Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/409/2018

Rohini Krishnan - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s HDFC Bank - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S Venkata Krishna Kumar

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 29.10.2018

Date of Reservation      : 12.07.2022

Date of Order               : 08.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 409/2018

MONDAY, THE 8^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Rohini Krishnan,

No 42, 2nd Street,

Chokkanathan Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai - 600 095.                                                       ... Complainant                  

 

..Vs..

1. The Manager,

    HDFC Bank Cards Division,

    8,Lattice Bridge Road,

    Thiruvanmiyur,

    Chennai-600 041.

 

2. M/s. Linga Bhairavi Traders,

    (High Class Provision Wholesale Dealers),

    No.50-C, Nambi Street,

    Poonamalli,

    [Behind Sundar Hospital],

    Chennai-600 056.                                                    ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. S.Venkata Krishna Kumar

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party   : M/s. TKM Sai Krishnan

Counsel for the 2^nd  Opposite Party : Exprte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by Member-I, Thiru.T.R.Sivakumhar, B.A., B.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to reverse the debit transaction dated 07.07.2017 for Rs.7820/- shown belatedly in the statement dated 16-01-2018 after six months, to refund a sum of Rs.5107-19p resulting in unauthorised/illegal charges collected in connection with AutoPay with interest, to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- for the mental agony and suffering caused by the Opposite Party due to unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and gross negligence, along with cost of Rs.25,000/-.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant submits that she was provided with a Credit Card bearing No.4896 77xx xxxx 9155 by the Opposite Party while she was an intern with the CTS at Siruseri Office Chennai and has thus become a customer and utilised the said credit card for an year. The Complainant used to meet the commitments of the card A/C without fail. She received a statement dated 16.01.2018 showing the first entry as 07.07.2017 Linga Bhairavi Traders Chennai Rs.7820/-and Due date as 05-02-2018. The  Linga Bhairavi Traders Chennai is a provision store wherein we seldom buy our provision. The transaction has taken place sometime in the last week of June, 2017 or in the First week of July, 2017 roughly around that period, but the transaction has failed due to network error and effected payment by cash. As such the above said failed transactions do not result in financial commitment to the Complainant herein. Any transaction that has taken place in the month prior to the cut-off date should reflect in the next corresponding month, failing that, in the month following that corresponding month. The transaction has taken place vide the statement supra on 07.07.2017 should have reflected in the statement dated 16.07.2017 failing which in the statement dated 16.08.2017. Whereas the same was shown in the 16.01.2018 statement after a lapse of 7 months. Immediately protested and disputed the said transaction by informing the customer care centre through "email" dated Jan 17, 2018 at 8.00pm. The 1^st Opposite Party replied to the said email, on 20-01-2018 at 2.45pm, as the Complainant disputed the said transaction the card needs to be blocked immediately for security reasons and also to enable/initiate dispute investigation with the concerned merchant bank as per franchisee guidelines. Even though she had not sought/requested, vide the email dated 05.02.2018 at 9.30pm, informed the despatch of a new credit card in lieu of the blocked one. Further another statement dated 16.02.2018 incorporating the old balance along with add-on charges and the process continues. On 28.02.2018 she approached their Thiruvanmiyur office and filed the "Card Holder Dispute Form". The 1^st Opposite Party vide their email dated March 9,2018 at 10.59 am sought us to provide "Statement / Charge slip copy of he alternate card through which the payment was made OR proof of cash payment made, as the same is with reference to the transaction of Rs.7820.00 on 07-Jul-2017 posted on 29-Dec-2017 at M/s. LINGA BHAIRAVI TRADERS CHENNAI IN. The said email was replied on Mar 13,2018 at 9.16pm that the transaction got declined due to network issue, the same happened about 6 months ago and it is improper to raise the issue belatedly to provide proof of payment. The Opposite Party has not made any attempt to detect the fraudulent transaction till date but keeps pressurising/coercing the Complainant to contact the merchant and provide the first Opposite Party with the payment confirmation so as to enable them to initiate liaison with the concerned member bank for resolution. This reply and the attitude of the Opposite Party absurd & unpalatable, illogical & illegal. The 2^nd Opposite Party expressed their inability to provide the duplicate copy of the cash bill, because, their billing system has no provision to preserve bills older than one month and further, they have closed the card transaction system and surrendered the devise in other words are no longer entertaining card transactions. It is rather sad that the banking companies without application mind shoot reply to their customers perfunctorily. From the date of disputed transaction supra it is noticed that there are transactions in the said card account upto the statement of January, 2018. As such the subjective belated transaction claim should have been properly explained by the claimant namely the second Opposite Party and their banker. The Complainant cannot be held liable for such belated & disputed transaction. In other words the Member Bank claiming the amount on behalf of the second Opposite Party, shall seek & furnish to the first Opposite Party all information pertaining to the disputed transaction to resolve the issue. The first Opposite Party had started to impose finance charges on the outstanding and pressurising/coercing the Complainant thereby causing mental agony or disturbing the peace. The first Opposite Party cannot force on the Complainant any illegal/fake transactions and further impose financial charges for raising a dispute. The first Opposite Party has not cared to resolve the complaint and did not proceeding in the right direction. On Feb-28-2018 the Complainant and her father visited the Tiruvanmiyur Branch, there they were advised to redress their grievance at the home branch, namely, Centoph Road branch that they visited on Mar-14-2018, who in turn guided them to Nelson Manickam Road branch to sort out the issue. Based on their suggestion they met one Mr.Satish, on Apr 21,2018, who in turn stated that the Nelson Manickam Road branch is for final settlement and not for grievance redressal nor even for revision of the amount payable. Based on his advice for quick redressal an email was sent to www.bohdfech@hdfc.com was carried out on 05 May, 2018 enclosing all the correspondence in anticipation of a fair treatment in contrast it has fallen a deaf ear. Thereafter a customer service executive guided us to meet Mr.Suresh at NSK Nagar branch, whom we met on May 19, 2018 who was neither receptive nor courteous but only threatened with dire consequences. The Complainant's plight continued as they were advised to seek their grievance redressed at the home branch hence, paid a visit to the home branch at Centoph Road on June 2, 2018, the Manager there said to have raised a transaction dispute from his side and asked them to wait for a few days. Thereafter on Aug 14, 2018 one Ms.Manjula Sarathy, Senior Manager informed that if the outstanding is not cleared immediately the Complainant will be subjected to legal action. The 1^st  Opposite Party after the advent of the declined transaction has resorted to a novel method to penalise the Complainant. It is found from the statement dated 16.07.2017 the payment due date is 05.08.2017; total dues Rs.9697-86: Minimum amount due is Rs.490/- and from the statement dated 16.08.2018 it is found that the entire outstanding amount of the earlier month was paid on 06.08.2017 whereas the statement shows on 05.08.2017 an auto pay Rs.490/- was made which was returned and hence the said amount Rs.490/Dr. consequently Payment return fee Rs.450 and CGST-SGST amount of Rs.40.50 Dr. each was recovered from the account which is totally unauthorised and hence illegal. In the following statement dated 16.09.2017 on 05.09.2017 the entire outstanding of Rs.10487-67 was credited on the due date shown; yet on the same day ie., 05.09.2017 Auto pay Rs.530/-Cr, Auto pay Return Rs.530/-. consequent Payment return fee Rs.450/- and CGST SGST amount of Rs.40.50  each was recovered which again is unauthorised and illegal. Similarly in the corresponding statement dated 16.10.2017 with due date 05.11.2017 the previous month outstanding due paid well before the due date on 05.10.2017 an amount of Rs.9718/- while so on 06.10.2017 a similar Auto pay Rs.490/- Cr. Auto pay Return Rs.490 Dr. consequent Payment return fee Rs.450/- and CGST-SGST amount of Rs.40.50 Dr. each was recovered which again is unauthorised and illegal. The statement dated 16.11.2017 too shows a similar transaction of Rs. 11535-44 was paid on 04.11.2017 a day in advance whereas on 05.11.2017 Auto pay Rs 580 Cr. Auto pay Return Rs.580/-Dr. consequent Payment return fee Rs 450/ and CGST-SGST amount of Rs.40.50 Dr. each was recovered which agam is unauthorised and illegal. So also the statement dated 16.12.2017 would show an amount of Rs.19779/- was paid within the grace period yet Auto pay Rs.990/-Cr. Auto pay Return Rs.990/-Dr. consequent Payment return fee Rs 450/- over limit fee of Rs.500/-, finance charge of Rs.628-13 and CGST-SGST amount of Rs.45-00 + Rs.40.50 Dr. each was recovered which again is unauthorised and illegal. So also the Statement dated 16.01.2018 shows even though the entire outstanding of Rs.15858-73 cleared on 05.01.2018 the due date on the very same day Auto pay Rs.800/-Cr. Auto pay Return Rs.800/Dr. consequent Payment return fee Rs.450/- over limit fee of Rs.500/-and CGST-SGST amount of Rs. 56-53 + Rs.45-00 + Rs40.50]Dr. each was recovered which again is unauthorised and illegal. The Auto pay Cr. concept has emerged from 05/08/2017 irrespective of clearing the entire outstanding without the knowledge of the Complainant and continues to operate and the same is unauthorised and hence the debits corresponding to that are illegal. In the said circumstances the first Opposite Party has to refund a sum of Rs.5107/- along with similar penal charges. As the 1^st Opposite Party has resorted to intimidate the Complainant by their collection agents, coercive phone calls to discredit the credit history by adverse rating in CIBIL [Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited). This act of the first Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice since the complaint remains unattended or resolved in addition to that the first Opposite Party has to refund Rs.5107-19 which they have illegally collected along with similar penal charges. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 1^st Opposite Party in brief is as follows:-

 It is an admitted fact by the Complainant that the said credit card has been used by the Complainant in the provision store of the 2^nd Opposite Party for the intended purchases by the Complainant on 07.07.2017. Further the Complainant alleges that the said transaction failed due to network error and effected the payment to the 2^nd Opposite Party by way of cash. In such event the Complainant ought to have filed the said cash receipt before this Hon'ble Forum to substantiate the authenticity of the claim made by the Complainant. But in the present case the Complainant failed to produce any concrete evidence before this Hon'ble Forum to prove that the said transaction dated 07.07.2017 between Complainant and 2^nd Opposite Party had been accomplished by payment of cash by the Complainant to the 2^nd Opposite Party. Though the transaction had taken place on 07.07.2017, the 2^nd Opposite Party herein had raised settlement statement only in the month of December 2017 and hence the same has been processed and payments have been made to the 2^nd Opposite Party as per the banking norms and conditions. After making the payment to the 2^nd Opposite Party the said transaction amount of Rs.7820/- was debited towards the credit card account of the Complainant. The Complainant himself had filed the credit card statement dated 16.01.2018 which is found in page number 25 of the typeset  which clearly evidences the above facts. The 1^st Opposite Party bank had appropriately replied to the Complainant's email dated 17.01.2018 and taken appropriate steps as per the franchisee guidelines and to safeguard the interest of the Complainant blocked the old credit card and also intimated that, a new card will be generated in lieu of old card. The Complainant did not refuse to accept the new card or countered the Opposite Party's email dated 20.01.18. It would be evidenced that the Opposite Party bank had provided best possible service to the Complainant at all times. The Complainant himself had admitted the fact that, the Opposite Party bank had sent a email dated 09.03.2018 to provide payment proof by cash or a charge slip copy of the alternate card through which the payment was made to the 2^nd Opposite Party, within seven days as there are certain time frames within which the disputes need to be raised along with above mentioned documents. But the Complainant inspite of receipt of the said email dated 09.03.2018, failed to produce any payment proof as required. The 2^nd  Opposite Party ought to have helped the Complainant by providing a copy of the cash receipt as the same should have been audited in their accounts of the 2^nd Opposite Party. In such circumstances, the Complainant cannot shift the blame on the 1^st Opposite Party bank for any deficiency of service. As mentioned earlier, it was the Complainant who had failed to produce the payment proof to the 2^nd Opposite Party and failed to pay the credit card dues pertaining to the said transaction dated 07.07.2017 to the Opposite Party bank, in spite of intimating to the Complainant that, the Opposite Party bank had arranged to suppress finance charges towards the disputed amount for 30 days or until receipt of the aforesaid supporting documents which ever is earlier. The Opposite Party bank had charged appropriate charges as contemplated under the terms and conditions of the credit card member agreement, which is absolutely legitimate under law. It was only under the instructions of the Complainant, auto pay system for minimum amount due of the credit card started to operate. The Opposite Party had never resorted to intimidate the Complainant by any means, as alleged by the Complainant, in such event the Complainant cannot make wild allegations against the Opposite Party bank without any basis. The1st  Opposite Party bank had tried to help the Complainant at all possible times to get over the issue, but it was the Complainant who had failed to produce appropriate documents to substantiate her claim within the stipulated period. In such event the Complainant cannot blame the conduct of the 1^st Opposite Party bank. The complaint had categorically mentioned that, the 2^nd Opposite Party had unduly and illegally enriched the transaction amount of Rs.7,820/-, this clearly evidences the fact that, it is the 2^nd Opposite Party who had acted falsely and indulged in unfair trade practice by suppressing the facts to the Complainant and 1^st Opposite Party bank. It is therefore evident that the Opposite Party bank had not committed any deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice. The Opposite Party bank had taken all steps to resolve the issue raised by the Complainant at all possible times and handled the issue on top priority basis and provided all possible services to the Complainant. Under Section14 (1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1996, the term compensation means equivalence and the award of compensation by the forum has to be based on well recognized principles governing the quantification of loss or injury suffered to assess compensation and not arbitrarily and also it has to be established whether the loss alleged was direct result of negligence or whether it is remote. In the present case, as stated above, it was the Complainant who had failed to produce the required documents to the Opposite Party bank and due to false claim made by the 2^nd Opposite Party, the issue is not resolved. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed.

4.     The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7  were marked.   

The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Opposite Parties, documents Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-4  were marked.      

5.  The 2^nd Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them and was called absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No 1:-

      It is not in dispute that the Complainant was provided with a credit card by the 1^st Opposite Party and was using the same.

It is in dispute that when the Complainant used the credit card for payment to be made to the 2^nd Opposite Party for a sum of Rs.7820/- the transaction was failed due to network error, and hence she had paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party by way of cash. But the statement date 05.02.2018 reflects the said sum of Rs.780/- was transacted with the 2^nd Opposite Party on 07.07.2017. Inspite of repeated follow ups with the 1^st Opposite Party to reverse the said transaction, no action was taken by the 1^st Opposite Party and instead had collected charges of Rs.5,107.19P.

On perusal of the Exhibits marked by the Complainant, from Ex-A-2 it is clear that the Complainant had approached on 28.02.2018 for reversal of the transaction of Rs.7820/- paid to the 2^nd Opposite Party by cash, since the credit card transaction was failed, the Complainant after email exchanges with the 1^st Opposite Party had found to be approached on 28.02.2018, the E-mail Communication were marked as Ex-A3. Further the statement issued by the 1^st Opposite Party on 05.08.2017 to 05.01.2018, the transaction of Rs.7820/- alleged to have been taken place on 07.07.2017 was not reflected as found in Ex-A-4,  but suddenly in the statement dated 05.02.2018 sent to the Complainant as found in page no.25 of Ex-A-4, the transaction alleged to have been made on 07.07.2017 was found to be reflected, which would clearly proves that the 1^st Opposite Party had acted in negligent manner in not providing the particulars of transaction taken place at relevant point of time i.e., in the following statement, and the reflection of transaction alleged to have been taken place on 07.07.2017, in the statement dated 05.02.2018 is not acceptable. Further the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party highlighting the transaction details made by the Complainant to the 2^nd Party as found in Ex-B1, which shows the said transaction was taken place on 06.07.2017 and a sum of Rs.7820/- was approved and successfully completed, if that would be so, the said transaction should have been reflected in the following statement, i.e, in 05.08.2017 Credit Card statement of the Complainant, whereas in the instant case the said transaction was found to be reflected only in 05.02.2018 Credit Card statement, i.e, after six months period, issued to the Complainant. Though the 1^st Opposite Party contend that they have sought for proof of documents for having made the payment of the alleged transaction from the Complainant would clearly show that the claim of the Complainant that the said transaction was declined due to network error is sustainable and acceptable. The contention raised in this regard by the 1^st Opposite Party is not legally sustainable. Further the contention of the 1^st Opposite Party that the Complainant had accepted for direct Auto debit as found in Ex-B4 and the charges of Rs.5,107.19P has been collected also is not legally sustainable, as the Complainant was not provided with the particulars of transaction taken place on 06.07.2017 as found in Ex- B1 as on 07.07.2017 as found in the statement marked as Ex-A-4 in Page No.25, in the following Credit Card Statement dated 05.08.2017. Hence, we hold that the 1^st Opposite Party had acted lethargically and negligently by not providing the transaction taken place at relevant point of time, to say, 06.07.2017 or on 07.07.2017 in the following statement dated 05.08.2017, is a gross negligence on the part of the 1^st Opposite Party and blocking of old Credit Card of the Complainant and New Credit Card issued to the Complainant without any request made by the Complainant shall not entitle the 1^st Opposite Party to deduct Auto debit charges. Though the 1^st Opposite Party had alleged to have credited a sum of Rs.7820/- to the 2^nd Opposite Parties account on 06.07.2017, in spite of cash for the said sum of Rs.7820/- paid by he Complainant, the 1^st Opposite Party had failed to prove the amount credited to the 2^nd Opposite Party account. Thus the 2^nd Opposite Party had not committed any deficiency of service. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the 1^st Opposite Party had committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

Point No.2 and 3 :-

As discussed and decided point No.1 as against the 1^st Opposite Party the 1^st Opposite Party is liable to reverse a sum of Rs.7820/- and to refund a sum of Rs.5,107.19p being the charges collected under Autopay with interest and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards deficiency of service and Rs.5000/- towards costs. And the Complainant is not entitled for any other relief/s. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is allowed in part. The 1^st Opposite Party is directed to  reverse a sum of Rs.7,820/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Eight hundred and Twenty Only) being debited on 07.07.2017, to refund a sum of Rs.5,107.19/- (Rupees Five Thousand One Hundred and Seven and Nineteen Paise Only) being the charges collected under Autopay with interest, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only) towards deficiency of service and mental agony and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) towards costs, to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of this order, failing which the Complainant is entitled to recover the above amounts along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of this order  till the date of realisation.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 8^th of August 2022.  

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                 B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                        PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	-	Xerox copy of the credit cards
Ex.A2	28.022018	Copy of the card holder dispute form
Ex.A3	09.03.2018	Copy of email communications/correspondence of various dated (dated 09.03.2018, 13.03.2018, 05.05.2018, 06.06.2018 & 11.06.2018)
Ex.A4	16.04.2017	Credit card statements dated 16.04.2017, 16.05.2017,16.06.2017, 16.07.2017, 16.08.2017, 19.06.2017,16.10.2017, 16.11.2017, 16.12.2017, 16.01.2018,16.02.2018, 16.03.2018, 16.04.2018, 16.05.2018, 16.06.2018, 16.06.2018, 16.07.2018 & 16.08.2018.
Ex.A5	-	Working sheet showing unauthorised and illegal Fee Recovered
Ex.A6	16.07.2015	Reserve Bank of India-circular prudential norms on income recognition, asset classification and provisioning pertaining to advances credit card accounts.
Ex.A7	01.07.2015	Reserve Bank of India- master circulars master circular on credit card, debit card and rupee denominated co-branded pre-paid card operations of Banks and credit card issusing NBFCs

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the 1^st Opposite Party:-

 

Ex.B1	-	Transaction details of the 2nd Opposite Party with 1st Opposite Party
Ex.B2	-	Screenshot of Franchisee guidelines/visa guidelines
Ex.B3	-	Statements of account for the period from 16.09.2016 to 24.09.2019
Ex.B4	-	Credit card application form.

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT