28.11.2014

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The present Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 9.4.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas in C.C.Case No. 440/2012, directing the Appellants/Ops to finally close the Bank Account related to the Credit Card in question without any outstanding dues as well as without any demand of the present dues.  The Appellants/Ops were further directed to pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 15,000/-  as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as costs.  All the directions were to be complied with within 15 days from the date of order, failure of which will attract punitive charges of Rs. 150/- per day till full compliance with the directions.

          The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the Respondent/ Complainant was provided forcefully, as alleged, with a ‘Visa Gold Credit Card’ bearing No. 4346  7850  3330004 9909 by the Appellants/Ops-Bank.  Thereafter, the Respondent/Complainant returned on 15.1.2008 the said Credit Card along with the related ‘Form and other allied papers’ to the Appellants/Ops-Bank with a request for cancellation of the same, vide letter dated 15.1.2008 (Running Page-35 of Memo of Appeal).  The Respondent/ Complainant ‘never used the said card’ as averred in the Petition of Complaint (Running Page-136 of Memo of Appeal, Page-4 of Petition of Complaint).  After such return of the said Credit Card the Respondent/ Complainant all on a sudden received the Demand Notice dated 18.12.2008 issued by the Appellant/Ops-Bank  with an outstanding demand of Rs. 26,473.83 (Running Page-13 of Memo of Appeal).  In response to a query by the Respondent/Complainant about such outstanding dues, the Appellants/Ops-Bank replied that the said outstanding dues had arisen from the payment by the Appellants/OP-Bank of premiums of LIC Policies of the Respondent/Complainant by ‘direct debit’ as opted for by the Respondent/Complainant (Running Page-56 of Memo of Appeal).  Then the Respondent/Complainant informed the Appellants/Ops-Bank by a letter dated 16.1.2009 (Running Page-40 of Memo of Appeal) that on an enquiry by the Respondent/Complainant the HDFC Life Insurance Department informed the Respondent/Complainant that ‘no such transaction against the particular amount has taken place’.  Thereafter, the Appellants/Ops-Bank by their letter dated 10.6.2009 (Running Page-39 of Memo of Appeal) informed the Respondent/Complainant the following particulars of  LIC Policies and DD numbers (Running Page-39 of Memo of Appeal) by which the payment of premiums of the corresponding LIC Policies were claimed to have been made by the Appellants/Ops-Bank.

                 PARTICULARS OF DDs

Meanwhile, the Appellant/Ops-Bank had sent a reminder some time in December, 2012 to the Respondent/Complainant for payment of outstanding dues of Rs. 93,716.03 (Running page-43 of Memo of Appeal) along with a threat for legal action in case of default.  After receiving such Demand Notice, alleged to be unfair one, the Respondent/Complainant moved the Ld. District Forum.  However, the account related to the Credit Card was closed (exact date of closure not mentioned) by the Appellants/OP-Bank on the request of the Respondent/Complainant as it is revealed from a letter dated 18.12.2008 by the Appellants/Ops-Bank (Running Page-61).  In this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the above manner.  Aggrieved by such order the Appellants/Ops-Bank have carried the present Appeal before this Commission.

          The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/Ops submits that the Credit Card in question was issued against the application by the Respondent/ Complainant and that the premiums of LIC Policies of the Respondent/Complainant were paid in 2007 and 2008 through ‘Smart Pay’ and ‘Auto Pay’ method as opted for by the Respondent/ Complainant.  It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that as per request of the Respondent/Complainant for closure of the Card Account, the same was closed and it was duly intimated to the Respondent/Complainant by a letter dated 18.12.2008.  It is finally submitted by the Ld. Advocate that in view of the above acts on the part of the Appellants/Ops having been done as per terms and conditions of the ‘Card Member Agreement’ and ‘Card Usage Guide’, which accompanied the Credit Card in question, there was no deficiency in service or any unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, and hence, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being unjust and improper.

          On the other hand, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the Appellants/Ops-Bank forcibly imposed the Credit Card in question upon the Respondent/Complainant without explaining the consequences of the use of the Card.  It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that the Appellants/Ops-Bank did not make any payment of premiums of LIC of the Respondent/Complainant as it is evident from the difference between the numbers of the DDs claimed to have been issued (Running Page-64 of Memo of Appeal) by the Appellants/Ops-Bank for payment of LIC premiums and those mentioned in the LIC receipts available on records.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that when the prayer for closure of the Card Account was made on 15.1.2008, the Appellant/Ops-Bank informed about the closure of the same only on 18.12.2008 by their letter dated 18.12.2008 and that too, without disclosing the exact date of effect of closure of the Account.  The Ld. Advocate concludes that the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case clearly indicate the gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Ops-Bank and hence, the impugned judgment and order, which is just and proper, should be sustained.

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records.

          The LIC premium receipts, bearing Nos. 3840831, 3840832 and 3840833 (Running Pages-116, 117 and 118 of Memo of Appeal), as available on records, reveal the following DD numbers in relation to   payment of LIC premiums in question against the DD numbers as claimed by the Appellants/Ops-Bank for payment of LIC premiums.

The above mentioned difference in DD numbers in respect of the payment of LIC premiums as claimed by the Appellants/Ops-Bank,  renders the claim of the Appellants/Ops-Bank as regards the payment of premiums of LIC policies of the Respondent/Complainant unsubstantiated.

          Therefore, on the above facts and evidence on records we find no reason to interfere with the findings of the impugned judgment and order by the Ld. District Forum.

          Consequently, the Appeal being devoid of merits is dismissed, and the impugned judgment and order by the Ld. District Forum is affirmed.  No order as to costs.