Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/246/2015

M/s.N.Dhanasekar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI Card, First Line Branch - Opp.Party(s)

A.Arokia Doss

24 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed: 30.04.2015

Date of Reservation     : 25.07.2022

Date of Order              : 24.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

0CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 246/2015

WEDNESDAY, THE 24^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr.N.Dhanasekar,

No.262/2, South West Boag Road,

T.Nagar,

Chennai – 17.                                                             ... Complainant  

 

..Vs..

1.SBI Cards,

   First Line Beach, Rajaji Salai,

   Chennai – 600 001.

   Presently having office at

   Agnito Park,

   Kandanchavdi,

   Box Chennai – 600 096.

 

2.SBI Card & Payment Service (P) Ltd,

  P.O. No.28,

  G.P.O, New Delhi -110 001.

 

3.SBI Cards,

   DLF infinity Tower-C 11^th Floor,

   DLF Cyber City,

   Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 002.                                  ...  Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant                    : M/s. A. Arokiadoss

Counsel for the 1^st Opposite Party            : Exparte

Counsel for the 2^nd& 3^rd Opposite Parties   :  M/s. K. Mohandas

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties 2 and 3, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Parties to withdraw the demand notice illegally claiming a sum of Rs.3029.31/- and direct the Opposite Parties to inform CIBIL to remove the name of the Complainant in CIBIL and to file the removal certificate and direct the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the referring of the Complainant’s name in the CIBIL along with cost.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Complainant was a customer of Opposite Parties availing the Credit Card in SBI Bank bearing No.0004317 5750 1823 1143, and an additional card in is wife’s name bearing Card No.4317 5750 1823 1150. As per the statement dated 19.10.2004 sent to the complainant demanding the outstanding of Rs.10209.72. The complainant had dropped a DD and a cheque along with the smashed credit cards at SBI drop Box at Nandanam branch on 04.11.2004 for the amount due payable as per the statement to opposite parties, DD drawn on ABN bank towards O/B Rs. 6112.00, Personal Cheque UTI for purchase Rs. 4098.00, totaling Rs.10210.00. The payment was made towards full and final settlement and was realized by the opposite parties. The two credit cards were cut in to two pieces and dropped along with the DD and a personal cheque to opposite party. Thereafter Cards were not used by the complainant. The opposite party sent an another statement of account dated 19.12.2004 illegally claiming a sum of Rs.74.02. The complainant immediately contacted the opposite party's official one Ms.Mercy on 27.12.2004 at 11.15 a.m The opposite party replied that the computer has wrongly generated statement and the same will be rectified. But the complainant received SMS from the opposite party's office claiming the sum of Rs. 74.02 as outstanding. The complainant again contacted the opposite party staff one Ms.Narmatha. She also repeated the same reply given by as Mercy. Once entire outstanding amount paid and realized there should not be any outstanding. Therefore the complainant after receiving SMS, issued the legal notice to stop calling upon them or make threatening calls, thereafter the complainant did not receive any statement of account. The opposite parties did not reply to the notice. The complainant was shocked to receive the letter dated 7.02.2010 sent on 09.02.2010 for a settlement stating that a sum of Rs.2130.21 is outstanding and compelled the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.852.084 as one time settlement on or before 24.03.2011 and if the complainant failed to pay the one time settlement, then the complainant's name will be referred to CIBIL which would adversely and severely affect and impair the complainant's credit worthiness to avail further loan from any bank or financial institution. The opposite party sent a letter dated 07.02.2011 seeking for a settlement stating that a sum of Rs.3029.31 is outstanding and forced the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1077.78 as one time settlement on or before 17.04.2011 failing which the opposite parties threatened the complainant's name will be referred to CIBIL. The attitude of the complainant is nothing short of blackmailing to extract money. The complainant sent the entire out -standing of Rs.10210/- by way of DD and a Personal cheque on 08.11.2004 itself and smashed the credit cards. After seven years, the opposite parties sent the notice claiming amount alleged to be due, The complainant is not liable to pay any amount alleged to be outstanding. During the month of August 2014 the complainant approached Canara Bank Kelly's Branch a Nationalized bank for loan for his son's Education. Even though the formalities were complied with for availing the loan facility loan was rejected since, the name of the complainant was found in CIBIL. Consequently the complainant had to avail the loan for higher rate of interest from the private money lender. The opposite parties committed deficiency of service by their negligent act and blackmailing attitude. The complainant had incurred heavy financial loss and the complainant's reputation damaged among his people. He suffered mental agony. The complainant sent a legal notice dated 29.04.2014 to all the opposite parties by RPAD to withdraw the demand notice unconditionally.  Inspite of the notice no reply was received from any of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint.

3. Written Version filed by the 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties  in brief are as follows:-

That the Complaint is not maintainable either on facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed, as the Complainant has not come before this Hon'ble Forum with clean hands and has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before this Hon'ble Forum, thereby, have attempted to misguide the Hon'ble Forum. That the Complaint does not qualify the ingredients of a valid Complaint as envisaged in Section 2 (c) of the Consumer Protect Act, 1986, as such the Complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complainant is bound by the jurisdiction set forth in the agreement executed between himself and SBI Cards and payment Service (P) Ltd. As per card holder agreement there is an arbitration clause, which stipulates that in all events of dispute/difference between the card holder and the SBI Cards, the same shall be resolved by appointment of a sole arbitrator and the O.P. shall have the powers to appoint the arbitrator. As such this learned forum is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions which were supplied to him along with a book let through a welcome kit before the complainant had made any transaction through the credit card. The Complainant had an unbilled amount in his account and it was reflecting in the subsequent statement. Also the Complainant has not given request for the closure of the card immediately. Hence the charges accumulated. That the Complaint is filed with ulterior motive of getting undue advantage. Hence prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-6  were marked.   

The 2^nd and 3^rd Opposite Parties submitted their Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments and on the side of 2^nd & 3^rd Opposite Parties no documents was marked.

5. The 1^st Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on them and was called absent and set exparte.

Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:

The contention of the Complainant was that he had availed credit card facility from the Opposite Party bearing No.0004317 5750 1823 1143 and an additional card in his wife’s name bearing No.4317 5750 1823 1150. As per Ex.A-1, the Statement of Account dated 19.10.2004, the outstanding due payable by the Complainant was Rs.10209.72. It was contended that he had drawn a Demand Draft on ABN Bank for the Opening Balance of Rs.6112/- and a cheque for Rs.4098/- towards purchase and had dropped the Demand Draft and Cheque along with the smashed credit card at SBI Drop Box at Nandanam Branch on 04.11.2004. The Complainant had made the above payment towards full and final settlement and that there was no due to the Opposite Parties. However the Opposite Parties had sent another Statement of Account dated 19.12.2004 claiming a sum of Rs.74.02 as found in Ex.A-2. When he contacted the Opposite Parties they had replied that it was wrongly generated. Whileso, as per Ex.A-3 on 17.02.2010 the Opposite Parties had sent notice stating a sum of Rs.2130.21 as outstanding and to pay a sum of Rs.852.084 as one time settlement and another notice on 07.02.2011, Ex.A-4 demanding payment of Rs.1077.78 against the outstanding amount of Rs.3029.31. The Complainant did not pay the said amount as he had made the entire payment. In the month of August 2014 when the Complainant had approached Canara Bank, Kellys Branch for loan for his son’s education  his application was rejected stating that his name is found in CIBIL. Hence the Complainant has issued a legal notice dated 20.04.2014, Ex.A-4 to the Opposite Party which evoked no response.

The Opposite Party had admitted that the Complainant had availed credit card on 30.11.2003 and as per the monthly statement dated 10.10.2004 for Rs.10209.72, a sum of Rs.10210.00 was paid by the Complainant. It was contended that the Complainant has made cash withdrawals on 09.10.2004 and 11.10.2004 for a sum of Rs.4000/- and 1000/- respectively and that in cash advance there is no interest free period and the finance charges are levied upto 3.35% per month upto 40.20% per annum on the daily balance from the day of cash withdrawal. Accordingly the Complainant was charged with finance charges of the said cash withdrawals from 19.10.2004 to 06.11.2004 with Rs.17.34 shown in the monthly statement of December 2004 and also a Redemption fee of Rs.55.1 was charged on 30.11.2004 resulting with the outstanding amount of Rs.74.02 in the month of December 2004. For any closure of the card Account, the same should be made by a request submission to the Opposite Party by totally paying the entire due outstanding amount. As the Complainant had failed to make payment he was shown as CIBIL defaulter.

It is pertinent to note that the presence of Arbitration Clause in the card holder Agreement does not preclude this Commission in entertaining the Complaint

There is no dispute regarding the payment made by the Complainant for Rs.10210.00 on 04.11.2004 towards the outstanding due of the credit card No.0004317 5750 1823 1143 as per the Statement of Account dated 19.10.2004. The dispute arose when the Opposite Parties had sent a Statement of Account on 19.12.2004 claiming Rs.74.02 as outstanding from the Complainant, as the Complainant had paid the entire outstanding and stopped using the Credit Card. Though the Opposite Parties contend that the Complainant was charged with Rs.74.02 for the  finance charges of the said cash withdrawals on 09.10.2004 and 11.10.2004 for a sum of Rs.4000/- and 1000/- respectively, the same ought to have reflected  in the Statement of Account generated on 19.10.2004 and not subsequently in the month of December 2004. After the Complainant had contacted and informed the Opposite Parties about the payment of entire dues, the Opposite parties had stopped sending Statement of Accounts and did not demand any payment. After a period of nearly 6 years, the Opposite Parties had sent a notice demanding payment  from the Complainant where the paltry amount of Rs.74.02 with accumulated interest was arrived at Rs.3029.31. Hence this Commission is of the view that  the act of the Opposite Parties in referring the Complainant’s name to CIBIL for the paltry amount of Rs.74.02 with accumulated interest which was arrived at Rs.3029.31, after sending notice to the Complainant with an undue delay of more than 6 years, when the Complainant had paid the outstanding amount of Rs.10,210/- as on 04.11.2004 as per the Statement of Account dated 19.10.2004 and thereafter as the Complainant had stopped using the Credit Card as no transaction was revealed subsequently, and thereby  affecting the credit worthiness of the Complainant and resulting in denial of loan to the Complainant would amount to  deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties.

Point No.2:-

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the foregoing discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties had committed deficiency of service and are liable to inform the CIBIL to remove the name of the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.3000/- to the Complainant.

In the result the Complaint is allowed in part. The Opposite Parties 1 to 3 are jointly and severally directed to inform the CIBIL to remove the name of the Complainant from the defaulters list and to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) as compensation for the deficiency in service along with cost of Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three Thousand Only)  to the Complainant within 8 weeks from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which the above sums shall be payable with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of receipt of the Order till date of realization.

In the result the Complaint is allowed.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on  24^th of August 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	19.10.2004	Copy of Monthly statement
Ex.A2	19.12.2004	Copy of Monthly statement
Ex.A3	17.02.2010	Copy of Statement
Ex.A4	07.02.2010	Copy of Statement
Ex.A5	24.09.2014	Copy of Legal notice
Ex.A6	-	Copy of Acknowledgement card

 

List of documents filed on the side of the  Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT