Andhra Pradesh

Visakhapatnam-II

CC/132/2011

Vimal Kumar Jain - Complainant(s)

Versus

Nodal Officer, CITI Bank, N.A - Opp.Party(s)

Sanapala Ramesh Kumar

30 Dec 2014

ORDER

                                              Date of Registration of the Complaint:18-04-2011

                                                                                                Date of Order:30-12-2014

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS FORUM-II AT

                             VISAKHAPATNAM

 

P  r  e  s  e  n  t:

1.Sri H. Ananda Rao, M.A., L.L.B.,

     President           

2. Sri C.V. Rao,  M.A., B.L.,

                                     Male Member

 

                          Tuesday, the 30^th day of December, 2014.

                                 CONSUMER CASE No.132/2011

Between:-

Vimal Kumar Jain, S/o Sampath Kumar Jain,

Hindu, aged 36 years, residing at 601,

Sambhav Towers, Main Road, Opposite

Super Bazaar, Visakhapatnam.

….. Complainant

And:-

1.Nodal Officer, CITI Bank, N.A, Mail Room,

   766, Annasalai, Sakthi Towers, Chennai-600002.

2.The Manager, ING Vysya  Bank, Ramnagar,

   Branch, Waltair Main Road, Visakhapatnam-530017.

                                                                                   …  Opposite Parties         

                     

          This case coming on 06.11.2014 for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Sanapala Ramesh Kumar, Sri S. Chinna Rao & Sri Ch. Vijay, Advocates for the Complainant and M/s. S. Nagesh Reddy, M.R.B. Manikandan and Sri P. Sukumar, Advocates for the Opposite Parties 1 and 2 and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum made the following:

 

                                                ORDER

          (As per Sri C. V. Rao, Honourable Male Member, on behalf of the Bench)

 

1.       The Complainant asked the Forum to pass an order in his favour and against the Opposite Parties as follows: 1) To direct the Opposite Parties to pay compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only) for deficiency of service, causing severe mental agony, financial loss, business loss, and the effect on health due to the recovery agents’ harassment for any mischievous acts and fraud by any perpetrators,  2) To pay the costs of the complaint at Rs.4,000/- (Rupees four thousand only) and such other relief or reliefs as this Forum deems, fit and proper and the circumstances of the Complaint, 3) To pay the costs and legal expenses and 4) To pay the expenses which were incurred by the Complainant of Rs.2,12,141.28/- and  5) To grant such other relief or reliefs which the Forum may deem, fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

 

2.     The Opposite Parties 1 and 2 strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant and asked the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs. 

         

 3.      The case of the Complainant, as can be seen from the Complaint, is that the 1^st Opposite Party offered and issued the credit cards to the Complainant and the said cards were upgraded by the 1^st Opposite Party as gold and business cards.    The Complainant has the current account in the bank of the 2^nd Opposite Party and the 2^nd Opposite Party also issued a Credit Card to the Complainant on application; all the Credit Cards were used by the Complainant on one communication address.   Subsequently, the 1^st Opposite Party used to send statements regularly to the Complainant, the Complainant received a phone call from one perpetrator and he immediately elerted the 1^st Opposite Party about the said phone call, but there was no response to the Complainant.   After that the Complainant received the e-mails from the 1^st Opposite Party about the change in his details from E-mail Account.   Later the Complainant received a phone call from recovery agents of the 1^st Opposite Party to pay the due balance amount.    After that the Complainant gave a report to the Reserve Bank of India.    Later the said authority forwarded the said complaint to the Banking Ombudsman (AP).    The Complainant gave a police report about the mischievous act, fraudulent act as suggested by the Banking Ombudsman and meanwhile he spent a huge amount i.e., flight travelling charges, boarding etc., for resolving the matter with the help of respondents including other expenditures.    The Complainant gave a statutory notice to the Opposite Parties and they received it.   The 1^st Opposite Party gave a reply stating that they have done detailed investigation and they regret their inability to assist the Complainant any further in the issue.   The 1^st Opposite Party denied the allegations and in reverse framed charges on the Complainant for mis-use of cards and demanded the Complainant to pay the outstanding amounts on the cards immediately or they would have to take some action against the Complainant for non-payment of the due amount.   After that the 1^st Opposite Party had sent an E-Mail to the complainant E-mail address that “we confirm that we have reversed total outstanding on all the aforesaid cards and the same have been closed with nil dues and the cards have been dispatched and are open for transaction and we wish to inform you that, we have updated the mailing address and also the e-mail ID” but all the cards are not activated till the old dues are cleared.   The Complainant strained  mentally, physically and financially and incurred the heavy amount to resolve the issue.   Hence, this Complaint.   

 

4.       The Complainant filed an evidence affidavit also to support his claim.      Exs.A1 and A23 are marked for the Complainant.

 

5.       On the other hand, the 1^st Opposite Party resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter, that the 1^st Opposite Party as an exceptional service measure, had credited the fraudulent transactions and all accrued financial charges, which was a result of customer negligence and this was done purely on account of his long standing banking relationship with the bank and even thought the bank was under no obligation and/or liability to do so.    Further the bank also reinstated 3 of his cards.   Further based on the Complainant’s e-mail dated September 23, 2008 requesting the swap of 2 cards and reissue of the Jet Citi business card, the 2 cards reinstated were swapped and re-issued as per the details given below.    Further, the 3^rd card i.e., Jet Citibusiness card, 4564072104701007 reinstated was re-issued to card bearing # 4564072104701015.    The same was conveyed to customer our response date October 10, 2008.   Apart from the above gesture, the 1^st Opposite Party had also arranged to remove the name of the Complainant from the negative data base of CIBIL, as very special case considering the circumstances, in order to help the Complainant though this Opposite Party is not required to do so.    The 1^st Opposite Party stated that the allegations made therein are false, frivolous and baseless and have been made for the purpose of gaining sympathy of this Forum.   It is clearly established that the mis-use of the credit had been committed by some third person due to the clear and total lapse on the part of the Complainant.   Due to the said reason, no authority could redress the grievances raised by the Complainant.   Secondly, as a measure of goodwill gesture, in order to help its customer to overcome the situation, the 1^st Opposite Party had reversed the disputed amounts in the credit cards and in spite of that the Complainant had not been paying the outstanding due in the credit card accounts arising out of the usage of the cards by the Complainant.    To get over the lapses on his part, the Complainant has gone to the extent of making all vague and baseless allegations only to make some grounds for the Complaint lodged by him.   The 1^st Opposite Party stated further that the Complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint and the dates and events mentioned therein did not create any cause of action in favour of the Complainant, as the Complainant cannot try to benefit from his own lapse which has been explained above.   Further the action of the Complainant in rushing to this Forum, inspite of the reversals done by this Opposite Party of the amounts in the disputed transactions considering the customer relationship and also as a measure of goodwill, though they are not required to do as the problem had taken place only on account of the lapse on the part of the Complainant, would go to show the malafide intention and ulterior motives of the Complainant in making illegal personal gains.   The 1^st Opposite Party stated that the compensation and other costs claimed by the Complainant is imaginary and speculative and the same could not be entertained by this Forum, as the Complainant did not at all entitled to any compensation or costs as claimed by him.  

 

6.       The 1^st Opposite Party filed an affidavit besides written arguments to buttress its contentions.    Ex.B1 to B3 are marked for the 1^st Opposite Party.

 

7.       The 2^nd Opposite Party also strongly resisted the claim of the Complainant by contending, as can be seen from its counter that, regarding the Credit Card the risk, underwriting, operations, service & complaints are all managed and handled by CITI Bank i.e., the 1^st Opposite Party, with no liability or responsibility to the 2^nd Opposite Party, which fact is within the express knowledge of the Complainant.    There is not a single averment in the entire complaint against the 2^nd Opposite Party Bank by the Complainant alleging either deficiency of service or any unfair trade practice to approach this Forum seeking compensation.   Except for maintaining a Current Account under No.742011003455 for the business activity of the Complainant in the name and style of ‘Sree Jain Infotech’ from 06.07.2005 to 21.08.2007 there are no contractual obligations between the Complainant and the 2^nd Opposite Party bank.    The alleged cause of action in the complaint arose on 05.10.2007 i.e., after 2 months of closure or non-operation of the Current Account with the 2^nd Opposite Party and that too, allegedly from the 1^st Opposite Party bank.   Thus, there is no cause of action that is made out by the Complainant against the 2^nd Opposite Party bank and it was added as a party only to bring this complaint within the jurisdiction of this Forum at Visakhapatnam, despite the Complainant claiming expenses for his redressal visits to the 1^st Opposite Party’s offices at Hyderabad and Chennai.   As such, this Forum is sans jurisdiction.    The Complaint is barred by limitation to be entertained by this Forum as 2 years from the cause of action elapsed in 2009 itself and is hopelessly barred by limitation.   The allegation that owing to the name of the Complainant being put on hold before CIBIL resulting in non-issuance of similar finance facilities by other banks cannot sustain for the simple reason that the Complainant had furnished information regarding his travel for which he expended amounts through usage of different versions of Credit Cards from ICICI Bank, Axis Bank and HDFC Bank, all issued/obtained in his name only.

 

8.       The 2^nd Opposite Party filed an evidence affidavit besides written arguments to buttress its contention.   No exhibits are marked for the 2^nd Opposite Party.

 

9.       The matter has been heard on behalf of the Complainant as well as the Opposite Parties 1 and 2.

 

10.     After careful perusal of the case record, this Forum finds that the Complainant himself flouted the security tips to be scrupulously followed by a credit card holder like himself.   This Complainant stated in the complaint unambiguously that on 05.10.2007 around 4 PM, he divulged all key details of his credit card to one fictitious persons ‘Satish’ and thereon some fraudulent transactions took place by mis-use of credit card (s).   Thus, it is as clear as daylight that the Complainant was outright imprudent to reveal confidential information regarding his Credit Card (s) to an unknown person and reaped as he sown as the ensuing troubles were prima-facie of his own making and he cannot place the responsibility at the door step of the Opposite Parties.   The contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party, that the reversals were done by the 2^nd Opposite Party of the amounts in the disputed transactions considering the customer relationship and also as a measure of goodwill though they are not required to do as the problem has taken place only on account of the lapse on the part of the Complainant, cannot be simply brushed off.   We also take into good account, the contention of the 2^nd Opposite Party-that there is no service extended by the 2^nd Opposite Party regarding the credit card as the risk, under writing, operations, service and complaints are all managed and handled by CITI Bank i.e., the 1^st Opposite Party, with no liability or responsibility to the 2^nd Opposite Party, which fact is within the express knowledge of the Complainant-hold good in the circumstances.   As such, we see that any financial loss, physical hardship or mental agony caused to the Complainant was solely because of his own deficiency/failure in keeping key information about his Credit Card to himself.    Therefore, we hold that the Complainant approached this Forum with unclean hands holding an untenable claim.   Hence, this Complaint is liable to be dismissed.  

      11.        In the result, this Complaint is dismissed.   No costs.

     Dictated to the Steno, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Forum, this the 30^th  day of December, 2014.

Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

President                                                                                Male Member

 

 

                             APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

For the Complainant:-

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.A01		Jet Airways (jet privilege) Membership Card.	Photo copy
Ex.A02	01.11.2008	ING Vysya Bank Account Statement bearing No.742011003455.	Photo copy
EX.A03		ING Vysya/City Bank Card bearing No.554619779075001 issued by the 2nd OP.	Photo copy
Ex.A04		City business card bearing No.456407210701007	Photo copy
Ex.A05	07.10.2007	Two e-mail messages from CAI@ city corp. com to Complainant e-mail ID.	Photo copy
Ex.A06	17.10.2007	A fax letter to Citi Bank Card chennal from Complainant along with receipt and confirmation report slip	Fax Copy
Ex.A07	08.10.2007	e-mail message from citi elert to Complainant.	e-mail copy
Ex.A08	22.10.2007	e-mail from IOB(Grievance Redressal Officer from citi .com	Original
Ex.A09	01.11.2007	e-mail letter from 1st OP stating that the investigation in your concern	Original
Ex.A10	11.02.2008	Acknowledge regarding complaint No.5126 at office of the Banking Ombudsman	Original
Ex.A11	19.03.2008	FIR copy filed by the Complainant at II town p.s. Visakhapatnam along with Complaint.	Attested copy
Ex.A12	15.05.2008	Reply e-mail from 1st OP	Original
Ex.A13	18.07.2008	Letter from Banking Ombudsman	Original
Ex.A14	29.05.2008	Register Lawyer’s Notice with Postal Receipt issued by Complainant’s counsel to Ops.	Office copy
Ex.A15 Ex.A15	02.07.2008 18.07.2008	Reply Notice from 1st OP containing false allegations Letter from Postal Department to Complainant’s counsel	Office copy   Original
Ex.A16		Business Card bearing No.5546370601295022 sent by 1st OP	Photo copy
Ex.A17		Barclay card rejecting letter	Office copy
Ex.A18	18.08.2008	Letter from citi bank for the due amount and naming the Complainant as defaulter	Office copy
Ex.A19	10.10.2008	Letter from citi bank reversing the amount	Original
Ex.A20		Regd. Rejoinder Legal Notice issued by Complainant’s counsel to Ops	Office copy
Ex.A21	17.04.2010	Reply letter & acknowledge from 1st OP along with receipt	Original
Ex.A22	17.04.2010	Acknowledge from 2nd Op	Original
Ex.A23		Bunch of Bills Rs.2,12,141.28ps.	Original

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Opposite Parties:-                                  

NO.	DATE	DESCRIPTIONOFTHEDOCUMENTS	REMARKS
Ex.B01	28.09.2007	Statement of Account pertaining CardNo.5546370601295006 issued by the 1st OP	Original
Ex.B02	28.08.2008	Statement of Account pertaining Card No.4564072104701007 issued by 1st OP	Original
Ex.B03	28.08.2008	Statement of Account pertaining Card No.5546370601295022 issued by the 1st OP.	Original

                   

  Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-            

President                                                                             Male Member