Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/303/2018

Velankanni Velankanni Arockiam - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.J.Ranjani Dei

12 Jan 2022

ORDER

Complaint presented on :20.07.2011

                                                                    Date of disposal            :16.02.2022

                                                                                  

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (NORTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003.

 

PRESENT: THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, M.A., M.L.                    : PRESIDENT

THIRU. S. BALASUBRAMANIAN, M.A., M.L.          : MEMBER

 

C.C. No.303/2018

 

DATED THIS WEDNESDAY THE 16^th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022

 

Velankanni Velankanni Arokiam,

180,VGP Nagar,

Mogappair,

Chennai – 37.

                                                                                                     .. Complainant.                                                                               ..Vs..

 

1.M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Rep by its Authorized Signatory,

No.39, Ceebros Centre,

2^nd Floor, Montieth Road,

Egmore, Chennai – 08.

 

2. M/s.Kotak Mahindra Bank Limited,

Rep by its Authorised Signatory,

Zone IV, 5^th Floor, Kotak Infinity Park,

Off. Western Express Highway,

General AK Vaidya Marg,

Malad (E), Goregaon Mulund Link Road,

Malad (E), Mumbai – 400 097.

                                                                                            ..  Opposite parties.

 

 

Counsel for the complainant                      : M/s. J.Ranjani Devi

Counsel for  opposite parties                   : M/s. Namasivayam and another

ORDER

THIRU. J. JUSTIN DAVID, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 prays to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards  cost of this proceedings.

This complaint was originally filed before the District Commission, Chennai (South) and taken on file in C.C. No.211/2011.  Thereafter, the said complaint has been transferred to this Commission as per the proceedings of the Hon’ble S.C.D.R.C. and taken on file as C.C. No.303/2018.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant was approached by the 1^st opposite party and offered him to avail their credit card services. In response to the same, he had expressed his willingness to avail such services as offered by the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties and they  sanctioned a credit card bearing number 0004166451400031966 and the same was issued to him. The complainant on receipt of the card availed by him, began to use it. The complainant was very prompt in payments towards the usage of the card. He has no default in the payment till the year 2009.  On 28.05.2010, the 1^st opposite party sent a letter and offered for settlement towards his credit card dues. Without providing the details of dues the 1^st opposite party, cleverly informed him that he has a due and their offering settlement amount is Rs.25,000/-. As he believed the opposite party and without knowing the terms and conditions and the amount due he accepted the settlement letter.  The opposite parties  failed to provide the details of the dues pending to them and does not know on what basis the settlement amount has been arrived. On their own accord asked him to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- in two installments. The complainant without questioning the opposite parties paid the amount as claimed by them. The 1^st installment was paid on 03.07.2010 by way of cash for a sum of Rs.12,500/- and issued a receipt bearing No.0234086 and the 2^nd installment was paid by way of cheque bearing No.336994 dated 28.07.2010 drawn on UBI, Anna Nagar, Branch. The entire claim as stated in the settlement letter was settled by him but to his shock and surprise he received legal notice and claimed a sum of Rs.72120.38/- without any statement of account. The above act clearly shows that the opposite parties are carrying unfair trade practice. On 04.07.2011 he received a letter from the counsel for opposite parties regarding appointment of Arbitrator and immediately he received another notice dated 05.07.2011 for his appearance for the arbitration proceedings. It is the duty of the opposite parties to send the statement of accounts to the customers but they have not done. The opposite parties are well aware  about the RBI Guidelines; even then they failed to follow the same. The above act of the opposite parties is nothing but deficiency in service on their part. The complainant’s credit account was closed as early as on 28.05.2010 and sending  a legal notice on 29.04.2011 claiming outstanding amount is the negligent act committed by them and also to fail to look into the account. Hence this complaint.         

2.WRITTENVERSION FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

           The opposite parties is a banking company with enormous reputation. It provides loan for different purposes and credit cards  for interested persons. The complainant signed an agreement for availing credit card facilities of Kotak Mahindra Bank subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement and was issued card bearing No.0004166451400031966. The transactions between the complainant and the opposite party is one of contract whereby the complainant has agreed to avail the credit facilities of the opposite parties subject to the conditions that in case of failure to pay for the services availed by him within the prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest, to ensure that the money is promptly paid. Once loan is availed the borrower is under obligation to pay the amount outstanding shown in the monthly statement furnished to him. Having been irregular and negligent in paying the installments the complainant became payable a huge outstanding. Thereafter on the complainant expressing difficulties in repaying the dues, the opposite parties, under special circumstances offered a settlement. As on February 2012 the complainant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.88,063.89/-.  The settlement letter clearly mentioned that in the event of default the settlement will become null and void and the complainant would be required to pay the entire outstanding. The complainant of not having made the payment as agreed in the settlement letter dated 28.05.2010. The allegations of mental agony, physical strain, and expenses thereon are denied as mere figment of imagination of the complainant without an iota of truth and made for the purpose of complaint and make unjust enrichment.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

2.Whether the complainant is  entitled for no due certificate, compensation   

     and cost from the opposite parties?

3. To what other relief, the complainant is entitled?

04. POINTS NO.1 & 2

          The case of complainant is that the complainant availed credit card from the opposite party and complainant used the card and paid the payment without default till 2009. The 1^st opposite party offered settlement towards credit card amount on 28.05.2010 and the complainant accepted the settlement for payment of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant paid Rs.12,500/- by cash on 03.07.2010 and 2^nd installment by paid cheque on 28.07.2010 and he settled the entire claim. But the opposite party issued a legal notice demanding 72,120/- without furnishing statement of account. The complainant also closed the credit card  on 28.05.2010.

          05. The opposite party contended  the complainant has been irregular and negligent in paying the credit card amount and also agreed to pay the outstanding amount in two installment within the stipulated time. The settlement letter clearly stated that in the event of default, the settlement will be null and void and the complainant  has to pay the entire outstanding. The complainant has not paid the payment as agreed in the settlement dated 28.05.2010 and therefore the opposite party demanded  the entire outstanding amount and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

          06. The complainant had availed a credit card facility from the 1^st opposite party. The complainant was irregular in repayment of  the credit card loan amount. Therefore the 1^st opposite party issued the a settlement letter to the complainant on 28.05.2010. Ex.B2 is the copy of settlement letter. In the settlement letter it is stated that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.25,000/- and the 1^st  installment of Rs.12,500 is to be paid before  28.05.2010 and 2^nd installment of Rs.12,500/- is to be paid before 26.06.2010. The complainant paid the 1^st installment by cash on 03.07.2010 and 2^nd installment of Rs.12,500 paid on 28.07.2010   by cash. The complainant has not paid the amount within the stipulated date mentioned in the settlement letter.

          07. In the settlement letter Ex.B1 clearly mentioned that if the settlement amount not paid within the due date then  legal action will  be taken for recovery of the outstanding amount. Hence the opposite party has taken legal action against the complainant for recovery of outstanding amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

           08. In this complaint, the complainant has not filed his proof affidavit as evidence and no document has been marked on the side of complainant. Further the complainant also not filed his written arguments and not appeared  for oral argument also.  The counsel for complainant  filed a memo stating that he is withdrawing the vakalath. Therefore, this commission issued notice to the complainant for his appearance, but  the postal cover returned as  no such person. Hence, the complainant has no interest in  prosecuting this complaint. On the other hand the opposite parties filed written version, proof affidavit, written argument and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B3.

          09. The complainant obtained credit card from the 1^st opposite party and failed to pay the outstanding amount and therefore, the opposite parties have taken legal action against the complainant for recovery of outstanding amount. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complainant is not entitled for no due certificate compensation and cost from the opposite parties.

10. POINT NO :3

          Since the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complaint and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Dictated  by the President to the Assistant taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission  on this the 16^th day of February 2022.

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

                                       …… NIL …..

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                      Copy of Power of Attorney

 

Ex.B2 dated 28.05.2010                   Settlement Letter  

 

Ex.B3 dated 05.05.2012                   Statement of Account                                          

 

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT