BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMRITSAR.
Consumer Complaint No. 346 of 2020
Date of Institution: 8.9.2020
Date of Decision:05.04.2021
Maniket son of Sh. Sukhdev Raj, resident of H.No. 118, Professor Colony, Near Shaurya Health Care, Near Tilak Nagar, Amritsar
Complainant
Versus
- Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India, 4th Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh
- Ms. Rupali Bhardwaj (Principal Nodel Officer) SBI Cards Customer Correspondence Unit, DFL Infinty Tower, Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block-2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002
Opposite Parties
Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Result : Complaint Allowed
Counsel for the parties :
For the Complainant : Mr. Abhishek Arora, Advocate
For the Opposite Party No.1 : Given up vide statement dated 20.10.20
For the Opposite Party No.2 : Ex-parte
Quorum
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President
Mr.Jatinder Singh Pannu, Member
ORDER:-
Mr. Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra, President :-Order of this commission will dispose of the present complaint filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019).
Brief facts and pleadings
1. Brief facts of the case are that the complainant is having credit card of SBI bearing No. 5172527314033450 in his name since long having expiry date March 2024. The complainant always used the abovesaid credit card for shopping of all kinds of goods . Initially the limit of the said card was Rs. 1,62,000/-. The complainant always deposited the amounts in time in his account regarding the abovesaid credit card. In the month of January, 2020 the old credit card was upgraded to prime SBI vide No. 5102237564287898. The complainant was to deposit Rs. 56,910/- in his account with the opposite party No.2. the complainant deposited Rs. 30000/- with the opposite party No.2 vide six different entries of Rs. 5000/- on 26.7.2019 i.e. two through app Paytm and four entries through app Mobikwik and as such on 26.7.2019 the complainant deposited Rs. 30000/- with the opposite party No.2 regarding the abovesaid credit card. The complainant deposited the abovesaid amount of Rs. 30000/- through PNB, Hall Bazar, Amritsar having account No. 0019000100179327, IFSC code PUNB0001800 i.e. account in the name of Deepak Kumar real brother of the complainant. The complainant also deposited Rs. 30000/- on 26.7.2019 through bank transfer. The complainant also deposited Rs. 7100/- on 26.7.2019 and as such the complainant deposited total sum of Rs. 67,100/- with opposite party No.2. All the abovesaid amounts were duly credited in the account of the complainant with opposite party No.2 which fact is also shown from the bank statement as well as passbook in the name of Deepak Kumar real brother of the complainant . It is pertinent to mention here that the entries of the abovesaid amounts i.e. two entries of Rs. 5000/- dated 26.7.2019 were updated on 26.7.2019, two entries of Rs. 5000/- each were updated by the opposite party No.2 in the account of the complainant on 29.7.2019. The entry of Rs. 30000/- was also updated by the opposite party No.2 on 26.7.2019 and entry of Rs. 7100/- was also updated on 26.7.2019, but two entries of Rs. 5000/- each of dated 26.7.2019 have not been updated by opposite party No.2 in the account of the complainant till today. About one year has been passed but till today two entries of Rs. 5000/- each dated 26.7.2019 have not been updated by the opposite party No.2 in the account of the complainant.. The complainant is the regular customer of the opposite parties and always acted as per the banking rules. The complainant approached opposite party No.2 many a times and requested them to update two entries of Rs. 5000/- dated 26.7.2019 in the account of the complainant but the opposite party No.2 always delayed the matter on one pretext or the other . The act of the opposite party in not updating two entries of Rs. 5000/- each dated 26.7.2019 in the account of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party which has caused great mental agony, harassment to the complainant. Vide instant complaint, complainant has sought for the following reliefs:-
(a) Opposite parties be directed to update two entries of Rs. 5000/- each of dated 26.7.2019 in the credit card account of the complainant bearing account No. 510223756287898 with opposite party No.2 ;
(b) Compensation to the tune of Rs. 50000/- may also be awarded to the complainant.
(b) Opposite party be also directed to pay litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 11000/- to the complainant.
(b) Any other relief to which the complainant is entitled be also awarded to the complainant.
Hence, this complaint.
2. On receiving the complaint, file was taken up on 20.10.2020 and the complainant has got recorded his statement that opposite party No.1 was inadvertently made party to the present complaint and as such gave up opposite party No.1. On the other hand opposite party No.2 was summoned for 4.12.2020. On 4.12.2020 as per office report notice to opposite party No.2 was sent through regd. Post but none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2, but on that date Quorum was not complete, as such the case was adjourned to 8.12.2020 . On 8.12.2020 none appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte.
Points for Determination
3. From the pleadings the following are the points to be determined by this Commission:-
- Whether there is deficiency in service the part of the opposite party in not updating the two entries of Rs. 5000/- each made on 26.7.2019 ?
- If point No.1 is proved , whether the complainant is entitled for compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and also entitled for litigation expenses , if so , to what amount ?
Evidence of the complainant and Arguments
4. Alongwith the complaint, complainant has filed his affidavit Ex.CW1/A, self attested copy of notice dated 8.7.2020 Ex.C-2, two postal receipts dated 8.7.2020 Ex.C-3 & Ex.C-4, copy of bank passbook in the name of Deepak brother of the complainant Ex.C-5, self attested copy of bank statement of July and August 2019 Ex.C-6, self attested copy of credit card of the complainant Ex.C-7, self attested copy of Aadhar card Ex.C-8 and closed his evidence.
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the complainant and have carefully gone through the record on the file. Counsel for the complainant suffered a statement that he does not want to file written arguments and the contents of his complaint be considered as written arguments on behalf of the complainant.
Findings
6. From the appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case, it becomes evident that the complainant is having credit card of SBI bearing No. 5172527314033450 in his name since long having expiry date March 2024. The limit of the said card was Rs. 1,62,000/-. It was the case of the complainant that he always used to deposit the amounts in time in his account regarding the abovesaid credit card. In the month of January, 2020 the old credit card was upgraded to prime SBI vide No. 5102237564287898. The complainant was to deposit Rs. 56,910/- in his account with the opposite party No.2. The complainant deposited Rs. 30000/- with the opposite party No.2 vide six different entries of Rs. 5000/- on 26.7.2019 i.e. two through app Paytm and four entries through app Mobikwik and as such on 26.7.2019 the complainant deposited Rs. 30000/- with the opposite party No.2 regarding the abovesaid credit card. In this regard the complainant has placed on record copy of bank statement Ex.C-5 which fully proves that the abovesaid fact of depositing of Rs. 5000/- vide six different entries on 26.7.2019.The complainant also deposited Rs. 30000/- on 26.7.2019 through bank transfer, Rs. 7100/- on 26.7.2019 and as such the complainant deposited total sum of Rs. 67,100/- with opposite party No.2. In this regard complainant has relied upon Ex.C-5 i.e. details of the pass book which depicts that there are six entries on 26.7.2019 for Rs. 5000/- which has been stated to be withdrawn and paid to the account of the opposite party towards credit card payment. But two entries are not explained and have not been updated as stated by the complainant. First of all to decide point No (i) whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in not updating the entries of Rs. 5000/- each made on 26.7.2019, it is very material to mention the definition clause of the consumer is well explained in 2(i)(d)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and now in clause 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 that “Consumer” means any person who hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promises, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. Similarly it is relevant to reproduce here the deficiency which is explained in clause 2(g) of Consumer Protection Act 1986 now 2(11) ) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 “deficiency” means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality , nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service. It is very much proved on record from the fact that there is no rebuttal to the averments raised by the complainant and prima facie claim of the complainant remained unrebutted and the complainant has relied upon entries shown in the pass book Ex.C-5 and also Ex.C-1 is the affidavit which the complainant has filed in support of his complaint which remained unrebutted and as such opposite party impliedly admitted the claim of the complainant. Keeping in view the facts as stated above, the claim of the complainant succeeds and the opposite party found guilty of deficiency in service and point No(i) is decided in favour of the complainant.
7. Since the opposite party is found guilty of deficiency in service , as such the complainant is entitled to the following relief:-
- SBI Cards Customer Correspondence Unit, DFL Infinty Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block 2 Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon through its competent official/officer (who deals with the credit card services) is directed to update two entries of Rs. 5000/- each of dated 26.7.2019 in the credit card account of the complainant bearing account No. 5102237564287898 .
- SBI Cards Customer Correspondence Unit, DFL Infinty Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block 2 Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon through its competent official/officer (who deals with the credit card services) is also directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5000/- as well as litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as the complainant has suffered mental agony in the hands of the opposite party for the last approximately one year.
Compliance of this order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order ; failing which the complainant is entitled to get the order executed through the indulgence of this Commission. Copies of the orders be furnished to the parties free of costs. File is ordered to be consigned to the record room. Case could not be disposed of within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of the cases in this Commission.
Announced in Open Commission (Jagdishwar Kumar Chopra) President
Dated: 5.4.2021
(Jatinder Singh Pannu)
Member
