BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C. No. 218/2006 Filed on 02.08.2006 Dated : 30.07.2009 Complainant: Shajahan Buhari, T.C 16/1750-2, ULRA-43, DPI Junction, Jagathy, Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram.
(By adv. A.G. Girish Kumar)
Opposite party:
ICICI Bank Ltd., ICICI Credit Card Operations, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram represented by its Manager.
This O.P having been heard on 30.06.2009, the Forum on 30.07.2009 delivered the following: ORDER SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD: PRESIDENT The facts leading to the filing of the complaint are that complainant availed 2 credit card facilities from the opposite party, that the credit card numbers are 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105, that complainant used the said credit card facility, that the maximum credit limit is Rs. 56,300/- for the two cards, that complainant made two bulk purchases - one for Rs. 19,000/- and another for Rs. 20,000/- and that complainant could not remit the said amount as agreed at the time of getting the card. Complainant requested for providing the facility to remit the due amount in instalment scheme. Opposite party acceded to the request and provided an amortization schedule. Thereafter complainant made further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-. As against the said purchase the complainant remitted an amount of Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 11.03.2006. Thereafter complainant received a statement of account on 29.05.2006 showing the total amount due as Rs. 75,723.67. Complainant immediately contacted the opposite party for knowing the true statement of account and also for a statement of account for the entire transaction between the complainant and the opposite party. Opposite party put forward a false and fictitious accounts. Opposite party was not willing to give a statement of account as demanded. On 29.06.2006 opposite party served another statement of account alleging that an amount of Rs. 78,316.29 is due from the complainant. Opposite party has no authority to charge such an exorbitant rate of interest for a period of one month. The maximum credit limit sanctioned by the opposite party is 56,300/-, but now the alleged claim of the opposite party is Rs. 78,316.29. Opposite party has violated all the relevant guidelines and rules of the Reserve Bank of India and is charging exorbitant rate of interest, other penal charges and other hidden charges under various heads in arriving at the said amount. The action of the opposite party is unfair, unjust and unreasonable. Complainant is willing to remit the outstanding EMI at any time. Opposite party has no authority to unilaterally withdraw the EMI scheme. The said withdrawal of instalment scheme is unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint to direct the opposite party to furnish the entire statement of account relating the said credit card numbers and to adhere the EMI fixed as per the amortization schedule. Opposite party did not turn up inspite of service of notice. No version filed. Hence opposite party set exparte. The points that arise for consideration are:- Whether the complainant is entitled to get detailed statement of accounts relating to credit cards? Whether the complainant is entitled to EMI Scheme offered by the opposite party? Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party?
In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and Exts. P1 to P8 were marked. Opposite party remained exparte. Opposite party did not file version or documents. Points (i) to (iii):- It has been the case of the complainant that complainant availed two credit cards from the opposite party vide card No. 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105 respectively, that complainant utilised the maximum credit limit of Rs. 56,300/- for the said cards. Ext. P1 is the letter dated 29.12.2005 issued by the opposite party to the complainant. As per Ext. P1 the credit limit maintained is Rs. 56,300/-. Ext. P1 is seen issued to Membership No. 4477468341386105. Submission by the complainant is that he had made two bulk purchases, one for Rs. 19,000/- and another for Rs. 20,000/-, that as he could not remit the said amounts as agreed at the time of getting the card, he requested for providing the facility to remit the due amount under instalment scheme, that opposite party acceded to the request and provided an amortization schedule vide letter dated 29.12.2005 and 13.01.2006. Exts. P2 and P3 are the said letters. As per Ext. P2, based on the request of the complainant for EMI Schedule against credit card 4477468341386006 amounted to Rs. 19,000/- opposite party has enclosed an amortization schedule showing the interest and principal components of Equated Monthly Instalments (EMIs). As per the Amortization schedule complainant had to remit 12 EMIs of Rs. 1,741.67 each from 28.01.2006 to 28.12.2006. As per Ext. P3, based on the request of the complainant for EMI Scheme against credit card 4477468341386105 amounted to Rs. 20,000/-opposite party has enclosed an amortization schedule. As per the amortization schedule (Ext. P3) opposite party had to remit 24 EMI of Rs. 1,000/- each from 11.02.2006 to 11.01.2008. Complainant submits that in the meantime he made further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-, against which he remitted Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006. Ext. P4 is the credit card statement dated 01.03.2006. As per Ext. P4 complainant is seen remitted the said cash payments on 06.02.2006 and 11.02.2006. As per transaction details stated in Ext. P4, EMI is seen remitted from 28.01.2006. Apart from receiving EMI principal and EMI interest, service tax is also levied from the complainant. Total amount due as on 01.03.2006 was Rs. 9,762.06. Ext. P5 is the credit card statement dated 29.03.2006, which shows transaction details from 11.03.2006 to 28.03.2009. Ext. P6 is the credit card statement which shows transaction details. Ext. P7 is the credit card statement dated 29.05.2006. The total amount due as on 29.03.2006 is Rs. 15200.2, whereas as per Ext. P6, the total amount due as on 29.05.2006 was Rs. 75,237.67. Ext. P8 is the credit card statement dated 29.06.2006. As per Ext. P8, total amount is Rs. 78,316.29. On going through Exts. P4 to P8 it is found that complainant has remitted an amount of Rs. 6,500/- on 06.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.02.2006, Rs. 2,000/- on 11.03.2006 and Rs. 2,000/- on 13.05.2006. That is altogether complainant remitted Rs. 12,500/- since 06.02.2006. Submission by the complainant is that the maximum credit limit sanctioned by the opposite party is Rs. 56,300/-, but now the alleged claim of the opposite party is Rs. 78,316.29 and that opposite party has violated all the relevant guidelines and rules of the RBI and is charging exorbitant rate of interest, other penal charges and other hidden charges under various heads in arriving at this huge amount. It is pertinent to note that as per the request of the complainant for the EMI scheme against the credit card amounts of Rs.19,000/- and of Rs. 20,000/-. Opposite party had issued amortization schedules, but the said amounts as per amortization schedule are not seen fully remitted by the complainant. Complainant himself admitted further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-, but no document seen furnished to corroborate that aspect. On going through Exts. P6, P7 and P8, it is seen that opposite party claimed total amount due of Rs. 75,723.67 as on 29.05.2006, which rose to Rs. 78,316.29 as on 29.06.2006 as per Ext. P8. The split up details are not shown in the above credit card statements. The annualised percentage rates on card products should be quoted by card issuers. In this context it is to be highlighted the guidelines issued by RBI. The Annual Percentage Rate (APR) and annual fee should be shown with equal prominence. The late payment charges including the method of calculation of such charges and the number of days should be prominently indicated. The manner in which the outstanding unpaid amount will be included for calculation of interest should also be specifically shown with minimum amount indicated to keep the card valid has been paid, it should be indicated in bold letters that the interest will be charged on the amount due after the due date of payment. These aspects may be shown in the welcome kit in addition to be shown in the monthly statement. A legend or notice to the effect that 'making only the minimum payment every month would result in the repayment stretching over..... years with consequent interest payment on your outstanding balance' should be prominently displayed in all monthly statements so as to caution the customers about the pitfalls in paying the minimum amount due. Evidently, complainant had remitted Rs. 12,500/- to opposite party and after adjusting the said remittances opposite party need to prepare credit card statement in view of the above said guidelines. Since complainant had remitted a sum of Rs. 12,500/- during the period when the EMI scheme as per amortization schedule was in force, opposite party ought to facilitate the same as per Exts. P2 & P3 to the complainant by charging reasonable rate of interest. No EMI facility was requested by the complainant in regard to the further purchases for Rs. 17,300/-. There is no material to show that EMI facility was granted by the opposite party for the said amount. In view of the foregoing discussions and in the light of evidence available on records, we hold that complainant is entitled to get the detailed statement of accounts relating to credit cards and opposite party is bound to facilitate EMI scheme to complainant as per Exts. P2 & P3. In the result, complaint is partly allowed. Opposite party shall raise detailed credit card statements relating to credit numbers 4477468341386006 and 4477468341386105 after adjusting the amounts of Rs. 12,500/- remitted by the complainant after the issuance of Exts. P2 and P3 amortization schedule dated 28.12.2005 and 11.01.2006. Opposite party shall adhere by Ext. P2 & P3 amortization schedule and charge interest as per guidelines issued by the RBI with respect to two purchases for Rs. 19,000/- and Rs. 20,000/-. For other purchases if any made by the complainant, than what are stated in Exts. P2 & P3 amortization schedules, complainant is liable to repay as per terms and conditions for payment of credit card dues. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 30th day of July 2009.
G. SIVAPRASAD, President.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
C.C. No. 218/2006 APPENDIX
I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Shajahan Buhari II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Letter issued by opposite party to complainant. P2 - Letter dated 29.12.2005 and amortization schedule P3 - Letter dated 13.01.2006 and amortization schedule P4 - Credit card statement dated 01.03.2006 P5 - Credit card statement dated 29.03.2006 P6 - Credit card statement dated 29.05.2006 P7 - Credit card statement dated 29.05.2006 P8 - Credit card statement dated 29.06.2006 III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Smt. S.K.Sreela
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | |
