Date of Filing:17.09.2007<br /> Date of Order: 19.02.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> Dated: 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 1933 OF 2007 <br /> <br /> Leslie M Periera,<br /> A3, Gaurav Paradise 2,<br /> 4th Main, Ganesha Block,<br /> Sultahanpalya, R.T. Nagar PO,<br /> Bangalore-560 032. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> 1. M/s HDFC Bank Cards Division,<br /> Prince Khushal Towers,<br /> 96, Anna Salai, <br /> Chennai-6000 002.<br /> <br /> 2. Rashmi Gupta (Officer)<br /> HDFC Bank Ltd.,<br /> IBM Building, Airport Road,<br /> Bangalore-560 017. Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the Member Smt. D. Leelavathi<br /> <br /> This complaint is filed by complainant claiming Rs.3,913/- with interest and damages. <br /> The facts of the case are that, the opposite parties’ Card division had approached and requested the complainant to use their credit card with no membership charge for the first year and no additional charges on petrol transaction usage. Opposite party Bank sent two credit cards in the name of complainant and his wife and Card Division had sent first statement dated 12th Jan-2005 with petrol transactions charges of Rs.36.65 on 2/12/2004 and Rs. 36.25 on 10/1/2005 and membership fee of Rs.1,653/- on 12/1/2005. The complainant wrote a letter on 10/2/2005 stating his intention to cancel the credit cards after deducting charges of Rs.1,756.91/-. The complainant requested the opposite parties to accept the final balance payable of Rs.3,307/- after deducting the above non-payable charges of Rs. 1,756.91 within 18th Feb-2005 for him to take the payment. There was no response from the Card Division, but sent statement with a due amount of Rs.5,064.41. Since the Card Division did not confirm the balance due, the complainant has voluntarily send the payment to Chennai Office through cheque dtd: 2/3/2005 for Rs.3,307.50 in full and final settlement of all dues. The cheque was encashed on 10/3/2005. Complainant returned the credit cards along with payment. As payment was encashed, the balance due is nil and hence the finance charges are not applicable and not valid. It is amply proven that whatever amount withdrawn by the cards division is created on a sum not chargeable and hence not valid and not payable. Hence, the complaint.<br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party by RPAD. Opposite parties put in their appearance and filed defense version and denied the allegations made in the complaint. <br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:-<br /> 1. Whether there was a deficiency in service on the <br /> part of the opposite parties? <br /> 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to an amount of Rs. 3,913/-? <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. It is true that, the opposite parties approached and requested the complainant to use their credit card with no membership and no additional charges on petrol transaction usage. But the opposite parties’ Card Division sent a statement dated 12th Jan-2005 with petrol transaction charges of Rs.36.65 for transaction on 2/12/2004 and Rs.36.25 for transaction on 10/1/2005 and membership fee of Rs.1,653/- charged on 12/1/2005. As per the offer of the opposite parties, the Card Division had breached the agreement and as such these charges are not applicable and will not be paid by the complainant. Hence, it should be reversed immediately. As payment was encashed, the balance due is nil, hence the finance charges are not applicable and not valid. Therefore, it is simply proven that whatever amount withdrawn by the cards division is created on a sum not chargeable and hence not valid and not payable. So, the amount of Rs. 1,653/- was remitted back on the complainant’s account on 13/4/2005 by the opposite parties is deficiency in service. The cards were cancelled on 1/2/2005 itself, but late fees and payment dues being charged right from 2005 till 2007 is also deficiency in service. So in view of all these reasons stated above, I feel that it is just fare, justified and reasonable to award compensation to the complainant. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is partly allowed. The opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.103/- paid towards fee for petrol charges and Rs.500/- towards costs of the present proceedings and mental agony.<br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008.<br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> MEMBER <br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />