Date of filing : 01.11.2013

Date of hearing :02.11.2016

PER HON’BLE SAMARESH PRASAD CHOWDHURY, PRESIDING MEMBER

        The assail in this appeal Under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act,  1986 ( for brevity, “ the Act”) is at the instance of the Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 to impeach the final order dated 27.09.2013 made by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah ( in short, Ld. District Forum ) in Consumer Complaint No. 89/2013 whereby the complaint initiated by the respondent U/s. 12 of the Act was allowed on contest with the directions upon the Appellant No.1 to refund Rs.90,000/-, to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5000/-to the Respondent within  30 days from the date of order.

       The respondent herein being complainant lodged the complaint stating that he was holding an international credit card with initial drawing money upto Rs. 38,000/- for the year 2002 and the said credit limit was enhanced in the next year to Rs.1,01,000/- and the credit limit of drawing money was settled at 40% cash and 60% through credit card. The complainant alleged that on perusal of statement of accounts he  surprisingly noticed that he already paid Rs.5,79,611/- against the limit of total drawn amount as per  terms and conditions during the period from 01.06.2002 to June, 2012. Immediately, the complainant through his Advocate issued a letter on 24.12.2012 through registered post with A/D given details of the payment and claimed for refund of excess amount to OPs which was duly received by them. In reply the OPs claim an amount of Rs.1,31,515.83 paise on 08.01.2013. The complainant submits that all his persuasions went in vain for which he approached the Ld. District Forum with prayer for certain reliefs, viz- (1)directing the OP Bank to pay 75% of the total amount paid by him ;(2) Damages of Rs.12,00,000/- etc.

       The Opposite Party i.e. the Citi Bank Credit Card Department by filing a Written Version disputed the claim contending inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable because the relationship between the debtor and creditor exists in this case contrary to the scope and ambit of the Act. Though the contesting OP admitted the fact that complainant holds a Master International Credit Card but there are outstanding dues and as such no allegation of deficiency in service or unfair trade practice would be applicable against them and as such the complaint should be dismissed.

       In order to ascertain the controversy, the Ld. District Forum framed three points –

       (i) Is the complaint maintainable in its present form ?

       (ii) Is there any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of the OPs?

       (iii) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief and compensation, as prayed for ?

       After assessing the materials on record, the Ld. District Forum decided all the three points in the affirmative and in favour of the complainant with the directions, as indicated above, which prompted the Opposite Parties to prefer this appeal.

       We have scrutinised the materials on record and considered the submissions advanced by Mr. P. K. Srivastava, Ld. Advocate for the appellants as well as Mr. Anjan Kumar Dutta, Ld. Advocate for the Respondent.

       Having heard the Ld. Advocate appearing for the parties and on going through the materials on record it would reveal that the respondent was holding a Master International   Credit Card being No.5546199406003004 w.e.f 31.03.2002 which was subsequently converted to Citi ( Titanam Master Card ) bearing No. 5546379105838005 w.e.f 06.09.2003. In fact, the credit card was started with initial drawing money upto Rs.38,000/- which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 1,01,000/-.

       It is specifically alleged by the respondent that suddenly he noticed that he has paid Rs.5,79,611/- against the limit of total drawn amount for the period from 01.06.2002 to June, 2012. Immediately thereafter, the respondent issued a notice on 24.12.2012 through his Advocate to the Appellant No.1 i.e. the Executive Officer, Citi Bank Credit Card Department mentioning  that against limit of drawn amount of Rs. 1,01,000/- he has already paid Rs.5,79,615/- and recently some Agents of the Bank who appeared to be local hooligans have been insisting him for further payment and asked the Appellant No.1 not to demand any money through those agents and to return 75% of the total amount paid by him. On  08.01.2003, a reply to that letter was given by the appellant no.1 wherein it has been mentioned that the Master International Classic Card which was issued in favour of the respondent on 31.03.2002 has been converted to Citi Titanium Master Card ending 8005 on 06.09.2003 and it has been mentioned that since August  2012, no amount towards above Card has been paid with a categorical assertion that interest charges are applicable if the respondent do not clear the total amount due before the payment due date or if the respondent availed the Revolving Credit Facility ( RCF) and choose to pay the minimum amount due. Interest of 3.50% is charged/levied only on the unpaid amount as  on the average daily balance, which comprises of previous balance that carried forward on subsequent transactions. It has also been mentioned that interest rate is dynamic and is based on various parameters like longevity of relationship, as well as usage of the card, regularity of payment etc.

       On scrutiny of the bills, we find that all along the Appellant Bank has imposed an interest @3.50% p.m. and 42% p.a. against the credit card of the respondent. In this regard, it would be relevant to have a look to the terms and conditions of the agreement. As per terms and conditions of Citi Bank - “The card interest rate is dynamic and will be based on the usage of the card and payment patterns by the card member and is subject to periodic review by Citibank”. But the Bank never informed the Respondent regarding periodic evaluation of interest or the manner of assessment for the same.

       Although it has been mentioned that the interest is dynamic but we find that all along the Bank has imposed an interest @ 42% P.A. against the credit card of the respondent. On a query by this Bench whether such a huge amount of interest  is permissible under the RBI guidelines, Ld. Advocate for the appellants has expressed his inability to enlighten this Bench and could not give answer to the query. We are surprised to see such a huge amount of interest as claimed by the Appellant Bank which reminds us the famous character of Shylock in William Shakespeare’s ‘Merchant of Venice’. Perhaps for that reason, the Ld. District Forum has observed – “ The OPs already realised nearly 600% more  than principle amount against amount drawn by the complainant through ATM/in cash /purchase. From the record we have also noticed that the complainant paid more or less RS. 2,10,774/- approx. as per record through different process /instrument like regular system. Moreover, the OPs further claim of service charges/ATM renewal charges, membership fees including service tax of total amount comes in the range more or less 2,29,550/- approx. as per record submitted by the complainant which not in conformity with the rate of the schedule Nationalised Bank “.

       Therefore, we are in total agreement with the Ld. District Forum that the Opposite Parties were deficient in rendering services to the complainant. The complainant hired the service of the Bank by opening a credit card account and as such the respondent /complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined in Section 2(1)(d) (ii) of the Act.

       However, we do not find any basis or foundation how the Ld. District Forum has arrived at a calculation to refund of Rs.90,000/- as an excess payment. It is true the respondent has made payment of Rs.5,79,611/- as per statement which has not been controverted by the appellant bank, yet it is not clear how  the assessment of refund of Rs.90,000/- has been made. The respondent himself was not clear on this point and as such he has made an omnibus prayer for refund of 75% of total amount paid by him with interest which will be equivalent to Rs.4,34,708.25 p. Since the said direction of refund of Rs. 90,000/- is based on guess work, it cannot have any sanction in the facts and circumstances of the case.  Accordingly, the said order of refund of amount of Rs.90,000/- is liable to be set aside.

       However, the Ld. District Forum has rightly mentioned that this case spells out some specific message to the innocent consumer, who uses to rely upon the Bank Officials without verifying or scrutinising the documents properly. The instant case is a glaring example of harassment and mental agony  and as such the Ld. District Forum was justified in imposing compensation of Rs.10,000/ - and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- and as such that part of the order are maintained.

       For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is allowed on contest in part but without any order as to costs.

       The final order dated 27.09.2013 passed by the Ld. District Forum in CC/89/2013 is modified to the extent that the Appellant No.1/OP No.1 shall pay Rs.10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as compensation and litigation cost respectively, as imposed by the Ld. District Forum.

       With the above observations, the instant appeal stands disposed of.

       The Registrar of the Commission is directed to send a copy of this order to the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Howrah for information.