Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/554/2012

THE HSBC LIMITED, THE BRANCH MANAGER - Complainant(s)

Versus

R. SIVAGAMI - Opp.Party(s)

MOTHILAL GODA AND KALLIAT

24 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

Present:

                                   Thiru J. Jayaram,                      PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                   Tmt.  P. Bakiyavathi                  MEMBER

F.A. No. 554 / 2012

      (Against the Order in C.C.No.568 / 2010, dated 24-09-2011 on the file of the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

Dated this the 24^th day of JULY, 2015

  1. The HSBC Limited,                                   ]

    Represented by its Branch Manager,         ]

    Race Course Road Branch,                      ]

    Coimbatore                                              ]

                                                                   ]                                    

2. The HSBC Limited,                                   ]

    Represented by its Senior Officer –          ]

    Customer Service, Customer Connect,      ] ..  Appellants /

    No.96, Dr. Radhakrishnan Salai,               ]     Opposite Parties

    Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004          ]

 

                   Vs.

R. Sivagami,                                                ]

W/o Ramasamy,                                           ]        

122/1-34Crd Street, M.G.R. Nagar,               ]    Respondent /

SIDCO Post, Coimbatore 641 021                 ]    Complainant    

                   This Appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 15-07-2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order:

Counsel for Appellants:             -        M/s Mothilal Goda & Kalliat

Counsel for Respondent:  -        Corner Stone Associates

J. JAYARAM, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                This appeal is filed by the opposite parties against the order of the District Forum, Coimbatore in C.C.No.568/2010, dated 24-09-2011, allowing the complaint.

     The case of the complainant is that she had availed Credit Card facility from the 1^st opposite party and she intended to avail  BalanceTransfer Facility, and she approached the 1^st opposite party in the month of December, 2008, and made a request to provide Balance Transfer Facility, which was declined by the 1^st opposite party, but the opposite party collected amounts from her account to the tune of Rs.1,20,350-88 under various heads from Jan 2009 as though the complainant had utilized the Balance Transfer Facility. In spite of several repeated representations to the opposite parties, it was not rectified. Finally, the 2^nd opposite party sent a reply to the complainant stating that the Balance Transfer Facility can be cancelled only with the original Cashier’s order pay. There is no necessity to submit the original cashier’s pay since the complainant has not availed the Balance Transfer Facility and there is no further response from the opposite parties; and the amount was not reversed by the opposite parties. This amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and hence the complaint.    

2.       According to the opposite parties, the Balance Transfer Facility is a discretionary banking service and granting or refusing is the discretion of the bank. Balance Transfer Facility was extended to the complainant and the complainant accepted the facility and a sum of Rs.18,000/- was transferred to the complainant for paying her outstanding amounts of City Bank and ABN Amro Bank, and it is reflected in the Nov – Dec, 2008 statement; a demand draft for Rs.18,000/- was dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart courier. The complainant had opted for many Balance Transfers and from the statement of accounts it is evident that the complainant had availed many Balance Transfer Facilities from the opposite parties. There is no deficiency in service on their part.

3.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and allowed the complaint stating that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

4.       It is pertinent to note that in the communication Ex.A4, dated 07-09-2009, the opposite party bank has intimated to the complainant that her request for Balance Transfer Facility was declined as per the bank’s norms and the same has not been processed and regretting for the inconvenience caused to the complainant and so it is evident that the Balance Transfer Facility was not extended to her.

5.       The further statements of accounts received by the complainant issued by the opposite parties has been filed and marked as Ex.A1, A2 and A3 for the periods from 14-01-2009 to 14-03-2010 and as seen from the accounts, amounts have been debited from the complainant’s account towards Balance Transfer Facility.

6.       Ex.A5, dated 29-09-2009 is the reply sent by the opposite parties to the complainant stating that the Balance Transfer Facility can be cancelled only with the original cashier’s order pay and on executing an indemnity bond. Ex.A6 is the letter dated 22-11-2009 sent by the complainant to the opposite party requesting the opposite party to furnish Balance Transfer details.

7.       Ex.A7 is the reply dated 01-12-2009 sent by the opposite parties to the complainant again calling upon the complainant to provide the original cashier’s order pay to enable to close the Perpetual Balance Transfers.

8.       Ex. A8 is the legal notice sent by the complainant to the opposite parties requesting the opposite parties to reverse the sum of Rs.1,20,350-88 which was collected from the complainant’s account towards Balance Transfer Facility which was not provided to the complainant and to pay compensation and costs.

9.       The opposite parties have filed Ex.B1 covering the transaction details from 31-12 to 31-03, where Balance Transfers are shown as ‘NIL’.

10.     In the version filed by the opposite parties, it is stated that a demand draft for Rs.18,000/- was dispatched to the complainant through Blue Dart courier, and the complainant had opted for many balance transfers and they have further stated as follows:

“The opposite parties submit that they reserve their chance of filing the relevant documents before this Hon’ble Forum, to prove their case, during the time of filing the proof affidavit and raise points if any during the time of arguments or filing the written document elaborately”,

But the opposite parties have not filed any documents except Ex.B1 to establish their case. They have not even produced the minimal essential documents or adduced any evidence to substantiate their contentions. The opposite parties have simply denied the averments of the complainant and nothing prevented them from producing the concerned relevant records including the various Balance Transfers availed by the complainant as contended by the opposite parties in the version along with the relevant details, and in the absence of evidence to rebut the contentions of the complainant, we have to hold that the contentions of the complainant are true and acceptable.

11.     On considering the entire materials on record, we hold that the complainant has made out her case of deficiency in service against the opposite parties.

12.     The District Forum has allowed the complaint directing the opposite parties –

a)       to reverse a sum of Rs.1,20,350-88p which was collected from the complainant’s account towards Balance Transfer Facility along with 12% interest from the date of the filing of the complaint till the date of payment;

b)       to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the mental agony etc caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service;

c)       to pay a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards cost;”

13.     The District Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards mental agony. We feel that the compensation awarded for mental agony is very much on the higher side, and we are inclined to reduce the award to Rs.5,000/- and otherwise there is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the rest of the finding and the decision of the District Forum, and the order of the District Forum has to be modified accordingly.

14.     In the result, the appeal is partly allowed, modifying the order of the District Forum by reducing the compensation for mental agony to Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) instead of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the District Forum and confirming the rest of the order. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

    TMT.  P. BAKIYAVATHI                J. JAYARAM           

                MEMBER                              PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER