitled to collect charges for revolving on credit facility, for delay payments including other charges. All particulars and details of usage and payment ad closure have been provided in said Card Member Agreement in addition to monthly statement of account that reveals about details of credit card limit, purchases, payments and applicable charges. Schedule of charges is provided in MITC ie most important terms and conditions. As per OPs without clearance of due and outstanding charges against said credit card by complainant, it cannot be closed by OPs. It is reiterated that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs and prayed for dismissal of complaint with costs.

9                                         It is observed that grievance of complainant is that his credit card was lost and through his application, he made request to OPs to close his credit card, but till date, OPs have not closed the credit card issued to

cc no.- 395 of 2017

complainant. On the contrary, OPs stressed mainly on the point that they would close the credit card issued to complainant on clearance of amount due and outstanding against his credit card. As per terms and conditions and keeping in view banking rules, credit card issued cannot be closed unless and until amount due against said card is not deposited by complainant with them. ld Counsel for Ops brought our attention towards documents Ex Op-2 to 7 that clears the fact that dues against credit card issued to complainant are still outstanding and complainant is required to pay the same and without payment of dues, credit card issued to him cannot be closed. All the documents placed on record by OPs are authentic and are beyond any doubt, which make it clear that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

10                                                From the above discussion and keeping in view the evidence and pleadings made by respective Parties, this Forum is of considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs. Hence, complaint in hand is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merits. However, in peculiar circumstances of the case, there are no orders as to costs. Copy of the order be supplied to parties free of costs as per law. File be consigned to record room.

Announced in open Forum:

Dated: 29.04.2019

(Param Pal Kaur)          (Ajit Aggarwal)

 Member                          President