Date of filing: 06.01.2020
Date of disposal: 31.03.2023
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR. B.Sc., B.L., .....MEMBER-I
THIRU.P.MURUGAN,M.Com.,ICWA (Inter), B.L., ....MEMBER-II
CC. No.38/2022
THIS FRIDAY, THE 31st DAY OF MARCH 2023
Mr.C.Madasamy, S/o.Chelliah Chettiar,
No.54/1, Palayam Pillai Nagar,
Aynanvaram, Chennai 600 023. ……Complainant.
//Vs//
M/s.ICICI Bank Limited,
Rep. by its Chief Manager,
ICICI tower, 2nd floor,
Plot No.24, South face,
Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai 58. ......Opposite party
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.A.Palaniappan, Advocate.
Counsel for the opposite party : Mr.E.Anandan Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 17.03.2023 in the presence of M/s.A.Palaniappan Advocate, counsel for the complainant and Mr.E.Anandan Advocate, counsel for the opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY THIRU.P.VINODH KUMAR – MEMBER I
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the opposite party in issuance of credit card along with a prayer to direct the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony to the complainant with interest.
Summary of the facts culminating into complaint:-
It was case of the complainant that in the year 2007 the opposite party through its marketing representative has approached the complainant in order to subscribe for a credit card of the opposite party. But the complainant was reluctant to subscribe as the complainant was already holding a credit card issued by his banker CITI Bank. The opposite party had persuaded and convinced that the card is to be issued by the opposite party Bank shall bear the name of Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (ICAI) and also itS logo, which was unique feature of the said card would be appealing and conducive for practising chargered accountants. Only upon such convincing persuasion by the representative of the oppsite party with regard to the presence of the logo of Chartered Accountants of India in the card to be issued by the opposite party, the complainant agreed to subscribe for such a card. On account of which the complaianant had agreed to avail the services of the opposite party as its customer. It was submitted that the verification officer of the opposite party had telephoned the complainant to complete the subscription process with regard issuing a fresh credit card by the opposite party. The opposite party’s representative had informed the compainant that the application stealthily obtained was not for the ICAI card and would not bear logo of ICAI. Further the card was issued under the balance transfer scheme. Therefore the complainant was shocked with the communication as the complainant was of the supposition that the credit card would bear the logo of ICAI and the same was given exclusively for its members being Chartered Accountants as assured by the representative of the opposite party. On coming to know that the present card issued by the opposite party would not have any logo of ICAI the complainant application with regard to the issuance of new credit card by the opposite party. Subsequently to the shock and dismay of the complainant, the complainant was informed by the representative of the opposite party over phone that the opposite party had issued the credit card to the complainant and a sum of Rs.3,000/- was credited by the opposite party under the balance transfer scheme on 28.10.2017. But the complainant did not receive any credit card from the opposite party nor the opposite party had transferred the said amount of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant. That the opposite party had demanded an amount of Rs.7,410.29/- through email dated 10.11.2009 as the outstanding amount for the alleged ICICI bank HPCL silver credit card said to have been issued on October 2007. The complainant on receipt of the above email had sternly refuted the false claim of the opposite party for Rs.7410/- through communications dated 07.11.2009 and 11.11.2009 and had clearly affirmed the fact that the complainant had not received any credit card from the opposite party. Again after three years the opposite party had again provoked a false demand with their fabricated claim of Rs.7410/- which was demanded by the opposite party through thrid party agencies and hooligans. That the complainant had provided a scathing reply on 07.03.2013 calling upon the opposite party to substantiate by providing documents and evidences to justify the demand of Rs.7410/- in the complainant’s alleged credit card account bearing No.51177194465590005. That the customer care division of the opposite party had belatedly replied on 19.03.2013 calling upon the complainant to make the complete payment or alternatively placed a request for settlement, without addressing the entirety of the grievances of the complainant expressed through his email dated 07.03.2013. On account of the persisting disturbances by the opposite party through its hooligans the complainant had sent a reminder on 18.07.2013 requesting the opposite party to close the unsubstantiated demand and stop the persisting disturbances. The Opposite Party despite of all the above communications from the Complainant had approached the Tamil Nadu State legal services authority, and a Lok Adalat notice was sent to the Complainant for Lok Adalat case no. 125844/2013 dated 24/07/2013 for pre-litigation negotiations. The presiding officers of the Lok Adalat after hearing the predicament of the Complainant caused by the Opposite Party had closed the case observing the falsehood on the claim of the opposite party. That the Complainant had not accepted the proposal for any settlement because he has not even received the credit card from the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party cannot seek for any such unjust imposition though they have not even commenced their services to the complainant. The Complainant humbly submits that on 25/08/2013 on account of the persistent agony inflicted by the Opposite Party had sent a notice demanding an unconditional apology from the Opposite Party on account of its irrational baseless unlawful and unjustified claim of Rs.7,410/-. The Opposite Party had not replied for the above notice which affirms the fact of their dereliction of duty towards an intending customer. The aforesaid letter of dropping the claim by the opposite party would clearly established the unfoundedness in the claim made by the opposite party as against the complainant. That the aforesaid tender of the letter dated 19/06/2019 by the opposite party does not speak about it is unfounded claim without issuance of the credit card, the opposite party has falsely claimed as against the complainant. The complainant states that till date the aforesaid CIBIL report is on the negative in respect of the aforesaid unwarranted, unfounded and baseless claim made by the opposite party as against the complainant. Thus prays for complaint to be allowed as prayed for.
Defence of the opposite parties:-
The Opposite Party has not indulged in negligence or deficiency in service as defined under the Consumer Protection Act and hence the complaint is liable to be rejected. That the complainant approached opposite party along with documents and requested the opposite party for availing credit card facilities. The Complainant also represented and assured that whatever amount dispersed/paid through credit card facilities by the complainant and granted credit card facilities through ICICI Bank. The Complainant agreed to abide by the terms and conditions which are more particularly mentioned in welcome booklet issued to the Complainant and paid the required charges. Since the Complainant refused to accept the credit card facilities from the opposite parties therefore as on the date of filing the complaint there is no cause of action available to the complainant to approach this Hon'ble Commission. That neither the Bank nor its authorized persons at any point of time promised any facility other than issued of credit card. That the opposite party never approached the complainant or sent any message to the complainant. While sanctioning the credit card facility the complainant was given all the pamphlets with terms and conditions printed thereon. The complainant is making all kind of wild allegation against bank which is unwarranted. The complainant has filed this vexatious complaint with mala fide and ulterior motive. That the Bank in its routine process refer recovery matters to Lok Adalat for settlement but it could not be closed. That Bank was always ready to settle the matter for one reason or the other the complainant was not ready for settlement. Finally Bank has also withdrawn their claim. The opposite party submits that in the routine way CIBIL ratings is recorded and periodically it is altered and changed. That no cause of action arises for filing this complaint against the opposite party and the complainant has no rights or valid reason to approach this commission. That the complaint of the complainant is absolutely miss conceived and not maintainable, false and vexatious and the same should be dismissed with compensatory costs. Thus, the opposite parties sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
On the side of complainant proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.8 were marked. On the side of opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 to Ex.4 were marked on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party has been successfully proved by the complainant?
If so to what reliefs the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
It is the case of the Complainant that the representative of the Opposite Party approached him and informed about the credit card with ICAI name and logo. Based on the assurance the Complainant accepted to avail the credit card from opposite party. The verification officer informed him that the said credit card do not bear such ICAI logo. Due to that the Complainant cancelled the credit card application. After the lapse of 2 years, he had received the demand for a sum of Rs.7410/- from the Opposite Party. The Complainant sent representations dated 07/11/2009 and 11/11/2009 to the Opposite Party intimating that he had not received any credit card from the Opposite Party. Again after the lapse of 3 years during 2013, the Opposite Party demanded the above said amount from the Complainant. Inspite of repeated follow the Opposite Party reversed the demand only on 19.06.2019. The Complainant suffered serve hardship and mental agony and hence the complaint.
To prove the case, the Complainant deposed proof affidavit with 8 documents which were marked as Ex A1 to Ex A8. Ex A1 are the credit card bill copies of Citi Bank. Ex A2 is the notice sent by the Complainants. Ex A3 is the Email communication by the Complainant Ex A4 is the Email communication of the Opposite Party. Ex A5 is the Lok Adalth notice. Ex A6 is the notice sent by the Complainant. Ex A7 is the Demand through text message communication by the Opposite Party. Ex A8 is the Cybil credit score by the Opposite Party.
Per contra, the Opposite Party interalia contended that the Complainant approached the Opposite Party along with documents and requested the Opposite Party for availing credit card facilities. The complainant agreed to abide by the terms and conditions which are more particularly mentioned in welcome booklet issued to the Complainant and paid the required charges. Since the Complainant refused to accept the credit card facilities from the Opposite Parties, there is no cause of action to approach this Commission.
To refute the claim of the Complainant the Opposite Party deposed proof affidavit with 4 documents which was marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Ex.B1 is the credit card application. Ex B2 is the statement of account of credit card. Ex B3 is the letter issued by the Opposite Party. Ex B4 is the CIBIL Glance Report.
It is an admitted fact that the Complainant requested a credit card from the Opposite Party and subsequently cancelled the said application. The Complainant had not received the credit card from the Opposite Party. However, the Opposite Party demanded the Complainant to pay Rs.7410/- as outstanding due and the said demand has been reversed by the Opposite Party on 19.06.2019.
On perusal of the pleadings of the Complainant it revealed that the Complainant cancelled the credit card application during 2007. The Complainant had not received the credit card from the Opposite Party. On perusal of pleadings and documents of the Opposite Party that there is no such averment on which date the Credit card has been dispatched to the Complainant. The Opposite Party had not filed a single document to show that the Credit card has been dispatched and balance transfer amount of Rs.3000/- credited to the account of complainant. The Statement of accounts filed by the Opposite Party vide ExB2 is not acceptable as it does not contain any seal or signature.
The allegation of the Complainant that the Opposite Party demanded Rs.7410/- from the Complainant without sending Credit card to him. The Complainant sent several representations to the Opposite Party vide Ex A2, Ex A3 & Ex A6. But the Opposite Party had not taken action to waive off the said demand.
Inspite of repeated requests from the Complainant, the Opposite Party had not chosen to cancel the demand. Moreover, the pleading of the Opposite Party is silent about the date of dispatch of Credit card and date of receipt of Credit card. The Opposite Party dragged the Complainant for no fault of him for the past 12 years. The Complainant is not a defaulter and moreover the demand of the Opposite Party affected the Credit score of the Complainant.
Subsequently the issue has been referred to the Lok Adalath and the same was not settled in Lok Adalath. On perusal of Ex B3 it revealed that the Opposite Party reversed the demand of Rs.7410/- on 19.06.2019. The act if demanding payment without sending Credit card to the Complainant affected the credit score of the Complainant.
We have carefully perused the pleadings and all the documents filed by both the Parties. We are of the considered opinion that the act of demanding payment without issuing Credit card amounts to deficiency in service. This point is answered accordingly.
Point No.2:-
Since, we have come to the conclusion that the Opposite Party had committed deficiency in service, the Complainant has to be compensated for his suffering and mental agony. The claim of compensation made by the Complainant is exorbitant and it’s not supported by any documents and evidence. Hence, we have inclined to award Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses. This point is answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is partly allowed against the opposite party directing them,
a) To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/-(Rupees fifty thousand only)towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant;
b) To pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) towards litigation expenses to the complainant.
Dictated by the Member-I to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 31st day of March 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 19.09.2007 Credit Card bill copies of City Bank. Xerox
Ex.A2 07.11.2009 Notice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A3 11.11.2009 e-mail communication by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A4 18.07.2013 Email communication by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.A5 24.07.2013 Lok Adalath Notice. Xerox
Ex.A6 25.08.2013 Notice sent by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A7 08.05.2019 Demand through text message communication by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A8 27.05.2019 Cybil credit score by the opposite party. Xerox
List of document filed the opposite partY:-
Ex.B1 18.10.2017 Credit Card Application. Xerox
Ex.B2 28.10.2017
to 14.06.2019 Statement of Account of Credit Card Xerox
Ex.B3 19.06.2019 Letter issued by the opposite party. Xerox
Ex.B4 02.11.2022 CIBIL Glance Report. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-II MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
