Haryana

Karnal

CC/454/2023

Balinder - Complainant(s)

Versus

RBL Bank - Opp.Party(s)

28 Oct 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                        Complaint No.454 of 2023

                                                        Date of instt 09.08.2023

                                                        Date of Decision: 28.10.2024

 

Balinder (age 36 years) son of Shri Chander Pal, resident of village Danialpur, Post Office Tikri, Tehsil and District Karnal, Aadhar no.8243-0530-2090.

 

                                                                        …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

1.  RBL Bank (formally known as Ratnakar Bank Limited) Branch at SCO 239-240, Sector-12, opposite Mini Secretariat, Karnal.

 

2. RBL Bank (formally known as Ratnakar Bank Limited) registered office at Shahpuri, Kolhapur-416001 corporate office at one India Bulls, Centre Tower-2-B, 6^th floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel Mumbai-400013.

 

…..Opposite Parties.

 

Complaint under Section 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

 

Before   Shri Jaswant Singh……President.     

              Ms. Neeru Agarwal…….Member

      Ms. Sarvjeet Kaur…..Member

 

Argued by:  Complainant in person.

                    OP no.1 exparte (vide order dated 26.10.2023)

                    Shri R.K. Kamra, counsel for the OP no.2.

                   

                     (Jaswant Singh, President)

ORDER:   

                

                The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) on the averments that in the first week of April 2022, the complainant received a phone call from the office of Bajaj Finserv Limited, Karnal and its official constantly calling the complainant to take RBL Bank Credit Card and ultimately the complainant was ready to take the RBL Bank Credit Card. After issuing the said credit card, the official of the OPs started putting pressure upon the complainant to use the said credit card but there was no necessity for the complainant as he has not sufficient funds to purchase any valuable item from the market and thus the said credit card was useless. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs and requested the officials of the OPs for surrender the said credit card but the officials of the OPs put a condition on the complainant to deposit Rs.1016/- and only then the said credit card would be taken back, so the complainant had to pay the said amount of Rs.1016/- through phone pay but inspite of getting the said amount OPs did not close the account of said credit card. Now the complainant shocked to receive a whatsapp message of the OPs regarding overdue an amount of Rs.11,522/-. Infact, the complainant has never used the said credit card since the date of issue. Moreover, the financial capacity of the complainant is nil, thus the question of using the said credit card by the complainant does not arise at all. Thereafter, complainant visited the office of OPs so many times and requested not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.11,522/- from the complainant but OPs did not pay any heed to the request of complainant. Not only this, the officials of the OPs visited the house of complainant and threatened to the family members of the complainant. The complainant and his family members will have to face dire consequences. Due to this act and conduct of the OPs, the complainant has suffered lot of harassment, mental pain, agony as well as financial loss. It is further averred that complainant came to know that the said amount of Rs.11,522/- also started showing on CIBIL due towards the complainant. Infact, complainant is not liable to pay the said amount. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Hence, complainant filed the present complaint seeking direction to the OPs to restrain from charged the alleged amount of Rs.11522/- from the complainant forcibly and illegally and the OPs may also be directed to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.1016/- which has been fraudulently charged by the OPs from the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment as well as financial loss.

2.             On notice, OP no.1 did not appear despite service and opted to be proceeded against exparte, vide order dated 26.10.2023 of the Commission.

3.             OP no.2 appeared and filed its written version raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action and concealment of true and material facts. On merits, it is pleaded that complainant has applied for credit card facility from the OP and the complainant was initially issued credit card with the annual fee of Rs.1499+GST. Thereafter, the agent pitched for card upsell and offered the complainant “Shopgain Platinum Super Card” bearing no.BFLC0045238618 (hereinafter referred to as the credit card) by the OP on 21.02.2022. The agent has clearly informed the card benefits and charges. The complainant gave his consent for card and the same was issued to the complainant. The complainant has accepted the terms and conditions of the card. At the time of availing of the above mentioned credit facility of the OP, the details of the financial charges and interest to be debited were clearly informed to the complainant and a copy of Most Important Terms and Conditions and Credit Card Membership Agreement was given to the complainant. The terms and conditions of the said agreement were accepted by the complainant. The agent also pitched for insurance plan on 24.02.2022 for which customer has given his consent and shared the nominee’s name as well. As per the information/detail given by the complainant, the agent was issued the insurance policy and it is the complainant who himself has nominated his wife Sonia as his nominee in the aforesaid insurance policy. The entire detail were also given to the complainant and the charges were mentioned in the bill dated 12.03.2022, which was carrying the statement dated 13.02.2022 to 12.03.2022. OP regularly requested the complainant to clear the amount due of the credit card but the complainant was not willing to repay the same to the OP. The bill dated 12.03.2022 was issued for the amount of Rs.2314.62/- and thereafter, the bill dated 12.04.2022 was issued with due amount Rs.3388.02 and another bill dated 12.05.2022 was issued for the due amount of Rs.8223.12. However, on 21.04.2022, the complainant has paid an amount of Rs.1016/- to the OP. The same was reflecting in the bill dated 12.05.2022. Thereafter, the complainant has not paid even a single penny to the OP and there is an amount of Rs.11,521.22/- was lying due against the complainant for the bill dated 12.10.2022, which the complainant has to pay immediate. The complainant has not paid even a single penny till filing of the reply of the present complaint. There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint

4.             Parties then led their respective evidence.

5.             Learned counsel for the complainant has tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A, copy of aadhar card Ex.C1, copy of credit card Ex.C2, whatsapp message Ex.C3 and closed the evidence on 02.04.2024 by suffering separate statement.

6.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP no.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Paras Tanwar Ex.OP1/A and closed the evidence on 05.08.2024 by suffering separate statement.

7.             We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file carefully and also gone through the evidence led by the parties.

8.             Complainant, while reiterating the contents of complaint, has submitted that under the pressure of the official of the OPs bank, he has taken a credit card but the said credit card was never used by him. Therefore, he requested the OPs to surrender the said credit card but the officials of the OPs put a condition to deposit Rs.1016/- then said credit card will be closed. So, in the compelling circumstances, he had to pay Rs.1016/- but inspite of getting the said amount, OPs did not close the account of said credit card. He received a whatsapp message regarding overdue an amount of Rs.11,522/- but he has never used the said credit card since the date of issue. He visited the office of OPs several times and requested not to charge the alleged amount of Rs.11,522/- but OPs did not pay any heed to his request and unnecessarily harassed him and his family and lastly prayed for allowing the complaint.

9.             Per contra, learned counsel for the OP no.2, while reiterating the contents of written version, has vehemently argued that complainant applied for credit card facility from the OP with the annual fee of Rs.1499+GST. The terms and conditions of the credit card were accepted by the complainant. OP regularly requested the complainant to clear the due amount but the complainant was not willing to repay the due amount. The complainant has paid only an amount of Rs.1016/- to the OP, thereafter, nothing has been paid by the complainant. An amount of Rs.11,521.22/- is still lying due against the complainant for the bill dated 12.10.2022 but even despite repeated requests, complainant did not pay the same and lastly prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

10.           We have duly considered the rival contentions of the parties.

11.           OP has alleged that terms and conditions of the agreement alongwith credit card were supplied to the complainant and complainant also purchased insurance policy and nominated his wife Sonia as nominee in the said policy.  The onus to prove its version was relied upon the OP but OP has miserably failed to prove the same by leading any cogent and convincing evidence. There is nothing on the file to prove that that OP has ever supplied the terms and conditions of credit card and insurance policy to the complainant. It is also not proved on record that complainant has purchased the insurance policy from the OP.  OP has placed on file only affidavit of Paras Tanwar Ex.OP1/A, except said affidavit there is nothing on file to ascertain that OP has supplied the terms and conditions of the credit card and the insurance policy to the complainant. Furthermore, there is nothing on the file to ascertain that complainant has used the said credit card. In view of the above, it appears that OP made a concocted story. Thus, the act of the OPs amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

12.           Hence, in view of the above, we allow the present complaint and direct the OPs not to charge the amount of Rs.11,522/- from the complainant and also to refund the amount of Rs.1016/- received by the OPs from the complainant. We further direct the OPs to pay Rs.5000/- on account of compensation for harassment, mental pain and agony and towards the litigation expenses. This order shall be complied within 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:28.10.2024

         President,

      District Consumer Disputes                           

      Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

                   ( Neeru Agarwal)            (Sarvjeet Kaur)

                         Member                        Member