IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMERS’ DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT MYSORE<br /> <br /> PRESENT: 1. Shri.D.Krishnappa<br /> B.A., L.L.B - President <br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Smt.Y.V.Uma Shenoi<br /> M.Sc., B.Ed., - Member<br /> <br /> 3. Shri. Shivakumar.J.<br /> B.A., L.L.B., - Member<br /> <br /> CC 117/08 DATED 23-07-2008<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> Complainant C.Karuna Murthy, No.820, 8th Main, 8th Cross, Hebbal 2nd Stage, Mysore-17.<br /> (By Sri.S.Shankar., Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Parties 1. Manager, SBI Credit Card, Cad Collection Centre, 5th Cross, Anikethana Road, Opponent & T Block, Kuvempunagar, Mysore-23<br /> (EXPARTE)<br /> 2. Distribution Partner, M/s Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company, Sundaram Towers, 45 & 46, White Road, Chennai-600014.<br /> (By Sri.J.S.K., Advocate)<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 29.04.2008<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 26.05.2008<br /> Date of order : 23.07.2008<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 1 MONTH 28 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> <br /> MEMBER<br /> MEMBER<br /> Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The grievance of the complainant in brief as that he is holding a credit card issued by the first Opposite party bearing No.4317575075123860 issued in the month of December 2006. The representatives of the first Opposite party made him to withdraw Rs.30,000/- through his card during December 2006 on experiment basis for reflecting the transaction in the card. Then he was told by the representatives of the first Opposite party to remit Rs.30,300/-, accordingly on 18.01.2007 through the cheque he remitted a said amount. Then the representatives of the first Opposite party during April 2007 sent a communication to him by offering Health Insurance Policy of second Opposite party, stating that the first premium will be deducted through his credit card further telling that if he is not satisfied with the insurance policy he can get it cancelled and the amount will be remitted back to the card account. The policy was provided on 12.05.2007 with a payment of first premium of Rs.5,683/- which was deducted through his card. That on 12.05.2007 he informed the second Opposite party that he is not interested in the health policy and not to proceed with it further. Then he also informed the first Opposite party to cancel the credit card issued to him as he is not interested. The first Opposite party cancelled the above mentioned credit card, but issued another credit card no.4317575079597846 during June 2007 and sent a statement claiming a sum of Rs.32,102.10 debiting towards paypal division 342 totally claiming Rs.39,512.25 by showing in the June 2007 monthly statement. Then he contacted the representatives of the first Opposite party to clarify the claim, but they did not give any reply and stated that he is not aware of what is flexipal and paypal division and he had not instructed the first Opposite party for issuing the new card and despite requesting the Opposite parties to withdraw his credit card, they prevailed upon him to pay Rs.2,188/- and he paid it on 30.06.2007 through a cheque with a promise that it would get back that amount. But, they failed to return that money instead of the first Opposite party representatives started giving telephone calls abusing him in filthy language with threats then he got issued a legal notice to first Opposite party on 03.10.2007 and also on 08.02.2008, but no replies are given. That the health insurance policy issued by the second Opposite party on his request was closed during May itself which is shown in the June monthly statement. But, in the same June 2007 monthly statement balance is shown as Rs.39,513.25 with insurance premium of Rs.530.41 for that month and continued to claim insurance despite discontinuation of the insurance policy and the first Opposite party continued to send monthly statements claiming Rs.47,701/- and thus contending that the first Opposite party is fraudulent in its acts and thus has prayed for a direction to first Opposite party to repay Rs.2,188/- which was paid by him on 30.06.2007, to close the entire falls amount claimed by the first Opposite party and also to cancel the credit card issued to him, then not to draw any amount through his credit card and also to award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.<br /> 2. Second Opposite party has appeared through his advocate and filed version. The first Opposite party who is duly served with the notice of this complaint has remained absent is therefore placed exparte.<br /> 3. The second Opposite party in his version has contended that it had issued hospital cash insurance policy to the complainant upon request and on remittance of Rs.5,683/- towards premium. That on getting a letter of the complainant on 12.05.2007 expressing his un interestedness in the policy they promptly cancelled the policy and credited Rs.5,683/- to the first Opposite party through whom that premium was received. That it was not in the picture in the issue of credit card by the first Opposite party to the complainant, but it only came to the picture when the complainant consented for issue of policy. As such, on receiving letter from the complainant they have cancelled the policy and returned the premium amount, therefore, no deficiency is caused at their end and therefore has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 4. In the course of enquiry into complaint, the complainant and one Srinivasan for the second Opposite party have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant has produced several monthly account statement sent by the first Opposite party to him and copies of the legal notice that he had got addressed to the Assistant Wise President, Customer Service SBI Card Section. Heard the counsel for the complainant and second Opposite party and perused the records.<br /> 5. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite parties have indulged in unfair trade practice in charging him for payments without any basis and approval?<br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> 6. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : Answered in the affirmative against the first Opposite party only.<br /> Point no.2 : See the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. Point no. 1:- It is evident from going through the grievance of the complainant that he had taken a credit card from first Opposite party during December 2006 and he had not made use of that card for any purpose, but on the representation of the representatives of first Opposite party he drew a sum of Rs.30,000/- as experiment during December 2006 and remitted back Rs.30,300/- as stated by the representatives and in this regard he has produced a statement of account issued by the first Opposite party dated 02.01.2007. This statement discloses drawal of Rs.30,000/- by the complainant and in the monthly statement of 02.02.2007 it is shown that the complainant repaid Rs.30,300/- as against the claim of the first Opposite party for Rs.30,000/- by even paying Rs.300 more, but in the statement of February 2007 the first Opposite party after receipt of Rs.30,300/- shown the balance amount of Rs.300/- due by the complainant and continued the same for the month of 2007 also. The complainant has further contended that he requested the first Opposite party of his unwillingness to have the credit card and to cancel the same. Accordingly, the first Opposite party appears to had cancelled the old card, but found to had issued a new card which is the second card referred to above, though not asked by the complainant. It is the grievance of the complainant further that the first Opposite party after sending a new credit card to his address, which was un solicited sent a bill for Rs.39,512.25 on 2nd June 2007, which according to the complainant is without any basis and further pointed out that the first Opposite party has charged him for Rs.32,102.18 towards paypal and expause royal division besides imposing several other charges and the first Opposite party has also debited a sum of Rs.5,683/- towards health policy issued by the second Opposite party to cover the health hazard of the complainant and his family members. The complainant has further proved before us that the health policy issued by the second Opposite party with an option to him either to accept it or to convey his unwillingness within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy by referring to the letter he had addressed to the second Opposite party to cancel the insurance policy issued to him. In this regard he has also referred to the policy issued by the second Opposite party dated 08.05.2007 and his letter addressed to the Opposite party requesting to cancel the policy dated 12.05.2007. Hence, it is clear that the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy, wrote to the second Opposite party of his unwillingness for the policy and to cancel it. The second Opposite party acting on this letter of the complainant promptly cancelled the policy issued w.e.f. 12.05.2007 and even returned Rs.5,683/- the premium amount debited by the first Opposite party to the account of the complainant. This fact is admitted by the second Opposite party in para 5 of their version and also in their affidavit evidence. Therefore, it is manifest that the insurance policy issued by the second Opposite party to the complainant came to cancelled w.e.f. 12.05.2007, therefore the first Opposite party could not have charged the complainant for subsequent premiums of that health policy. But, despite this cancellation and receiving back the premium amount from the second Opposite party, the first Opposite party went on debiting the insurance premium amount of Rs.530.41 every month. The first Opposite party in the statement dated 02.01.2007 has also acknowledged the refund of the first premium of Rs.5,683/- refunded by second Opposite party by giving credit to the account of the complainant in the statement. But, further the first Opposite party debited that amount to the account of the complainant without any reasons and it is not understandable as to why it was debited again. However, the first Opposite party in the statement of July 2007 again recredited Rs.5,683/- to the account of the complainant and shown total amount outstanding from the complainant as Rs.33,281.36.<br /> 8. The complainant who had pleaded with the first Opposite party to cancel the credit card issued to him and that he never requested the first Opposite party to issue any fresh credit card when went un heeded stated had sent legal notice to the Assistant Vise President, Customer Service SBI Card that is organization of the first Opposite party, on 03.10.2007 reiterating his request made for cancellation of the earlier credit card and he had never requested for issue of any new credit card and charging of Rs.32,102.10 towards paypal division 342 and all other charges are illegal and even to refund Rs.2,188/- paid by him on the representation of the representatives of the first Opposite party. Thereafter reiterating the same plea he got issued another legal notice to the Assistant Vise President, Customers Service, SBI Card section of the first Opposite party on 08.02.2008. But nothing came out not even reply. Even thereafter also the first Opposite party went on sending monthly statement for the month of August 2007, in which the first Opposite party besides showing the total amount due as Rs.39,139.15 witho several other charges including the premium of health policy which was cancelled long back. Even while totaling these charges, the first Opposite party appears to have committed error. In this way, the first Opposite party went on adding other charges and debiting Rs.530.41 to the account of the complainant each month till March 2008. When the complainant addressed letter and legal notice to the first Opposite party of his not using the credit card for any purpose and having not incurred any liability went on pleading with the first Opposite party and also the customer service of credit card branch of the first Opposite party to cancel his card they did not mind to look into his grievance and to set right the same by reversing the entries they had made baselessly. The complainant is therefore having got frustrated by inaction of the first Opposite party has come up with this complaint and adduced oral evidence and produced documents, which apparently speak to the unfair trade practice of the first Opposite party.<br /> 9. As pointed out by us above when the complainant repaid the amount of Rs.30,000/- drawn by him through the credit card and paid entire amount Rs.30,300/- as claimed by the first Opposite party in their statement dated 1st January 2007, they ought not to have shown the balance amount Rs.300/- in the account statement of March 2007. Thereafter, when admittedly the complainant has not incurred any liability by use of that card, it is not clear as how the first Opposite party charged him for Rs.32,102.10 towards paypal division and debited to his account. When the complainant had clearly informed the first Opposite party of his shock after seeing the debiting Rs.32,102.10 and other charges, the first Opposite party should have informed the complainant, the basis of charging this complainant for that amount besides the other charges. Added to this injury, despite the fact that the second Opposite party cancelled the policy issued in favour of the complainant and returned the premium amount of Rs.5,683/- in the month of June 2007 and when that amount was also given credit by the first Opposite party to the account of the complainant, it could not have further debited Rs.530.41 p.m. thereafter till the filing of this complaint. The first Opposite party besides not cared to respond to the legal notice issued by the complainant as even not bothered to appear before this Forum despite receipt of this notice of complaint to justify their action in charging this complainant periodically. Therefore on going through the entire materials placed before us we hold that the first Opposite party has debited these amounts to the account of the complainant without any basis and has failed to justify their action in doing so by placing materials in support of it. It is on consideration of all these materials, we hold that the evidence and the grievance of the complainant have remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and we find no reasons to discard the same.<br /> 10. It is unfortunate that despite the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases come down heavily on unsolicited telephone calls given by some of the financing institutions including certain banks to the common people inducing them to take credit card and even to enter into certain dubious financial transaction, the nationalised banks like first Opposite party and other similar institutions continued to indulge in such activities of luring and inducing innocent persons by offering certain benefits on paper, which are impracticable are harassing the innocent people, which amounts to unfair trade practice as defined under the Act. These instances shall be an eye opener to the consumers to desist such unsolicited calls of such institutions and not to fall prey to their deciteful offers. The first Opposite party being a nationalised bank when called for by this Forum to appear and put up its defence to the claim of the complainant if any appears to have not face or carriage to face the allegations or grievance of the complainant. Therefore, we hold that the first Opposite party has indulged in Unfair trade practice which has to be condemned by imposing punitive damages.<br /> 11. The complainant though arrayed the second Opposite party with allegations of deficiency in their service, but he has not been able to prove such allegations against it, because the policy issued by it covering the health of the complainant and his family members on receipt of the premium through first Opposite party with an option to the complainant either to confirm it or to get it cancelled within 15 days from the date of receipt of the policy. On receipt of the intimation of the complainant to cancel the policy, not only it has cancelled the policy, but promptly returned the premium amount to the first Opposite party for crediting it to the account of the complainant, as such the complainant has not made out deficiency in the service of the second Opposite party, therefore the complaint is dismissed against the second Opposite party. With the result for the reasons stated above, we answer point no.1 accordingly and pass the following order:-<br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is allowed against the first Opposite party only.<br /> 2. The first Opposite party is directed to refund Rs.2,188/- paid by the complainant on 30.06.2007 through cheque No.020151 within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 3. The first Opposite party is also directed to pay damages of Rs.6,000/- to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment.<br /> 4. The first Opposite party is also directed to remit a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the Legal Aid Account of this Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which it shall pay interest at 9% p.a. from the date of receipt of this order till the date of payment. <br /> 5. The first Opposite party is also directed to pay cost of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant.<br /> 6. The first Opposite party is also directed to cancel the credit card No.4317575079597846 issued to the complainant.<br /> 7. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 23rd July 2008)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (Y.V.Uma Shenoi)<br /> Member<br /> (Shivakumar.J.)Member<br /> <br />