BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.284 of 2013/377 of 2015
Date of Instt. 8/7/2013 28/8/2015
Date of Decision :16.09.2015
Surjit Singh Jolly son of Sh. Harnam Singh Jolly, C/o. M/s. Robinson Sports, WX-82, Basti Nau, P.O. Box No.801, Jalandhar 144002
..........Complainant Versus
1. S.B.I. Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. D.L.F. Infinity Tower,
Tower-C, 12th Floor, Block-2, Building 2, DLF Cyber City,
Gurgaon-12002, through its Chairman/Managing Director.
2. S.B.I. Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. S.B.I. Main Office,
Jalandhar, through its Branch Manager.
.........Opposite parties.
Complaint Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)
Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)
Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)
Present: Sh.Ashish Bhandari Adv., counsel for complainant.
Sh. Amrinder Singh Adv., counsel for opposite parties.
Order
J.S.Bhatia (President)
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant was having SBI Gold Credit Card bearing No.5296 which was allotted to him by opposite party. Keeping in view good track record of complainant, the opposite parties offered him a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on his aforesaid card at 9% interest p.a. repayable in36 months with EMIs of Rs.6667.05 each on 16.07.2010. Thereafter complainant repaid the aforesaid loan amount to the opposite parties against the aforesaid credit card as detailed below:-
S.No. Cheque No. Date Amount Drawn on with credit date
1. 020711 30.08.2010 13335 on HDFC Bank paid on 6.9.2010
2. 020712 1.10.2010 13500 on HDFC Bank paid on 5.10.10
3. 020713 26.11.2010 6650 on HDFC Bank paid on 2.10.10
4. 020714 18.12.10 6650 on HDFC Bank paid on 21.12.10
5. 020715 20.01.11 6650 on HDFC Bank paid on 22.1.11
6. 020717 22.2.11 6650 on HDFC Bank paid on 24.2.11
7. 020718 26.02.11 1000 on HDFC Bank paid on 2.3.11
8. 020719 14.3.11 6800 on HDFC Bank paid on 21.3.11
9. 020720 19.4.11 80000 on HDFC Bank paid on 23.4.11
10. 020721 12.5.11 6800 on HDFC Bank paid on 14.6.11
11. 020723 12.6.11 6800 on HDFC Bank paid on 14.6.11
12. 020725 18.7.11 6800 on HDFC Bank paid on 21.7.11
13. 399173 2.9.11 29000 on HDFC Bank paid on 7.9.11
14. 399174 18.10.11 6800 on HDFC Bank paid on 24.10.11
15. 819880 19.11.11 13600 on State Bank of India paid on 5.12.11
2. The aforesaid cheques has been issued specially in discharge of legal liability towards repayment of loan of Rs.1,89,000/- with specific instructions to credit in the loan account. To the utter surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties started crediting the payments made by the complainant towards credit card instead of crediting the same in the loan account of complainant with ulterior and mischievous motive. The complainant came to know about malafide and dishonest intention of opposite parties only on receipt of statement for March, 2011, wherein only one credit entry towards loan account to the tune of Rs.6800/- had been credited, whereas by that time, the complainant had already paid Rs.1,41,235/- towards loan account. There was no question of complainant depositing the amount of Rs.1,41,235/- in the credit card to show credit balance and that too without bearing any interest and instead paying interest to the opposite party. Immediately after coming to know the mischief played by the opposite parties, the complainant wrote a letter No. RSJ/109/11-12 dated 22.4.11 asking the opposite party No.1 to send the statement of account of his credit card which had not been received for the last six months and reminding the opposite party he had already paid Rs.1,41,235/- by then whereas the statement for the month of March, 2011 had been showing payment of Rs.6800/- only. He told the opposite party that he wanted to pay the balance outstanding loan amount by 20.05.11. In response to that letter, the complainant received letter dated 3.6.11 in which , no satisfactory reply was given. The request for supply of statement of account was totally ignored and instead raised demand for 3.37% cancellation fee plus Govt. Service Tax for close of Encash Plan over and above the specific rate of interest of 9% p.a. whereas as per terms and conditions , there was no mention of any cancellation fee or service tax . Even otherwise, as per RBI Guidelines , the banks can not charge any penalty or cancellation fee. In response to that , the complainant again wrote a letter dated 11.6.11 reminding the opposite party to send the detailed statement of account which had not been sent despite being asked to do so and mentioning therein that the payments made by him till date were to repay the loan amount and not for keeping any credit balance in his card account and he was not to pay interest and keep the credit balance without bearing any interest. Thereafter the complainant received statement of account dated 1.12.11 which was totally manipulated and confusing. This statement showed that amount of Rs. 1,26,682- 50 was outstanding on that day whereas the complainant had already paid Rs.2,11,035/-to the opposite parties by that date against loan of Rs.1,89,000/- and in response to that, complainant wrote a letter dated 27.12.11 intimating the opposite party No.1 that the outstanding of Rs.1,26,682-50 was totally manipulated and confusing as payment of Rs.2,1 1,035/-has already been paid and the opposite party had with malafide and mischievous intentions not credited the deposited amount in the loan account and instead with ulterior motive , had diverted the same towards credit balance in the credit card despite specific writing to credit the same in the loan account and the complainant asked the opposite party to rectify the statement of account with proper all the debit and credit entries. But despite that , the payments were not credited in the loan account and instead the complainant received a mail dated 1.2.13 from the opposite party but to the utter surprise of complainant , the credit entries of the payments made were not credited to towards the loan amount in response to which, the complainant sent an e-mail on 26.2.13 to the opposite party No.1 reminding it that the grievance of complainant has not been redressed and the statement of account has not been rectified by crediting the payments in the loan account despite numerous reminders which has not been replied to till date and instead , the opposite parties have raised, an illegal demand of Rs.45,154-64 which is totally illegal unlawful and unjustified. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite parties to set aside the demand of Rs.50,142.85 paise raised by the opposite parties. He has also demanded damages.
3. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared and filed a written reply admitting that SBI Gold Credit Card was issued to the complainant. They further pleaded that it is incorrect that to the surprise of the complainant, the opposite parties started crediting the payment made by the complainant towards credit card instead of crediting the same in the loan account of the complainant with ulterior motive. They denied that complainant had made complete payment against outstanding dues. They further pleaded that a sum of Rs.54,496.40 paise is outstanding against him. They further pleaded that it is incorrect that request for supply of statement of account was totally ignored and instead they raised a demand of 3.37% cancellation fee plus Government Service Tax above the specific rate of interest of 9%. They denied other material averments of the complainant.
4. The counsel for the complainant has tendered in to evidence affidavit of complainant as Ex.CA along with copies of documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C10 and closed his evidence.
5. On the other hand the counsel for the opposite party has tendered in to evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/A along with copies of documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP35 and closed the evidence.
6. After going through evidence on record and hearing learned counsels for the parties, this forum vide order dated 4.3.2014 relegated the complainant to the civil court and the complaint was dismissed. However, in appeal the Hon'ble State Commission vide order dated 16.7.2015 has remanded back the present complaint to this forum with the directions to decide whether the amount so demanded by opposite parties is actual outstanding or not or whether there was any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties as alleged in the complaint.
7. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the learned counsels for the parties.
8. The complainant took a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on his credit card at the interest of 9% per annum payable in 36 EMIs of Rs.6676.5 each on 16.07.2010. In para No.1 of the complaint, the complainant has himself admitted that the opposite parties offered him a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on his aforesaid card at 9% interest per annum repayable in 36 months with EMIs of Rs.6667.5/- each on 16.7.2010. So this fact is not disputed. The complainant has admittedly taken the loan of Rs.1,89,000/- in the account of his credit card. The complainant has himself produced document Ex.C1 whereon offer details are mentioned which are as under:-
"A) Processing Fee 2% of principal amount, Min Rs.499/- & Max.Rs.1500/-
B) Rate of Interest 9%,
C) EMI 6667.5/-
D) Tenure 36 (Service Tax Extra as applicable)".
9. So according to this document produced by the complainant himself, he agreed to pay the loan amount in 36 EMIs of 6667.5/- each. In para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned the payments made by him to the opposite parties. The first payment of Rs.13335/- dated 30.8.2010 is reflected in statement of account Ex.OP2 , next payment of Rs.13500/- dated 1.10.2010 is reflected in statement of account Ex.OP3, next payment of Rs.6650/- dated 26.11.2010 is reflected in statement of account Ex.OP4, similarly all the remaining payments mentioned in para 2 of the complaint are duly reflected in statements of account Ex.OP5 to Ex.OP15 respectively. As per 36 EMIs of Rs.6667.5/- each, the complainant was required to pay Rs.2,40,030/- but he paid Rs.2,11,035/- as per details of payment mentioned in para 2 of the complaint. So it means that he has not paid the entire amount of 36 EMIs which were to end in three years from the date of loan i.e 16.7.2010 i.e in August 2013. According to the payments mentioned in para 2 of the complaint, the complainant has not made any payment after 19.11.2011. So he was entitled to pay interest or penal interest on the delayed payments. The complainant was also liable to pay the service tax. A party is bound to pay the tax imposed by the Government. He was also liable to pay financial charges. Schedule of charges is mentioned on the reverse of the statement of accounts which are on record. Counsel for the complainant contended that interest was to be charged on reducing balance only. The complainant himself agreed to pay loan amount in 36 EMIs of Rs.6667.5/- each and this fact is evident from the document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant himself. He has himself pleaded this fact in para 1 of the complaint. So above contentions of learned counsel for the complainant to the contrary is without any substance. In para 3 of the complaint, the complainant has mentioned that cheques have been issued specially in discharge of legal liability towards repayment of loan of Rs.1,89,000/- with specific instructions to credit it in the loan account. The opposite party was not maintaining any separate loan account. The opposite party is not a bank but SBI Card and Payment Serviced Pvt Limited. Moreover in para 1 of the complaint, the complainant has himself pleaded that opposite parties offered him a loan of Rs.1,89,000/- on his aforesaid card. So admittedly loan amount was granted on credit card. So the amount of loan was to be reflected in credit card statement and not in any separate loan account. It is also in the affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Punit Babbar that statement of accounts have been dispatched to the complainant on regular basis and now he is taking these false plea just to avoid his liability to pay the outstanding amount. Terms and conditions of the loan granted to the complainant on credit card are specifically mentioned on the reverse of the document Ex.C1 produced by the complainant himself. In our opinion, all the charges levied by the opposite parties are in accordance with terms and conditions mentioned on the reverse of the document Ex.C1. In the terms and conditions it is specifically mentioned that non payment or part payment of MAD will attract normal late payment fees and a maximum interest charge of 3.35% p.m on the unpaid monthly installments. Pre-closure charges are mentioned in the terms and conditions. In the terms and conditions, it is also specifically mentioned that Government service tax shall be levied on all fess, interest charges etc as applicable. Document Ex.C1 is dated 16.7.2010 which has been produced by the complainant himself. So complainant was aware of all terms and conditions of the loan granted to him on his credit card. In our opinion, the outstanding amount alleged by opposite parties in its written statement is correct. The complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties.
10. In view of above discussion, we hold that there is no merit in the present complaint and same is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.
Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia
16.09.2015 Member Member President
