A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 540/2009 in C C 211/2008 on the file of the
District Forum III, Hyderabad
Between :
The Manager Legal,
Credit Card Division,
State Bank of India,
Ashokbhoopal Chamber,
S. D. Road, Begumpet,
Secunderabad. .. Appellant/opposite party
And
Mohd. Abdul Aleem,.
S/o M. A. Wahab, aged about 43 years
Occ: Teacher in Govt. School,
Add : H. No. 17-1-182/B/111/2/1/A,
Hyderabad - 500 059 .. Respondent/complainant
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. Hari & Associates
Counsel for the Respondent : Party-in-person.
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Monday, the Nineteenth Day of July, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
The un-successful opposite party in CC. 211/2008 on the file of the District Forum III, Hyderabad has preferred this appeal questioning the direction for payment of Rs.20,000/- as compensation for the alleged mental agony besides costs of Rs.2,000/- and also with further direction to cancel SBI Card Account No. 0004317575513089913. The impugned order is assailed as erroneous and that the appellant had no opportunity to put forth its defence before the District Forum.
The facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant used to receive telephonic calls from the respondent bank and that the staff of the opposite party had approached him explaining about the advantages of the SBI Credit Card but he refused to receive the same and that he neither received the credit card nor it was delivered to him. Without giving consent, the complainant was said to have issued Credit Card bearing No. 0004317513 08991 which was in fact not at all received by him. While so, the complainant used to receive statement that as per the Insurance scheme, i.e., Super Suraksha Insurance Policy, he is entitled the insurance on credit card for self and his wife. He informed the bank that he has no need to have the benefit of the said insurance policy and in this regard he addressed letters on 08.08.2007, 23.08.2007, 28.08.2007 and also requested the Managers of the SBI Life Insurance Company Limited, Mumbai and Delhi to cancel the policy and send reply. The complainant had sent through its toll-free-call centre for which no reply was sent which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the bank. Thereafter, the respondent stopped issuing monthly statement commencing from September, 2007 to December, 2007. The Statements were issued from January, 2008 onwards, the complainant enquired with the banks head office located at Chennai. After making several efforts, the complainant visited local office of the bank but there was no proper response. The complainant approached Alternative Consumer Disputes Redressal Cell, Somajiguda, Hyderabad, o 13.10.2007 for settling the issue. The cell has issued five notices since from 23.10.2007 but the respondent bank never turned up. So the complainant was advised to approach the District Forum. Since the opposite parties have adopted unfair trade practice and the bank had flouted the RBI guidelines they are liable to compensate for causing mental agony to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and to cancel he credit card and the connected insurance policy.
The District Forum had set the opposite parties exparte on 08.05.2008 and proceeded with the case.
On the basis of the documentary evidence , i.e., Ex. A-1 to A-9 filed by the District Forum adjudicated the points, viz.,
(1) Whether the Credit Card was issued or not ? and
(2) whether the amount is issued under the said Credit Card ?
After going through the evidence, the District Forum held that Ex. A-3 reveals that the insurance amount was debited from the credit card account without prior consent of the credit card holder while giving him for option for cancellation within one month from the date of debiting premium amount. It is also observed that the opposite party had debited the amount from the complainant’s Bank’s Account without consent towards payment of premium on the policy which amounts to compulsion though credit card holder has an option to withdraw it. Also held that Ex. A7 and A8 correspondence shows that the complainant made all efforts to get the credit card cancelled and thereby concluded that the complainant had not used the credit card for any other purpose and that the amounts were deducted from his account for payment of the insurance premium covered by the policy. So it was concluded that it was unfair trade practice.
The stronghold contention raised in the appeal grounds are that the District Forum failed to send notice to the appellant/opposite party to contest the matter and that the case was disposed off without giving an opportunity. It is also contended that principles of natural justice are not followed by giving an opportunity to put forth his defence before passing the order. It is also the contention that the respondent/complainant himself opted for insurance policy and at the time of submitting the application to inform the name of the nominee later.
Point for consideration are,
(1) whether the impugned order suffers from any factual and legal
infirmity and
(2) the contentions raised in the appeal grounds are tenable ?
The strong hold contention raised by the appellant is that the District Forum had not sent any notice to defend the case ands that the order was passed behind its back.
We have gone through the record of the District Forum which shows that the case was registered on 17.03.2008 and notice was issued for appearance of OP 3 on 21.4.2008. As per the endorsement noted on the complaint a registered notice was sent on 31.3.2008 through registered post with acknowledgment due for the appearance of Opposite party on 21.4.2008. On 21.4.2008, the docket order shows that notice sent to the opposite party was not returned, so ordered to await till the return of notice and posted to 30.4.2008. On 30.04.2008, the docket order shows that RP notice was duly served and acknowledgement was received .From 30.04.2008. the case was re-posted to 08.05.2008 for filing affidavit evidence of the complainant. Thereafter, it was re-posted to 13.05.2008. On 13.05.2008, for filing the affidavit evidence of the complainant on which date the case was heard and posted for orders on 16.05.2008. All the while, right from 30.04.2008 to 16.05.2008, no steps were taken by the appellant/opposite party to participate in the enquiry. When the postal acknowledgment shows the signature of the officials of the concerned opposite party with its office seal, it is very clear that the notice was duly served. So the contention raised in point no. 1 is not true and acceptable.
It cannot be contended that the District Forum without giving any opportunity had passed the order behind its back. It is to be inferred that the opposite party had very much knowledge of the filing of the complaint and for which a notice was duly served for which an acknowledgement was given to the post-man which was re-submitted to the District Forum about the service of notice. In the grounds of appeal it is pointed out that the respondent/complainant himself had opted for insurance policy and at the time of submitting the application one has to furnish the name of the nominee in it in respect of the insurance policy. If that is the procedure, it is strange that the appellant has not filed an iota of evidence in support of its defence that the SBI Credit Card or policies were issued on the application made by him and after taking his consent only the operation of the SBI Credit Cards were processed for availment of the benefit and as well the insurance benefit in the event of any untoward incident. It is not known why the appellant the appellant/opposite party has not produced the relevant record or its copies to falsify the allegations made by the complainant. Even along with appeal grounds, they have not filed the statement of accounts relating to the account pertaining to the SBI Credit Cards or giving consent letter for issuing of credit card or a policy. Ex. A-1 is the letter dated 14.06.2007 addressed by the opposite party to the complainant in which it is stated that a total sum of Rs.7504.87 ps is over due in his account and asked to pay the same and in case of any clarification or information he may contact the helpline and the helpline number is also mentioned. Ex. A2 and A-3 are the letters dated 06.08.2007 and 16.08.2007 respectively sent by the appellant/opposite party. Ex. A-4 is the certificate of insurance which was issued in the name of the complainant . Ex. A-5 is another letter dated nil addressed to the complainant informing that his account was reviewed and observed that due to some technical issues, the finance charges on the unpaid loan, EMI were not levied for the period from April, 2007 to September, 2007 intermittently and thereby informed that the debit for the unbilled finance charges will reflect in his current monthly statement. Ex. A-6 is the statement issued by the opposite party for the months of 6th February, 2008 showing that he made purchases to a tune of Rs. 275.42 D , In reply to it, the respondent/complainant addressed a letter Ex. A-8 to the opposite party bank informing that he did not receive any SBI Credit Card at all and that ‘ Suraksha Policy ‘ was issued without applying for the card and in this regard a notice was sent under Ex. A-7 by regd. Post for which postal receipt was issued by Saidabad post office. Similarly, another letter dated 23.08.2007 under Ex. A-8 was sent by registered post informing that he requested for cancellation of the policies but the same were not cancelled and followed by it a legal notice dated 28.08.2007 was sent by registered post to the opposite party. In Ex. A-9 legal notice, it is stated that since he is a diabetic patient he is not eligible for insurance claim as he has pre-existing disease. It is also informed that he was un-necessarily disturbed on phone by Credit Card Branch officials and sending dispatch letters against his wishes which is causing him embarrassment and inconvenience, so he would take necessary legal steps. The documentary evidence filed was proved by filing evidence affidavit as required U/s. 64 of the Evidence Act. It is not known why no reply was sent by the appellant/opposite party. it is only at the appellate stage, the appellant has taken the stand that the District Forum passed an order without giving an opportunity, which, in the face of record is not true and correct. The opposite party due to its own fault and latches failed to avail an opportunity that was given. Even at the stage of appeal, no documentary evidence is brought on record to show that by obtaining consent of the respondent/complainant, the credit cards were issued which is linked with the policies. The negligence or latches on the part of the opposite party is very evident and apparent from the documents filed by the complainant, i.e., Ex. A-1to A-9. The opposite party at least after receiving registered letters and registered notice would have set right the matter without allowing the complainant to go to the District Forum for redressal of the grievances.
The complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.50,000/- that he suffered mental agony and physical strain for going round the appellant Bank and spending amount for autos but it is not quantified giving details. The claim of compensation at Rs.50,000/- is superfluous and exaggerated.
The cause of action arose on 14.6.2007 covered by Ex.A-1 and thereafter after sending Ex. A-7 and A-8during the month of August, 2008, the complainant had issued final legal notice on 28.08.2007 and then filed the complaint in the month of March, 2008 which was disposed of on 16th May, 2008. it is not a prolonged conflict to say that the complainant ws in continuous mental agony to claim heavy compensation. The District Forum has rightly held hat the opposite party had adopted unfair trade practice for promoting its business in respect of credit cards. Compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the District Forum appears to be on high side, so we feel that it is proper to reduce it to Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed by modifying the order of the District Forum reducing compensation to Rs.10,000/- with costs of Rs.2,000/-. In the circumstances of the case, each party is directed to bear its own costs in the appeal.
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED : 19.07.2010.
