DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024.
PRESENT : SRI. VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
: SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
Date of filing: 04.11.2023.
CC/301/2023
Sunil Kumar, S/o.Late Damodaran Nair, - Complainant
Aluveetil House, Indeevara, Alur,
Pattithara PO, Palakkad-679 534.
(By Adv.K.Dhananjayan)
VS
1. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd, -Opposite Parties
Registered and Head Office,
27 BKC, C-27-G Block,
Bandra-kurla complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.
2. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd,
Registered and Head Office,
27 BKC, C-27-G Block,
Bandra-kurla complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051.
Represented by its Managing Director/
Authorised signatory,
3. The Branch Manager,
Kotak Mahindra Bank,
Thrissur Branch, Thrissur-680 004.
(All OPs by Adv.K.M.Shameer)
ORDER
BY SRI. KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
The opposite party bank had issued a credit card bearing No.000 416644 250000 1207 to the complainant in the year, 2013. As the opposite party was collecting exorbitant charges, the complainant surrendered his card to the 3rd opposite party remitting the dues of Rs.2,200/- on 22.06.2018 as per the demand made by the opposite party. The complainant sent a registered notice to the 3rd opposite party asking them to stop sending E-mails and SMS to him since the entire dues has been cleared.
The grievance of the complainant is that he is receiving SMS/whats app messages demanding Rs.7,403.39 as due outstanding against credit card xxxxxxxx3187. The complainant got issued a lawyer notice to the 3rd opposite party asking them to stop sending such messages as no dues is outstanding against him. The notice was acknowledged by the 3rd opposite party but the complainant continued to receive such messages. Further, the closure of the card is not updated in CIBIL. According to the complainant, this is unfair trade practice and harassment, and hence approached this Commission seeking compensation of Rs.9,12,500/- for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony along with Rs.50,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Notices were served on the opposite parties. They entered appearance, but filed their version after the statutory period. Hence, their names were called in the open court and were set ex-parte.
3. The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext.A1 to A5 as evidence. Ext.A1 is the copy of cash deposit for Rs.2,200/-, Ext.A2 is letter written by complainant to the 3rd opposite party, Ext.A3 is the copy of screen shots of messages sent to the complainant by the opposite parties, Ext.A4 is copy of legal notice issued to the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the complainant, and Ext.A5 is the postal acknowledgment card signed by the 3rd opposite party for having received the legal notice.
4. As the opposite parties were set ex-parte, any conclusion about the unfair trade practice of the opposite parties is to be arrived at on the basis of the proof affidavit and the documentary evidence placed on record by the complainant.
5. The complainant’s counsel filed argument notes clearly explaining the basis of the compensation amount claimed by the complainant. According to him, as per para No.8(a) of the “Master direction issued by Reserve Bank of India on credit card and debit card-issuance and conduct directions-2022 dated 21.04.2022, “the card issuer shall not insist on sending a closure request through post or any other means may result in the delay of the request. Failure on the part of the card issuer to complete the process of closure within seven working days shall result in a penalty of Rs.500/- per day of delay payable to the customer till the closure of the account, provided there is no outstanding in the account.”
6. Ext.A1 is the proof of the payment made by the complainant on 22.06.2018 towards the credit card No.416644 2500001207. This shows that the due on said card has been cleared in full as stated in the proof affidavit. Ext.A2 is the copy of the letter written by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party asking them to stop sending further messages. This has been received by the 3rd opposite party on 19.10.2019 as can be seen from the seal and signature on the letter. Ext.A3 is the screen shot of various messages sent by the opposite party to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.7,403.39/- as dues against card NO.xxx3187. Further, we are unable to make out the year of these message from Ext.A3. From Exts.A4 and A5 it can be seen that the complainant had issued a lawyer notice to the 3rd opposite party which was received by them on 13.03.2023.
7. From the above evidence, it is clear that the complainant has cleared his due on the card No.xxxxxxxx1207 on 22.06.2018 (Ext.A1). But the screenshots of messages (Ext.A3) shows that the dues outstanding are against card NO.xxxxx3187. From this, it is clear that the opposite parties have not sent any messages demanding payment against card xxx1207. Further, the opposite party have not taken any other steps to recover the dues under xxxx1207. Hence, the argument of the complainant that the card No.xxxx1207 is not closed inspite of the payment made on 22.06.2018 is not sustainable and hence, not eligible for the compensation claimed by the complainant as per the direction of the RBI as quoted in Para 5. From the documents marked it is not clear whether the card xxxx3187 has been issued to the complainant subsequent to the closure of the card xxxx1207. There aspects should have been cleared/explained by the opposite parties, if they had joined the proceedings by filing version in time.
8. Inspite of the complainant’s letter received on 19.10.2019 and legal notice received on 13.03.2023, no effort is seen taken by the opposite parties to clarify the matter to the complainant. It is the right of a consumer to have notice and knowledge of his transaction. A bank is duty bound to alley the concerns of its consumers. Failing to alley the concerns of a consumer tantamount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. As the deficiency in service is proved, the complainant is entitled to the compensation. As far as CIBIL rating is concerned, the complainant has not adduced any evidence to prove his pleadings.
8. Therefore, the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs;
1) Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
2) The opposite parties is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- for mental agony.
3) The opposite parties are liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.
The above amounts are to be paid within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which the opposite parties are liable to give Rs.500/-as solatium per month or part thereof from the date of the order till the date of final payment.
Pronounced in open court on this the 18th day of June, 2024.
Sd/-
VINAY MENON .V, PRESIDENT.
Sd/-
KRISHNANKUTTY N .K, MEMBER.
APPENDIX
Documents marked from the side of the complainant:
Ext.A1: The copy of counter foil issued by the 3rd opposite party to the complainant for remittance of Rs.2,200/- dated 22.06.2018.
Ext.A2: The copy of the letter written by the complainant to the 3rd opposite party asking them to stop sending further messages reccieved by the 3rd opposite party on 19.10.2019.
Ext.A3: Screen shot of various messages sent by the opposite party to the complainant demanding payment of Rs.7,403.39/-
Ext.A4: Copy of the lawyer notice sent by Adv. N.Jayadevan, to the 3rd opposite party on behalf of the complainant dated 08.03.2023.
Ext.A5: Copy of acknowledgement signed by the 3rd opposite party.
Document marked from the side of Opposite party: Nil
Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite party: Nil
Court witness: Nil
Cost : 10,000/-.
NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5)of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.
