DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.571/2013
Shri Jaswant Rai Aggarwal
S/o Late Sh. Moti Lal
R/o 421 Pkt-E, Mayur Vihar Phase-II,
Delhi- 110091
….Complainant
Versus
American Express Banking Corp.
Through its Branch Manager
MGF Metropolitan,
7th Floor, Office Block,
District Center Saket,
New Delhi- 110017
….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 29.11.2013
Date of Order : 25.04.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- on account of deficiency in service by the OP and a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of withholding the reward points and Rs.5,000/- towards compensation for humiliation and public disgrace at the hands of the OP along with the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental torture, agony and Rs.40,000/- as cost of litigation.
It is the case of the complainant that he was the credit card holder of the OP bank vide card number 3769-343484-21005 and that he had been regularly paying dues without any glitch. It is stated that in the month of March 2013 an attempt was made by an unknown person to misuse his card number 3769-343484-21005 which card was then stopped, cancelled and another card was issued to him i.e. card number 3769-343484-22003 which was again cancelled and a fresh card was reissued card number 3769-339262-01003 in the same month i.e. March, 2013. The complainant made payment in the month of March on his original card number i.e. 3769-343484-21005 and after various efforts made from his side; the payment was later adjusted on the new card.
It is stated that the complainant was surprised to receive a call from the bank stating that certain payments were due on his card. The complainant tried to explain to him the position however the conversation did not end well. The complainant then called up the customer care and he was told that there are no dues against this card and that it might be a fake call, however, in the July month statement, an outstanding of Rs.15,013.39/- was shown as debit balance transferred. The complainant demanded an explanation from the customer care but they had no information. It is further stated that the complainant requested the customer care to send a detailed account summary but there was no action from the OP bank. After he spoke to the representatives of the OP bank, it came to his knowledge that the OP bank has by mistake, transferred half of his account to the new card and the payments of the standing instructions which were directly paid to the vendor by the bank was still made at the previous card number due to which neither such payments were reflecting in his account or in the statements nor completed and he was being charged for the same.
The complainant accepted to make the payment subject to the condition that no finance charges shall be charged from him as it was clear that he was never billed for the transactions to which the payment was due. The complainant then made a payment of Rs.1,30,000/-. After some time the complainant realised that he was unable to make online payment. When he called the customer care, he was told that due to some internal problem online payments have been suspended for that day. When the next day at a petrol pump, the complainant tried to use his card, the card was declined and it was said that owing to the ongoing dispute, the card has been declined. The payment was declined on two different locations and on enquiry, it was told to the complainant, by one of the representatives of the OP bank that the payment of Rs.1,30,000/- was made on the new account and not the old account and therefore his card cannot be activated. It is the case of the complainant that though the current statement shows the availability of credit limit in the complainant’s account but the OP bank does not honour the standing instructions of the complainant. It is also the case of the complainant that the reward points earned by the complainant to the tune of Rs.49,617/- were also withheld by the OP bank and due to these acts of the OP, the complainant suffered mental as well as physical harassment.
On the other hand, the OP in their reply has stated that there is no deficiency of service on their part and in fact when the complainant complained of the misuse of his card number 3769-343484-21005, the OP had taken prompt action. It is also stated that on various occasions, the OP had informed the complainant with respect to the amount due towards the credit cards in question and a reconsideration statement of account vide email dated 04.09.2013 was also provided to the complainant at his request. However, despite receiving the reconciliation statement, the complainant failed to make the payments towards the dues against the credit cards used by the complainant. The copy of the reconciliation statement is annexed with the reply as Annexure OP 1. The OP has not denied that the earlier card was blocked and that at the request of the complainant another card bearing number 3769-343484-22003 was issued and the multiple standing instructions for direct debit payments were ultimately automatically transferred to the replacement card. Similarly, on the closure of card bearing number 3769-343484-22003, the standing instructions were transferred and applicable to card bearing number 3796-339262-01003 as well.
It is admitted by the OP that before the standing instructions were transferred to the new card, the payment was being made through the old card only which is reflected in the statement of account. Copies of statement of account of all the 3 cards are annexed with the reply as Annexure OP-2. It is the case of the OP that on various occasions, the complainant was intimated about the huge outstanding towards the credit cards in question but the complainant ignored the said fact and stopped making the payment of the dues from 08.09.2013, which is evident from the statement of account for card bearing number 3796-339262-01003. Therefore, it is stated by the OP that there is no deficiency on their part.
It is stated that payments made by the complainant were duly reflected in the statement of account for the month of March, 2013 and then the first card bearing number 3769-343484-21005 was blocked/closed, the outstanding amount of Rs.70999.22/- was automatically transferred to the statement of account for the card number 3769-343484-22003. Thereafter, the card bearing number 3769-343484-22003 reflects the payment received from the complainant.
The OP has denied that they have raised an unexplained demand of Rs.150013.39/- and state that the reconciliation statement of account itself shows the amount due towards the complainant explaining each and every detail. It is further stated that since the complainant failed to make payments against the credit cards therefore the opposite parties suspended the credit cards of the complainant and sent e-mails to the complainant to make the payments. It is also stated that once the customer defaults in making the payment towards this use of the credit cards within the specified time, the said customer is not entitled for any reward points. It is also been denied by the OP that the complainant has suffered any mental or physical harassment or public disgracement due to the acts of the OP.
The complainant in rejoinder, has categorically pointed out that as per the reconciled statement the total debt of the old card was Rs.119743.68/- and the total debit on the new card was Rs.15,110.99/- having a total of
Rs.35,844.67/- and the payment received on the old card was Rs. 92,080/- and the payment received on the new card was Rs.2,84,385.07/- thereby making a total of Rs.3,76,464.07/-. It has also been stated that the card was blocked on 08.09.2013 for non-payment of dues when the payment could have been made until 29.09.2013 therefore it was wrong on the part of the OP to block the card of the complainant earlier than the due date.
Evidence affidavits as well as written arguments of both the parties are on record. Oral arguments were heard and the material on record was carefully perused.
It is seen from the statements of account filed by the OP for card number ending with 01003 that payments were made regularly by the complainant to the OP and in fact one of the credit card statement
dated 14.04.2013 clearly mentions a credit balance being transferred of Rs.83,679.62/- and payment of Rs.92,080/-. This credit card statement is relating to credit card number 3769-343484-22003 and clearly reflects a positive balance in favour of the complainant and yet the statement shows that ‘your account is cancelled and has a credit balance’.
It is also observed from the material on record that though the OP has made a statement that no payment has been received from the complainant on 02.09.2013 however the statement of account filed by them state otherwise and a total of 3 payments stand credited to the account of the complainant on 02.09.2013. It has also been observed from the statements of account dated 14.10.2013 there have been no transactions by the complainant in his account which goes to corroborate that his credit card was in fact cancelled as is claimed by him.
This Commission is of the view that the OP has been deficient in its services and is therefore liable to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant within a period of three months from the date of this order failing which the said amount shall be payable with interest @ 6% p.a. till the date of payment. The complaint is partially allowed in these terms.
File be consigned to the record room after giving a copy of the order to the parties as per rules. Order be uploaded on the website.
