Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/791/2019

Harsh Garg - Complainant(s)

Versus

RBL Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pulkit Goyal Adv.

20 Dec 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint  No	:	791 of 2019
Date  of  Institution	:	22.08.2019
Date   of   Decision	:	20.12.2023

 

 

 

 

 

Harsh Garg, aged about 38 years, son of Sh.Gian Prakash Gupta, resident of H.No.170, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh 160022

 

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

1]  RBL Bank Ltd., having its Corporate Office at 841, Tower 2/B, 6^th Floor, One Indiabulls Center, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 through its Managing Director.

2]  RBL Bank Ltd., having its Branch at SCO No.135-136, Madhya Marg, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh 160009 through its Branch Manager.

    ….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MR.AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU,       PRESIDENT

                    MR.B.M.SHARMA,                 MEMBER

                               

Argued by  :    Ms.Asmita Arora, Adv. proxy for Sh.Pulkit Goyal,     Counsel for the complainant.

 

Sh.Dhawal Bhandari, Adv. proxy for Sh.Yoginder Nagpal, Counsel for OPs.

 

 

ORDER BY AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU, M.A.(Eng.),LLM,PRESIDENT

 

        The complainant has filed the present complaint pleading that he has been issued Platinum Maxima Credit Card bearing No.5243736310937466 by the OP Bank having credit limit of Rs.3.86 lacs (Ann.C-1).  It is stated that the complainant along with his family went to Europe during summers from 03.06.2019 to 17.06.2019 (Ann.C-2) and while carrying some international currency, he also carried Forex Card issued by HDFC Bank as well as Credit Card issued by OPs to met out the expenses there (Ann.C-3).  It is submitted that when the complainant faced problem using Forex Card, he tried to use the Credit Card in question issued by the OPs, but the transaction was declined.  The complainant called to the customer care officer of the OPs and also sent email on 05.6.2019 requesting the OP to unblock the credit card (Ann.C-4), followed by other emails on 6.6.2019, 7.7.2019 (An.C-4 to C-8) apart from making several calls to the customer care officer of the OPs, but despite of all that as well as following all instructions of the OPs, the subject credit card was not activated by them enabling the complainant to use it in a foreign land.  It is pleaded that due to non-activated of the subject credit card by the OPs and callous response from the OPs, the complainant and his family has to suffer a lot; they have to restrict their purchases and day to day expenses while they were are in Europe to enjoy the vacation and suffer paucity of funds, resultantly, the international trip of the complainant turned into a nightmare. It is also pleaded that the complainant also exchanged emails with OPs from 14.6.2019 to 16.6.2019 but the matter was not resolved by them (Ann.C-9 colly) and even on 19.8.2019 the complainant was unable to make transaction of Rs.500/- to airtel as it was declined inspite of getting OTP.  Alleging the act & conduct of the OPs as deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, therefore, this complaint has been filed with a prayer to direct the OPs to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.10 lacs towards mental agony, harassment and to spoil the international trip as well as interest & litigation cost.

 

2]       After notice of the complaint, the OPs (RBL Bank Ltd) have put in appearance and filed written version and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, stated that the complainant never visited or raised his concern to designated officials for inability of credit card usage whereas the complainant chose to wrote email only which were replied by call centre executive not by deciding authority i.e. Top Management of the OPs.  It is submitted that the complainant never followed instructions conveyed in emails written to him nor he bothered to go through it and uninstall and reinstall the mobile app through which the complainant was trying to us said facility and four such replied dated 6.6.2019,. 7.6.2019, 15.6.2019 and 16.6.2019 were sent to the complainant (Ann.R-2 to R-5). It is also submitted that the complainant neither followed the Foreign Currency Conversion Factor Assessment (Page No.2 of MITC) not followed the Level-I Communication emails as was mandated & required by the complainant (Ann.R-6).  It is further submitted that the complainant is enjoying the facility of the Credit Card per Credit Card Statement for the period Nov., 2019 to January, 2020 but still submitted the complaint that the card was deactivated or blocked (Ann.R-7 & R-8). Denying all other allegations and pleading no deficiency in service, the OPs have lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

 

3]       Replication has also been filed by the complainant controverting the assertions of OPs made in the written version.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the contesting parties and have gone through the entire record including written arguments. 

 

6]       The main question in the present complaint is whether there is deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in not activating the Credit Card of the complainant for overseas transaction or not?

 

7]       To find out answer to these questions, it is important to take into consideration the following facts and circumstances of the present complaint:-

 

         The complainant has alleged that the credit card issued to him by the OPs was not activated by them enabling him to use it overseas while he along with his family was on summer vacation to Europe from 03.06.2019 to 17.6.2019 and due to which he had to face lot of problem in making financial transactions. 

 

8]       It is observed that the complainant had requested the OPs to activate/unblock his credit card by sending emails on dated 5.6.2019, 6.6.2019 & 7.6.2019 (Annexure C-4 to  Annexure C-6) as well as on 14.6.2019 & 15.6.2019 (Annexure C-9 colly.) and the complainant also informed them that he is in Europe, but despite of all that the credit card of the complainant was not activated by the OPs.  It is obvious that the complainant do suffer a lot of inconvenience and difficulty in making financial transactions in a foreign land due to the failure of the OPs in activating the credit card of the complainant despite his making numerous requests, which cannot be justified by any plea of OPs.  Therefore, it is held that there is clear cut deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs in not activating the Credit Card of the complainant for overseas transaction, which certainly has caused harassment, mental agony and loss to the complainant.

 

9]       Taking into consideration the above discussion & findings, the present complaint deserves to be partly allowed and the same is accordingly partly allowed against OPs No.1 & 2. The OPs No.1 & 2 are directed to pay a lump-sum amount of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the harassment & agony suffered by him due to deficient act & unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs and it also includes litigation expenses. 

         This order be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2 within ninety days from the date of receipt of its certified copy.

10]     The pending application(s) if any, stands disposed of accordingly.

         The Office is directed to send certified copy of this order to the parties, free of cost, as per rules & law under The Consumer Protection Rules & Act accordingly. After compliance file be consigned to record room.        

Announced

20.12.2023                                                                    Sd/-

 (AMRINDER SINGH SIDHU)

PRESIDENT

 

Sd/-

(B.M.SHARMA)

MEMBER