Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/144/2017

K.C.Sukumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

D.Prabhu Mukundh Arunkumar

26 Sep 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 27.03.2017

Date of Reservation      : 01.09.2022

Date of Order               : 26.09.2022

 

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. 144/2017

MONDAY, THE 26^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022

K.C. Sukumar,

New No. 5, Old No. 15, Ranjith Road,

Kottur Puram,

Chennai-600 085.                                                               ... Complainant                   

 

..Vs..

1.HDFC Bank Ltd,

  Represented by its Manager Card Division,

  CeeBros Building,

  No. 110, Nelson Manicakam Road,

  Aminjikarai,

  Chennai - 600 029.

 

2.HDFC Bank - Cards Division,

   Represented by its Manager Card Division,

   P.O.Box No. 8654,

   Thiruvanmiyur P.O,

   Chennai - 600 041.

 

3.The Branch Manager,

   HDFC Bank,

   R.A. Puram Branch,

   No. 10, Third Cross Street,

   R.A. Puram,

   Chennai-600 028.

 

4.The Principal Officer & Managing Director,

   HDFC Bank Ltd,

   Reg: Office: Ramon House,

 

 H.T. Parekh Marg,

169, Backbay Reclamation,

 Church Gate, Mumbai - 400 020.                                  ...  Opposite Parties

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant          : M/s. D. Prabhu Mukunth Arun kumar

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     : M/s. T K M Sai Krishnan

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

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay Rs.10,62,858/- with interest from the date of the complaint up to the date of payment.

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

The Complainant and his wife was having savings accounts with the 3^rd  Opposite Party. The 3^rd Opposite Party have offered a credit card and last of such credit card was issued on 09.06.02015 bearing No. 4854 9920 0006 4854 accepted and used by the Complainant, with expiry on 06/18 (i.e.) June 2018 with credit limit of Rs. 6 lakhs with a sub-limit for cash of Rs.2.40 lakhs. The Complainant has been receiving statements through mail, and the last received statement for "The Card" was dated 15.04.2016 due payable at Rs.4461.09 and same has been paid immediately on receipt of the statement. The 2^nd Opposite Party have awarded Reward points (herein after referred to as RPs) for value used on "The Card" and RPs accrued and as confirmed in the last statement dated 15.04.2016 was 83612 RPs and the Complainant has also been informed in writing by 3^rd Opposite Party by mail dated 18.04.2016, that accrued RPs are 83811 and that each RP has a tangible value of Rs. 0.75, which can be encashed for values of purchase with member establishment, including flight tickets in Airlines.  The Complainant has been settling dues claimed without any default and there has been NO outstanding due on "The Card", up to last statement received dated 15.04.2016. The next periodical statement dated 15.05.2016 was received through mail and same could NOT be opened with password for  "The Card" accepted and in use by the Complainant (viz.) 4854 9920 0006 4854. Upon enquiry, the Complainant was informed that "The Card" with validity up to 06/2018 has been replaced with a new card named "Regalia" and therefore, statement dated 15.05.2016 has to be opened with last 4 digit of the new card. Further, informed that RPs of 50598, valued at Rs. 37949/- (50598 x 0.75) has been "deducted" for issuance of such new card. After two months, vide mail from Asst. Manager Cards Dispatch, dated 15.07.2016 informed that a new credit card has being dispatched, therefore it is clear that the card has been issued and billed without any intimation to the Complainant or on his request which is clearly a deficiency in service. As the said new card has been issued "unsolicited" and at huge cost of Rs.37949, by unauthorized deduction of 50598 RPs, amounting to playing a "fraud" on the Complainant to "reduce" liability of 2^nd Opposite Party, the Complainant refused to accept delivery of card and such non-acceptance has been confirmed vide mail dated 27.07.2016, by the office of 2^nd Opposite Party. It is pertinent to state that the card comes after the periodical statement was received dated 15.05.2016 which itelf is mischievous and speaks volume of the action. The 1^st Opposite Party without replying to the letter for resolution sent by the Complainant dated 18.09.2016 had by a notice dated 28.09.2016 directed the 3^rd Opposite Party to recover Rs.8910/ from the Complainant's bank account. The Complainant replied for the same vide reply dated 14.10.2016.  Even for the legal notice, the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, the refrained from replying and committed yet another criminal act, in collusion with 3^rd Opposite Party, recovered an amount Rs.93860.50 and Rs.4053.74, totalling to Rs. 97914.24 on 18.01.2017. Under caption "TRF DM 4854498xxxxxx5155" from an account No: 01411 0000 49795, held by the Complainants daughter by name Mrs. Krithika Sukumar. The illegal & misappropriation of funds, has since been reversed on 09.02.2017 to the account No: 01411 0000 49795, under clear caption "Lien Refund". Thus recovery was not by a human error or out of ignorance, but a willful misappropriation of funds, by 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties, with collusion by 3 Opposite Party which clearly constitutes deficiency in service. The act of the Opposite Parties is a clear case of unfair trade practice coupled with deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.

4. Written Version filed by the Opposite Parties in brief is as follows:-

The Complainant had unnecessarily arrayed 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th opposite parties in the complaint without any basis. In the present case the Complainant had availed credit card facility from 2002 onwards and the same was upgraded and renewed periodically with the consent of the Complainant. In the regular course of business, a Credit card bearing number  upgraded credit card No. 4854992000064854  + upgraded credit Card No.4854980801475155  was issued to the Complainant with a credit limit of Rs.6 Lakhs, the said fact is accepted by the Complainant in para 3 of the complaint. The opposite parties bank representative managed to contact the Complainant for upgradation of the credit card, the Complainant had consented for the same and based on the confirmation/approval, upgraded the credit card and the said upgraded credit card bearing No.4854980801475155 was dispatched to the Complainant on 17.05.2016, but the same was returned to the opposite parties bank with an endorsement "customer out of station”.   It is pertinent to note here that, since the Complainant failed to make the legitimate payments due to the opposite parties bearing No. 1854920161475155 bank for one reason or other, the upgraded credit card No. 4854980801475155 was again dispatched to the Complainant and the same was confirmed by email dated 15.07.2016 to the Complainant. Therefore it is abundantly clear that it is not for the first time the upgraded credit card is dispatched on 15.07.16 to the Complainant and this clearly proves the fact that, the Complainant is trying to mislead this Hon'ble forum by presenting wrong facts. the opposite parties bank had dispatched the upgraded credit card for the second time in the month of July 2016 and the same was wantonly not accepted by the Complainant for the reasons best known to him. This was confirmed by the opposite parties bank by Email dated 27.07.2016. The Complainant had extensively used the credit card from 18.04.2016 to 14.05.16 to the tune of Rs.35,815.93/- as mentioned in statement dated 15.05.2016, moreover each and every time when the credit card is put to use, a charge slip will be generated for the amount used in the said credit card, in such event the Complainant had complete knowledge of the quantum of the usage of the said credit card, but failed to pay the legitimate dues on schedule dates as contemplated under the card member agreement. The opposite parties bank had sent several reminders to the Complainant for the legitimate payment dues which are been pending from 18.04.16. In midsts of all these events, the Complainant had used the said credit card on 08.06.16 to the tune of Rs. 47,830/-, this clearly establishes the wrongful intention of the Complainant in filing the fictitious complaint to evade the legitimate payments due to the Opposite Parties bank. It is pertinent to note that the legal notice dated 19.12.2016 was appropriately replied by the Opposite parties bank vide notice dated 30.03.2017. But since the Complainant had filed the complaint on 27.03.2017 before this Hon'ble forum, the Complainant had expressly mentioned that the Opposite parties bank failed to reply to the notice dated 19.12.16. Subsequently the counsel of the Complainant had acknowledged the receipt of the reply notice dated 30.03.17. The allegations with respect to the account holder Mrs Kritika Sukumar is not the subject matter in the CC No. 144/2017 and moreover the said Mrs Kritika Sukumar has not been arrayed as the Complainant in the present CCNo.144/2017, in such event the contents of the para 17 and 18 is absolutely unnecessary and unwarranted in the present CC No.144 of 2017. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

2.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-18. The Opposite Parties submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents were marked as  Ex.B-1 and Ex.B-2.     

5.     Points for Consideration

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

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

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

Point No.1:-

The contention of the Complainant was that he had availed credit card facility since 2002 from the Opposite Party  and last used card was  bearing No.4854 9920 0006 4854, with a credit limit of Rs.6,00,000/- valid up to 2018. The Opposite Party had replaced the credit card with a new card named “Regalia” for which Reward Points of 50598 valued at 37949/- accrued to the Complainant was deducted for issuance of the new card without any intimation to the Complainant. Further contended that he had refused to take delivery of new card and such non acceptance was confirmed via mail dated 27.07.2016 to the 2^nd Opposite Party. The issuance of new card when the earlier credit card was valid for more than 2 years, by recovering RPs valued at Rs.37949/- amounts to unfair trade practice. Moreover the 1^st and 2^nd Opposite Parties in  collusion with the 3^rd Opposite Party had recovered an amount of Rs.93860.50 and Rs.4053.74 totalling to Rs.97914.24 on 18.01.2017 from the Complainant’s daughter’s account Mrs.Krithika Sukumar. The misappropriation of funds has been reversed on 09.02.2017 to the Account No.01411 0000 49795 as “Lien Refund”, which act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency in service.

The Opposite Parties contended that the Complainant had consented for the up gradation of credit card and the upgraded credit card was dispatched to the Complainant on 17.05.2016, but the same was returned as the Complainant was out of station. Further submitted that the Complainant failed to make legitimate payments to the Opposite Parties. For the second time again on 15.07.2016 the credit card was dispatched to the Complainant  and the same was wantonly not accepted. The upgraded credit card was issued only on approval of the Complainant. The Complainant had extensively used the credit card was extensively used from 18.04.2016 to 14.05.2016 but failed to pay the dues on schedule dates. On 08.06.2016 the Complainant had used the said credit card to the tune of Rs.47,830/- . without payments from 18.04.2016. In such circumstances the Opposite Parties bank under Section 171 of the Contract Act, had exercised the right of lien in the month of September and October 2016. The reward points earned by the Complainant was given credit to and the same was brought notice to the Complainant. There is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

On careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case the accrual of reward points (RP) of 50598 valued at Rs.37949/- at the rate of 0.75/- per RP is not disputed. But the contention of the Opposite Party was that the Reward Points of 50598/- was given credit on 19.05.2016 in the said credit card itself and the same was clarified by reply dated 30.03.2017, Ex.B-2 as against  the contention of the Complainant that the reward points (RP) of 50598 valued at Rs.37949/- was recovered on the guise of issuing new credit card. A perusal of Ex.B-1 would show that Reward Points 50598 was adjusted in the Statement of the Opposite Party dated 15.05.2016. The Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.4461/- which was the total due as on 15.04.2016. Though the Opposite Party contend that the Reward Points of 50598 was adjusted / credited on 19.05.2016, the Reward Points valued at Rs.37949/- was not given credit in the Statement,  Ex.B-1.

When the Credit Card bearing No.4854 9920 0006 4854 was valid for further 2 years i.e., upto 2018, the Opposite Party had issued a new Credit Card against the interest of the Complainant. As per Ex.A-6 the Complainant had informed the Opposite Party that he did not require any new or upgraded credit card and had refused the new Credit Card as found in Ex.A-7. However the Opposite Parties had upgraded the Credit Card against the interest of the Complainant and started issuing Statement of Account bearing new Credit Card NO. 4854XXXXXXXX5155. Hence the Complainant refused to pay the dues for the new Credit Card.

In this situation the Opposite Party had recovered a sum of Rs.97914.25 from the Complainant’s daughter’s account No.01411 0000 49795 on 18.01.2017 for the dues to be payable by the Complainant for the new Credit Card NO. 4854XXXXXXXX5155 issued by the Opposite Parties, which is arbitrary and illegal, though subsequently it was refunded by the Opposite Parties. The contention of the Opposite Parties the allegations in respect of the account holder, Mrs. Krithika Sukumar is not the subject matter in the present case is not sustainable as the sum of Rs.97914.25 was transferred from the Complainant daughter’s Account on 18.01.2017 towards the Credit Card No.4854 98XXXXXX5155, issued by the Opposite Parties to the Complainant against his wish, as seen from Ex.A-14.

In view of the above discussions, considering the fact that the Complainant who availed Credit Card services from the Opposite Parties since 2002, had settled dues for his Credit Card bearing No. 4854 9920 0006 4854 upto 15.04.2016. However, the act of the Opposite Parties in compelling to accept the new Credit Card, when the existing Credit Card was valid for 2 more year upto 2018, and when the Complainant  refused to accept and pay for the new Credit Card which Credit Card the Complainant did not receive and had resent to the Opposite Party and realizing the dues of the new Credit Card from the daughter’s Account of the Complainant though later it was refunded and not giving Credit of the Reward points accrued to the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the  part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

 

 

Point No.2 and 3:-

        As discussed as decided Point No.1 in favour of the Complainant, the Complainant is entitled for a consolidated sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony suffered by the Complainant from the Opposite Parties along with cost of Rs.3000/-. Accordingly, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The opposite parties 1 to 4 are jointly and severally  directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) as compensation for the deficiency in service and mental agony caused to the Complainant along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only) to the Complainant, within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a from the date of receipt 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 26^th  day of September 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	15.04.2016	Last Bank statement of the Credit card No. 4854 9920 0006 4854
Ex.A2	18.04.2016	Email communication from 3rd  Opposite Party. confirming RPs accrued and 1 RP value=Rs.0.75
Ex.A3	16.06.2016	Email from Opposite Party that there is a due
Ex.A4	17.06.2016	Email communication of the Complainant of the bank statement not been opened with the pass word of the earlier card
Ex.A5	18.06.2016 to 19.06.2016	Email communication between the Complainant and the opposite parties
Ex.A6	15.07.2016	Email communication informing of dispatch of new Credit card by the Opposite Party
Ex.A7	27.07.2016	Email communication from the Opposite Party confirming non acceptance of the credit card.
Ex.A8	05.08.2016 to 16.08.2016	Email correspondence between the Complainant and the Opposite Party
Ex.A9	06.09.2016	Computer generated notice, under copy to the 3rd Opposite Party, on recovery
Ex.A10	18.09.2016	Reply of the Complainant to the unsigned computer generated notice dated 06.09.2016
Ex.A11	28.09.2016	Computer generated notice, under copy to the 3rd  Opposite Party, on recovery
Ex.A12	14.10.2016	Reply of the Complainant to the unsigned computer generated notice dated 28.09.2016
Ex.A13	19.12.2016	Legal notice send on behalf of the Complainant
Ex.A14	01.02.2017	Statement of Account of the Complainant Daughter, signed and delivered by the 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A15	01.02.2017	Notice to 3rd Opposite Party, sent by the daughter of the Complainant via Email stating that monies have been wrongly debited from her account.
Ex.A16	02.02.2017	Reminder email to 3rd Opposite Party
Ex.A17	02.02.2017	Response from 3 Opposite Party
Ex.A18	09.02.2017	Reversed by the bank under clear caption Lien Refund"

 

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

 

Ex.B1	-	Copy of statement of Accounts
Ex.B2	-	Copy of reply notice dated 30.03.2017 by the Opposite Party bank

 

 

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                    B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT