District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hooghly
PETITIONER
VS.
OPPOSITE PARTY
Complaint Case No.CC/82/2021
(Date of Filing:-28.06.2021)
- Smt. Bula Karmakar Sarkar, residing at
12(161/18A), G.T.Road, Niveditapally,
P.O. Baidyabati, P.S Serampore,
Dist. Hooghly, Pin:- 712222, ….Complainant
- RBL Bank Head Office
Mahaveer, Shri Shahu Market Yard, Kolhapur,
Pin:-416005, Maharastra, India.
- RBL Bank Ltd., Corporate Office,
One Indiabulls Centre, Tower 2B, 6th Floor
841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W),
Mumbai, Pin-400013, Maharastra
- RBL Bank Ltd. Kolkata Branch,
First Floor, Thapar House, 25, Brabourne Road, Kolkata-700001.
- Transunion Cibil Ltd.,
(Formerly: Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd.,
Represented by its Managing Director,
One World Centre, Tower 2A, 19th Floor,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road, Mumbai-400013.
……….Opposite Parties
MR. DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY, PRESIDENT
MR. DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA, MEMBER
MRS. BABITA CHOUDHURI, MEMBER
Dtd.03.01.2024
Final Order/Judgment
DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER
The instant complaint case filed under section 35(1) (a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 emanates from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of usage of ‘Bajaj Finserve RBL Maser card’, which appears to be a credit card, purchase made against the said card, payments claimed to have been made to the Bank against the said purchase, Bank’s repeated persuasions for realizing the said payment even after making the said payment and treating the Complainant as a defaulter.
Brief facts of the case
Reportedly, the Complainant while purchasing certain articles through Bajaj Finserv Company was rewarded with a “Bajaj Finsev RBL Master card’ in August 2019.
The said card is reported to have been served at the residence of the Complainant.
However on 04.10.19 the Complainant purchased a mobile phone worth Rs.15,990/- against the said card.
Subsequent to that, the Complainant claims to have made a payment of Rs.5,000/- on 23.10.2019 through the Axis bank account of her husband and another online payment of Rs.10,370/- on 22.12.2019 to the Bank against the usage of the credit card.
Thus total repayment made to the OP Bank in this regard by the Complainant was to the extent of Rs.15,370/-.
On 17.05.21 The OP Bank sent a SMS to the Phone No. of the Complainant’s husband showing an ‘overdue’ of Rs.16,424.26 in respect of the card.
Having been agitated over this, the Complainant sent a legal notice dtd.29.05.2021 to the concerned wing of the OP bank and the notice was duly received by the OP Bank.
Instead of being responsive to the notice, the Bank sent their representative to the Complainant’s residence on 21.06.2021to pursue the payment further.
Now the grievance of the Complainant centers around the bank’s reluctance to adjust the payment of Rs.15,370/-made by the Complainant against the dues.
Resultantly the OP Bank treated the Complainant as a defaulter which is reflected in the corresponding Cibil score.
It may be mentioned here that the Complainant by submitting an amended plaint included Transunion Cibil Limited [Formerly Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd.] as fourth OP. OP 1,2 and 3 belong to the same organization i.e. RBL Bank.
Finding no other alternative the Complainant approaches to the Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the concerned Opposite Parties i.e. OP 1 to 3 in general to remove the name of the Complainant from the list of defaulters, 2) to make the necessary rectification in the ‘Bank-Cibil’ and 3) to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-
Photo copies of the card, tax-invoice in respect of the purchase of the mobile phone, two pages of bank statement of the husband of the Complainant, print out of UPI transaction of Rs.10,300/- showing bill payment of RBL Bank Credit Card, legal notice sent to the Bank and corresponding postal track report are annexed with the complaint petition.
Evidence on affidavit filed by the Complainant is almost replica of the complaint petition.
The complainant, is apparently a consumer in terms of section 2(7) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the complainant and one of the OPs are having their residence/office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
All the opposite parties contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein the allegations leveled against them.
However the OP Bank i.e. OP 1, 2 and 3 in their representations viz. written version, affidavit in chief and brief notes of argument claims that the ‘alleged’ documents annexed with the petition in support of ‘alleged’ payments by the petitioner do not establish or prove the contention of the petitioner.
OP Bank has annexed credit card account statements along with the written version.
OP 4 in their written version clarifies that they are engaged in the business of creating, storing, retrieving, compiling, collating, collecting, processing and maintaining a data bank of credit information relating to both individuals and entities of all types whether incorporated or not , for the use of Banks, financial institutions, etc. dealing with the distribution of credit. Reportedly OP 4 functions as a credit information Company under the provisions of Credit Information Companies (Regulations) Act, 2005.
In terms of Section 18 of the said Act it transpires that notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force any dispute on matters relating to the business of credit information is required to be settled solely by arbitration or conciliation under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996.
OP 4 further points out that the Complainant has made no submission whatsoever as to the Complainant being a customer of OP 4.
OP 4 puts stress on the issue that any rectification in the database of credit information or change in the credit information can only be made in accordance with the provisions of Section 21(3) of the CICRA which states that a credit information company like OP 4 can make a correction, deletion or addition of the credit information only after such correction, deletion or addition has been certified as correct by the concerned credit institution.
Decision with reason
Materials on records are perused.
The crux of the case lies on the issue whether the complainant was a credit card defaulter or not.
The Complainant made a purchase of a mobile phone worth Rs.15,990/- on 04.10.2019 using the credit card. Against the said credit, the Complainant claims to have made the first installment of payment of Rs.5,000/-through the Axis Bank account of her husband on 23.10.2019. The OP Bank has not raised any question with regard to this payment and the payment has been reflected in the credit card statement. Second and final installment of payment of Rs.10,370/- is claimed to have been made online on 22.12.2019.
So far as this final installment of payment of Rs.10,370/- is concerned, it appears that the payment was made through a unified payment interface app. The print-out of screenshot, substantiating the payment has been filed by the Complainant.
Besides, the Complainant has also filed the corresponding bank statement which reflects payment of both the installments. The bank statement appears to be in conformity with the claim made by the petitioner in her complaint petition.
On examination of the same, the Commission cannot find any reason to question the credibility of the documents filed by the Complainant.
Normally, banks send notices/reminders to a credit card payment defaulter within one month from being a defaulter.
But in the instant case, the surprising part of the issue is that the purchase against the credit card was made on 04.10.2019 by the Complainant herself but the OP Bank sent the sms to the Complainant’s husband’s phone and that also on 17.05.2021 i.e. more than nineteen months after usage of the credit card.
It is inscrutable as to why it took one and a half year for the bank to detect the irregularity even if there was any irregularity at all.
Now, on consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case the Commission is of the opinion that there was deficiency of service on the part of the Bank in the matter of treating the Complainant as a defaulter. The documents produced by the Complainant suffice to establish the payments made by the Complainant to the bank against the usage of the credit card.
However there appears to be a marginal non-payment of Rs.620/- by the Complainant.
Hence it is
ORDERED
that the complaint case no.82/2021 be and the same is allowed on contest but in part.
The Commission hereby directs the OP Bank in general and OP 3 in particular to adjust the payments made by the complainant accordingly against her dues. The OP Bank is being further directed to remove the name of the Complainant from the defaulter list of the Bank on realization of the marginal non-payment if any.
Apart from the above, the OP Bank after observing all such formalities will convey the same to OP 4 for necessary rectification in the Cibil status of the Complainant.
OP 4, only on receipt of such information from the credit institution will make necessary rectification in their database.
Besides, the OP bank i.e. OP 1, 2 and 3 will be jointly liable to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation to the Complainant for causing harassment and mental agony.
The OP bank will have to comply with this order within 45 days from the date of this order failing which the OP Bank will be liable to pay Rs.10,000/- to the Consumer Legal Aid Account.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
