Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

359/2008

A.Tamizhselvan,State bank of Indore - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Hong Kong Shangai Banking Corp Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

V.Annalakshmi

12 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                Date of Filing  : 04.09.2008

                                                                          Date of Order : 12.04.2018

 

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

 @ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                       :  PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                    :  MEMBER-I

                                     

CC. NO.359 /2008

THURSDAY THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL 2018

A. Thamilzhselvan,

S/o. Mr. K. Anandan,

State Bank of Indore,

No.34/146, Kaliamman Koil Street,

Chinmaya Nagar,

Chennai – 600 092.                                                .. Complainant

                                                            ..Vs..

 

1. M/s. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Limited, India,

Represented by its Manager,

Credit Card Division,

Post Box No.5080,

Chennai – 600 028.

 

2. M/s. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking

Corporation Limited,

Represented by its Manager,

Customer Connect,

Ambal House,

No.610, Anna Salai,

Chennai – 600 006.                                            ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for complainant                  :  M/s. V. Annalakshmi  & others

Counsel for opposite parties            :  M/s. Mothilal

 

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 seeking direction to issue closure letter of the complainant’s Credit Card bearing No.4384 5999 1103 9377 and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and hardship suffered by the complainant due to deficiency in service / unfair trade practice of the opposite parties and to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

1.      The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

                The complainant obtained a credit card bearing No.4384 5999 1103 9377 from the 2^nd opposite party in June 2006.  The maximum credit limit is Rs.90,000/- and the complainant had paid the amount regularly without any default whenever purchases made.  In the month of April 2007, the complainant used the credit card for a sum of Rs.13,512.75 for purchasing and cash on EMI amount for a sum of Rs.3,204/- totally of Rs.16,716.75 which has to be paid by the complainant in the consecutive months.  Without prior intimation, the 2^nd opposite party had put Rs.739/- + Rs.90/- as financial charges in April 2007 statement.  The complainant paid Rs.10,000/- on 28.05.2007and kept Rs.6,716.75 as balance amount which has to be paid by the complainant by the next month.  But in the next month also the 2^nd opposite party had charged Rs.826/- + Rs.102/- as finance charges which is totally false. 

2.     The complainant on 01.07.2007, received a balance transfer of Rs.50,000/- which will fetch interest at the rate of 12% p.a. and no finance charges will be added to it.   The complainant paid Rs.500/- p.m. exclusively for balance transfer from August 2007.  But the 2^nd opposite party charged beyond the said amount by way of finance charge.  The complainant did not use the credit card afterwards and mentally forced the complainant to repay the balance transfer amount received by the complainant and requested the 1^st opposite party for closure of credit card account.   The complainant immediately approached the opposite party in the  month of January 2008 to close the account and the opposite party directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.8,633/- with exorbitant rate of interest and also with new inventions like late fee, service charges, over limit fee, etc. which are of identical in natural as that of interest in different forms and names.  After telephonic conversation with the opposite party’s customer care official, the complainant agreed to pay Rs.2,000/- and paid the same as demanded by the opposite party on 14.04.2008  along with a letter counter signed by the opposite party’s collection agent and the opposite party assured that within one week the opposite party will issue the letter for the closure of the complainant’s account towards the credit card. 

3.     The complainant had issued a legal notice to the opposite party on 08.07.2008. The opposite party gave reply notice on 24.07.2008 in which, the opposite party admitted that the balance transfer facility only for the Citibank Credit card account ending with 3003 for Rs.50,000/- at the rate of interest 0.99% per month subject to no other purchases to be made on the credit card by the complainant.    The complainant sent a letter to the 1^st opposite party on 11.01.2008 regarding the cancellation of card account through certificate of posting.  The complainant denies the reply notice sent by the opposite party because the complainant gave a cheque for a sum of Rs.2,000/- bearing cheque No.661390 datede:15.04.2008 drawn on State Bank of Indore, Koyembedu Branch with a letter stating as full and final settlement to the Manager (Collections).  The opposite party should have given reply if any difference of opinion in the settlement.  While so, the opposite party now alleging that the complainant needs to repay Rs.14,170.85.

4.     The complainant as per the 7^th June 2007 statement, issued a cheque for Rs.11,400/- datedL:28.06.2008.  The opposite party did not present the cheque for collection.  Knowing well about the late payment, the complainant paid Rs.11,400/- in cash to HSBC Bank, Mylapore and gave stop payment for the cheque given to avoid double payment.  Instead of returning the cheque by post, the opposite party presented the above cheque in clearing wantonly and saying that the cheque is returned by the complainant. 

5.     The complainant submits that as per the opposite party’s 7^th April 2007 statement, the outstanding in the complainant’s card is Rs.6,485/- out of which, the complainant paid Rs.6,032.75.  Moreover, it is pertinent to note that in the same statement of accounts for the period of 7^th April 2007  to 5^th May 2007 finance charge of Rs.555.33/- + Rs.67.97/- have been refunded by the opposite party which has been wrongly debited by the opposite party in the previous month.  Therefore, from the statement of accounts it is clear that the opening balance for the month of April 2007 is wrongly mentioned as Rs.6,485.05, instead of Rs.5,861.75, but the complainant paid Rs.6,032.75 which is more than the actual outstanding amount.  For that, the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 20.05.2007 to reverse the same but the opposite party did not do the same.  But the opposite party charged Rs.736.56 + 90.15 as finance charges plus service tax in 7^th April statement.  In 6^th May 2007statement, the opposite party charged Rs.826.87 + 102.20 as finance charges plus service tax.  For that, the complainant wrote a letter on 18.06.2007 and there is no reply from the opposite party.  In 7^th June 2007 statement, the opposite party charged Rs.850.39 + 105.11.  For that the complainant wrote a letter on 25.07.2007. But there is no reply from the opposite party.  The complainant paid regularly every month excluding finance charges, which is wrongly made by the opposite party’s bank.  The complainant states that he had undergone grave physical hardship, mental agony and pain owing to the gross deficiency in service of the opposite party.  Hence the complaint is filed.

6.  The brief averments in the written version filed by the 1^st opposite party and adopted by the 2^nd opposite party is as follows:

        The opposite parties deny each and every allegation except those that are specifically admitted herein.   It is an admitted fact that the complainant is the customer of the opposite party’s bank and availed credit card facilities since June 2006 and the card number is 4384 5999 1103 9377.   The complainant paid only Rs.10,000/- as against the outstandings of Rs.16,716.75 is false.  The opposite parties state that the outstanding as per the statement dated:07.04.2007 was Rs.6,485.05 for which, the complainant paid only Rs.6,032.75.  Hence finance charges were debited to the card account.  In the subsequent month against an outstanding of Rs.17,372.46, only a sum of Rs.10,000/- was received.  It was gathered from the records that the complainant has availed perpetual balance transfer facility from Citibank Card account ending 3003 for Rs.50,000/- at the interest rate of 0.99%.  The interest benefit of 0.99% can be availed by the complainant on the balance transfer facility only if there are no other purchases on the credit card, including transactions like Loan on phone, cash advance etc.  It has been as revealed by the opposite parties from the transaction record on the credit card that there has been a return cheque for Rs.11,400/- and the cash on EMI installment continued during the month of July 2007.  Further the opposite parties were in receipt of part payments only on the outstanding amount for the months of July and August 2007. 

7.     The interest charges or finance charges are levied on the unpaid amounts as per norms only.  The payments received on the credit card get apportioned under the following heads in descending order:-

1. Minimum payment due
2. Balance transfer outstanding (if any applied on Credit card), loan on phone (if any applied on credit card).
3. Annual fee and charges
4. Cash advance taken and purchase outstanding.

The finance charges are computed from the date of transaction at the rate of 3.1% per month or at such modified rates as decided by the bank from time to time.The finance charges are debited in the account on the last date of the billing cycle and are applied using the “Average of daily balance method”.The complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.8,633/- to the opposite parties as per the statement sent to him.But the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.2,000/- against that sum.It is false to state that the opposite party asked the complainant only to pay Rs.2,000/- on 14.04.2008.The letter counter signed by the opposite party collection agent can be taken only as a confirmation of receipt of the letter and the same cannot be taken as acceptance of whatever is stated therein unless confirmed by the opposite party.Further there was no assurance from the opposite party that they would issue the letter for the closure of the complainant’s account towards the credit card.The legal notice has been replied on 24.07.2008 clarifying all the issues raised by the complainant.

8.  
9.  

10.   In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainants has filed proof affidavit as their evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A16 marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and no document  marked on the side of the  opposite parties.

11.    The point for consideration before this Forum is:

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to the letter of closure of credit card No.4384-5999-1103-9377 as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony and a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards conveyance charges with cost as prayed for?

12.    On point:-

Both parties has not filed any written arguments.  The application CMP No.162/2011 filed by the complainant to receive the written arguments also dismissed on 07.06.2011.  Both parties has not turned up to advance any oral arguments also.    Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits, documents, etc.  The contention of the complainant is that he is a credit card holder of the opposite party bank bearing No. 4384-5999-1103-9377.  The 2^nd opposite party issued the credit card to the maximum credit limit of Rs.90,000/-.  The complainant paid the dues regularly without any default whenever purchase made.  In the month of April 2007, the complainant used the credit card for a sum of Rs.13,512.75  towards purchase and cash on EMI amount for Rs.3,204/- total  Rs.16,716.75.  The 2^nd opposite party imposed Rs.739/- + Rs.90/- as financial charges in April 2007 statement.  The complainant paid a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 28.05.2007 and kept a balance of Rs.6,716.75.  While so, in the subsequent month, the 2^nd opposite party charged Rs.826/- + Rs.102/- as financial charges.  On 01.07.2007, the complainant received a balance transfer of Rs.50,000/- which will fetch interest a t the rate of 12% p.a. and no financial charges will be added to it.   From the month of August 2007, the complainant paid Rs.500/- in the month of Jan 2008 and the complainant closed the account; while so the opposite party directed the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.8,633/- with an exorbitant rate of interest like late fee, service charges, over limit fee, etc. which are against the Reserve Bank of India rules and guidelines.  The opposite party is not entitled to collect such imaginary amount against the RBI rules.  On 14.04.2008, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- along with the letter duly counter signed by the opposite party as per Ex.A11.

13.    Further, the complainant pleaded and contended that as per 7^th June 2007 Statement, the complainant issued cheque for Rs.11,400/- dated: 28.06.2008 and on 07.04.2007, statement outstanding amount is only Rs.6,485/- out of which, the complainant paid Rs.6,032.75.  But on a careful perusal of the records, it is seen that as per Ex.A1  the opening balance is Rs.3,204/- and the closing balance is Rs.41,829/-.  During the month of February 2007, March 2007, April 2007, May 2007, June 2007, July 2007 & August 2007 the statement shows several amounts towards service tax and financial charges proves that the opposite party bank arbitrarily levied several imaginary amount under fictitious category and claim.  Similarly the cheque dated 28.06.2008 for Rs.11,400/-  issued by the complainant also deliberately not presented for collection proves the deficiency in service.  The contention of the opposite parties is that admittedly, the complainant availed the credit card facility of the opposite party from June 2006.  In the complaint  para. no.3 itself the complainant admitted that he has paid only Rs.10,000/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.16,716.75.  Further the opposite party contended that, the complainant is well aware that as and when part payment is received towards outstanding, due financial charges to be debited to the credit card as per the terms and conditions.  But the opposite party has not produced any Reserve Bank rules or guidelines to prove such levy or financial charges.  Further, the contention of the opposite party is that on 07.04.2007 statement Rs.6,485.05 was due, for which, the complainant paid only Rs.6,032.75.  On a careful perusal of records, if the financial charges and other charges were not added, the payment of Rs.6,032.75 will satisfy the dues since the claim of financial charges and other charges; are against the RBI rules and are arbitrary.  Further, the contention of the opposite party is that during the subsequent period against the outstanding amount of Rs.17,372.46 the complainant paid only a sum of Rs.10,000/- but on calculating the financial charges and other charges the payment of Rs.10,000/- will satisfy the dues also.  Further the contention of the opposite party is that the opposite party cancelled the credit card with effect from 21.03.2008 on which date, the balance amount is Rs.14,170.85 as per the statement of accounts.  But on a careful perusal of statement of accounts, it is very clear that the opposite party has levied several amounts arbitrarily under different heads and failed to encash the cheque dated:28.06.2008 without any reason proved the deficiency of service.  On considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that, the opposite party shall issue letter of closure of credit card no. 4384-5999-1103-9377 with compensation of Rs.5,000/- and with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

In the result, this complaint is allowed in part.  The  opposite parties 1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable to issue the letter of closure of Credit Card No.4384-5999-1103-9377 with compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) for mental agony with cost of Rs.5,000/-  (Rupees Five thousand only) to the complainant.

The aboveamounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a to till the date of payment.

Dictated  by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 12^th day of April 2018. 

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT

COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:

Ex.A1		Copy of Bills sent by the opposite party to the complainant on various dates
Ex.A2	23.02.2007	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A3	27.03.2007	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A4	07.04.2007	Copy of Statement of accounts for the period from 07.04.2007 to 05.05.2007
Ex.A5	18.06.2007	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A6	25.07.2007	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A7	11.01.2008	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A8	14.03.2008	Copy of Letter sent by the complainant to the 1st opposite party
Ex.A9	15.03.2008	Copy of Certificate of posting 14.04.2008
Ex.A10	15.03.2008	Copy of Certificate of posting
Ex.A11	14.04.2008	Copy of Letter given by the complainant to the opposite party towards final settlement
Ex.A12	14.04.2008	Copy of Receipt issued by the opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A13	08.07.2008	Copy of Notice sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party through RPAD
Ex.A14		Copy of Acknowledgement card
Ex.A15	19.07.2008	Copy of Letter sent by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant
Ex.A16	24.07.2008	Copy of Reply notice given by the 2nd opposite party to the complainant

 

OPPOSITE  PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:  NIL

 

MEMBER –I                                                                       PRESIDENT