Haryana

Ambala

CC/123/2022

Seema Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Aditya Verma

11 Mar 2024

ORDER

 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                          Complaint case no.        :     123 of 2022

                                                          Date of Institution         :     18.04.2022

                                                          Date of decision   :             11.03.2024

Seema Sharma (38 Years) wife of Dheeraj Yadav permanent resident of House No.505, Lal Kurti Bazar, Ambala Cantt. (HR).

                                                                                                                                           ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. M/s SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited having its regd. Office at SBI Card, 10^th to 12^th Floors, DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon, Haryana, India-122002 through its Chief Manager.
2. State Bank of India, through its Manager having an office at Main Branch-SBI, The Mall, Ambala Cantt (HR).
3. M/s Trans Union CIBIL Limited (Formerly: Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited) through its Managing Director/Company Secretary/ Manager, having an office at One World Centre, Tower 2A, 19^th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai- 400 013.

                                                                                                                       ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member.

      Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.        

 

Present:       Shri Aditya Verma, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Manish Kashyap, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri S.S.Garg, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.  

OP No.3 already given up.  

 

Order:        Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of following directions to them:-

 (i) To refund the amount of Rs.5200/-, to the complainant  alongwith interest @12% per annum from the date of its deposition,  till its realisation.  

                   (ii) To pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment suffered by the complainant.

                   (iii)  To pay Rs.15,000/- as the cost of litigation.

OR

Grant any other relief which this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit.                         

2.   Brief facts of the case are that OP No.1 is part and parcel of the State Bank of India and provides Credit & Debit card services to the public at large. Op No.2 is the mainstream nationalized Bank in India. OP No.3 is a unique and single agency in India that is classifying the creditworthiness of the Indian Population and the credit score provided by OP No.3 determines the loan eligibility of any & every individual/firm/company etc. in India. The banks in India and the other financial institutions are fully connected with OP No.3. The banks and the financial institutions regularly transmit the data of financial transactions done by every individual through banks or financial institutions to OP No.3 and based on such data, OP No.3 prepares the positive & negative credit score/report-card of the individuals, etc. The creditworthiness of the Indians by & large is controlled by OP No.3 and in the present matter, OP No.1 has transmitted the data of the complainant to OP No.3 and due to such data, the credit score of the complainant has been negatively affected. OP No.2 has received the amount of Rs.5,200/- from the complainant. Op No.1 had also raised the demand for the payment from the complainant. In February, 2020 while the complainant was visiting Elente mall, Chandigarh, the same executives of OP No.1 themselves approached him and appraised the credit card facility of OP No.1. After discussion, the sales executives of OP No.1 allured the complainant and promised to issue a credit card to the complainant. The application for the proposed credit card was filled by the sales executives through digital mode after taking personal details of the complainant and then assured him that since the application has been filed through online, the credit card would reach his residence within 7 working days. However, till the filing of the complaint, no credit card received to the complainant, but surprisingly, OP No.1 is continuously raising demands of payment for the usage of credit card which has never been issued to him. In pursuance of the said messages for the payment, the complainant through the email of her husband has written a series of e-mails to the OP No.1 while specifying that since no credit card has been received to till date, therefore, there is no reason to raise the demand for the payment. Complainant even on the advice of the customer care executives of OP No.1 deposited Rs.5200/-, so that matter may be finished. The customer care executives also told the complainant that if she will not deposit the amount as per demand then the amount would keep on increasing as well as OP No.1 shall transmit the data to OP No.3 and that shall affect the credit score of the complainant. Complainant had no other option but to deposit the amount under compulsive circumstances to save her credit score managed by OP No.3. Even after depositing the said amount and making payment for no use of the undelivered credit card OP No.1 is sending the payment demands to the complainant. Complainant raised the matter with the banking Ombudsman but even there nothing came out and the issue created by OP No.1 is still persisting and haunting the complainant. The credit score of the complainant has also been negatively affected due to the act and conduct of OP No.1. By not refunding the aforesaid amount, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1, appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, etc. The OP No.1 agreed to settle for an amount of Rs.4200/- as a full and final settlement of the dues against the credit card account of the complainant which was also informed to the complainant via settlement offer letter dated 26.08.2021. Complainant accepted the settlement and made the payment as per settlement letter and accordingly, account gets zeroized. It is pertinent to mention here that as per settlement with complainant the CIBIL of complainant also update, accordingly. It is pertinent to mention her that in the present matter, the complainant has already settled the account with the OPs and accordingly made the required payment as well thus there is no cause of action against the OP No.1. It is further stated that the only object of the present complaint of the complainant is to extract money from the OPs by putting false allegations and deceiving this court, to which the complainant is not legally entitled to. It is further stated that the present complaint filed by the complainant is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and cause of action etc.  On merits, it is stated that complainant has filed the present complaint against State Bank of India which was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is completely a separate entity and have no concern with OP no.1. SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited or the OP no.1 which are distinct and separate entitles. The OP No.1 never requested or directed the complainant to deposit any such amount to its account. Complainant is trying to allege the payment deposited by it in some account in the bank as the payment given to the bank which is patently false and not appreciable. OP No.1 neither any concern with such alleged payment nor the same was paid to it. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.
5.           Vide order dated 29.04.2022, on the basis of the statement of the complainant, the OP No.3 was given up, from the arrays of the parties mentioned in the head note of the complaint. 
6.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-24 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.  On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 tendered affidavit of Rashmi Arora, Authorized Representative (SBI Cards and Payments Services Limited) having registered office at Unit 401 & 402, 4th Floor, Aggarwal Millennium Tower, E 1,2,3 Netaji Subhash Place, Wazirpur, New Delhi-110034 as Annexure RW1/A alongwith documents R-1 & R-2 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for OP no.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Rameshwar Dass, Senior Associate, State Bank of India, The Main Branch SBI, Mall Road, Ambala Cantt. as Annexure RW2/A and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.

7.                We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and learned counsel for the OPs No.1 & 2 and have also gone through the record very carefully.

8.                 Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the transaction of Rs.5,200/- through the said SBI credit card, was never done by him, yet, his genuine request has been rejected by the OPs by not refunding the said amount, the Ops have committed deficiency in service. It is prayed that the present complaint may be accepted.

9.                Learned counsel for the OP No.1 submitted that the OP No.1 agreed to settle for an amount of Rs.4200/- as a full and final settlement of the dues against the credit card account of the complainant which was also informed to the complainant via settlement offer letter dated 26.08.2021. Complainant accepted the settlement and made the payment as per settlement letter and accordingly, account gets zeroized.

10.              Learned counsel for the OP No.2 submitted that complainant has filed the present complaint against State Bank of India which was constituted under the State Bank of India Act, 1955 and is completely a separate entity and have no concern with OP no.1. SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited or the OP no.1 which are distinct and separate entitles. The OP No.1 never requested or directed the complainant to deposit any such amount to its account.

11.                 Under above circumstances, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to who is liable to refund the amount of Rs.5,200/-  to the complainant. It is evident from the record, that vide receipt dated 22.01.2021, Annexure C-1 the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.1,000/- and vide receipt dated 26.08.2021, Annexure C-2, the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.4,200/- to the OP No.1 only, for supply of credit card. Thus, the privity of contract, if any, was between the complainant and OP No.1 only.

                   From the perusal of the SBI Card Monthly Statement (Account summary) dated 22.09.2021, Annexure R-2, it is evident that the amount of Rs.4,200/- was transferred to OP No.1 and receipt dated 22.01.2021, Annexure C-1, it is established that complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.1,000/- with the OP No.1, as such OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Since the OP No.1 has not issued the credit card to the complainant despite receiving payment of Rs.5200/-. As such, complainant is entitled to refund the amount of Rs.5,200/- to the complainant. Complainant also entitled to compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment caused to her alongwith litigation expenses.   

12.               Since no deficiency in providing service has been proved against OP No.2 therefore the present complaint filed by the complainant against OP No.2 is liable to be dismissed.

13.               In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.2 and allow the same against OP No.1 and direct it, in the following manner:-

1. To refund the amount of Rs.5,200/-, to the complainant alongwith interest @6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e 18.04.2022, till its realisation.
2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment  suffered by the complainant.
3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.

The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days, from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which the OP No.1 shall pay interest @ 8% per annum on the awarded amount, from the date of default, till realization. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 11.03.2024.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma) (Ruby Sharma)              (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                        Member                      President