BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, JALANDHAR.
Complaint No.214 of 2018
Date of Instt. 15.05.2018
Date of Decision:20.05.2022
Nakul Kapoor S/o Sh. Ashwani Kapoor, R/o 111A, Guru Gobind Singh Nagar, Jalandhar, Punjab-144003.
..........Complainant
Versus
1. State Bank of India Card & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Phase II, Gurgaon-122001, Haryana, India.
2. State Bank of India, Main Branch, Civil Lines, P. B. No.1 Jalandhar, Punjab-144001.
….….. Opposite Parties
Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.
Before: Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
Smt. Jyotsna (Member)
Sh. Jaswant Singh Dhillon (Member)
Present: Sh. Harpreet Singh, Adv. Counsel for the Complainant.
Sh. Amrinder Singh, Adv. Counsel for OP No.1.
Sh. Deepak Chawla, Adv. Counsel for OP No.2.
Order
Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj (President)
1. The instant complaint has been filed by the complainant, wherein it is alleged that the complainant is having a credit card, which has been issued by State Bank of India, under SBI Card Number 4726 XXXX XXXX 4053 valid upto 05/2022. The complainant has always made due payment of credit card provided by OPs under “SBI Card Number 4726 XXXX XXXX 4053” without any delay and well within the due period as given by the OP. All the implied charges were also always been paid by the complainant, mentioned in schedule of charges as prescribed in the bill issued by OPs. But complainant felt cheated by the OPs when he notices that the sum of Rs.100/- + Service Tax/GST (18%) i.e. sum total of Rs.118/- as Cash Handling Charges, has been charged in every bill that has been duly paid by the complainant and that too well within the due period as given by the OP. When being clarify from the OPs over telephone through their customer care number, physically in branch through managers & their representatives, a very lame response were being given to the complainant and none of them were able to explain the same to the complaint. Further the complainant got to know that the OPs is in the practice to charge Rs.100/- for payments made by cheque for an amount less than or equal to Rs.2000/- w.e.f. 1st April 2017 as mentioned under every bill provided by OPs to complainant, as an “Important Message”. On the other hand, the OP charged Rs.100/- against any payment made in the form of cash as Cash Handling Charges, whether the payment is made in their branch as well copy of the statement enclosed where they have charged Rs.100/- + Service Tax as cash handling charges. As per charges implied by OPs, every customer who repay their credit card bill which is less than or equal to Rs.2000/- is entitled to pay a charge of Rs.100/- on payment through cheque and/or Rs.100/- on paying through cash. Either way complainant is bound to pay Rs.100/- + 18% Service Tax/GST charges implied by OPs, on making payment against bill of an amount less than or equal to Rs.2000/-. After several visits by the complainant to Jalandhar Branch of OPs, seeking a way out of this vicious circle of charges created by OP, employees serving under OPs informed complainant to visit OP No.1, Head office of OPs, as they are the one who deals with the credit card issues and they are the ones who are bound to imply such charges from customers, as per rules and regulations provided by OPs. However, Complainant resides in Jalandhar itself and also received his credit card from Jalandhar branch from one of the bank employees of OP No.2, complainant suffered mental agony and harassment by the response of OP. OPs lack of action against the unfair charges implied on complainant clearly shows that OPs are intentionally causing harassment to complainant and as such necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 24% per annum to the complainant for causing mental tension and harassment. Further, OPs be directed to pay an amount of Rs.708/- i.e. the payment made against Cash Handling Charges (Rs.100/- + ST @ 18x6) and Rs.30,000/- as litigation expenses.
2. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, OP No.1 appeared through its counsel and filed written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint of the complainant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant is not a consumer as defined by Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. It is further averred that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering OP and the present complaint has been filed by the complainant just to put pressure upon the answering OP or just to fetch amount from the answering OP. Hence, the complaint of the complainant liable to be dismissed on this score alone. It is further averred that the complaint is not maintainable either on the facts or in the eyes of law and is liable to be dismissed as the complainant has not come to this Commission with clean hands and has presented a distorted and incorrect version of the facts before this Commission, thereby has attempted to misguide and mislead this Commission. As such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. The complaint is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action ever arose in favour of the complainant and against the answering OP to file the present complaint. The complainant has suppressed the material facts from this Commission, though it was the obligation of complainant to speak true and failure of it constitute suppression of facts. On merits, it is admitted that the complainant is having a credit card, but the other allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
3. OP No.2 filed its separate written reply and contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the complaint filed by the complainant against the OP No.2 is false and frivolous, it is sheer abuse of process of law. It is further averred that the complainant has no cause of action to file the present complaint. The complaint has been filed with ulterior motives just to harass and humiliate the OP. The complainant is stopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present complaint. The complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant and is liable to be dismissed with costs. The complaint is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not a consumer as envisages in Section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not come to the Commission with clean hands and has suppressed material facts from the Commission. The complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint. On merits, all the allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly submitted that the complaint of the complainant is without merits, the same may be dismissed.
4. Rejoinder not filed by the complainant.
5. The complainant is credit card holder of SBI. His grudge is that the OP is charging Rs.100/- as cash handling charges + service tax/GST @ 18% and they are in practice to charge Rs.100/- for payments made by cheque for an amount less than or equal to Rs.2000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 2017 as mentioned in every bill under the note of ‘Important Message’. It is alleged by the complainant that following such a malpractice, the OPs are earning huge amount of money through wrong means and by making fool to innocent consumers all across the country. Due to this malpractice of the OPs, the complainant has suffered deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The complainant has suffered huge damages and has also suffered mental physical and financial agony.
6. The contention of the OP No.1 is that the complainant is not a consumer. The OP No.1 has specifically alleged that there is no deficiency in service nor there is any malpractice. The cash payment fee is being charged as per the terms and conditions of the credit card clause 1(c). The applicable taxes (GST) is levied on the services by the Govt. of India and as per the guidelines of the Government, the OP is to charge the GST. The cheque fee as alleged is also charged as per the clause 1(h) of the terms and conditions. No unfair trade practice is being carried on by the OPs nor there is any negligence or deficiency on the part of the services of OP.
7. The contention of the OP No.2 is that no cause of action arose to the complainant against the OP No.2 to file the present complaint. The complainant never applied for issuance of credit card with the OP No.2 not it was ever issued by the OP No.2 nor there was any dealing of the complainant with the OP No.2 nor the OP No.2 maintains any account of credit card nor any charges were ever paid by the complainant to the OP No.2. No services were ever provided by the OP No.2 to the complainant. The OP No.2 has wrongly been made a party.
8. It is admitted by the OP No.1 that the credit card no.4726 XXXX XXXX 4053 was issued to the complainant and he is having this credit card. Now the dispute and controversy is with regard to the cash handling charges and the cheque fee, which was charged by the OP No.1 from the complainant in different bills proved on record by the complainant from Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-13. In Ex.C-2, there is a note that Rs.100/- will be charged for payments made by cheque for an amount less than or equal to Rs.2000/- w.e.f. 1st April, 2017. No additional fee will be charged for cheque. The guidelines have been proved on record by the OP. As per the guidelines produced on record Ex.R-1/Ex.C-14 and Ex.OP-1/1, these are terms and conditions of the SBI credit card. As per Ex.OP-1/1 in clause 1(c), Cash Payment fees that the Cardholder can walk into select SBI Bank branches or SBI Associate Bank branches and pay SBI Card dues by mentioning the Credit Card number & Amount in the pay-in slip and depositing the same at the branch counter. An instant payment acknowledgment receipt will be provided after paying your bill. This service is available at Rs.100 + all applicable taxes and as per Clause 1(j) that Cheque Fee:Rs.100 (Payment made via cheque upto Rs.2000). These are the terms and conditions of the SBI credit card. It has specifically been mentioned as per the guidelines mentioned in the bills that a fee of Rs.100/- will be charged for payments made by cheque. It is specifically mentioned that as per the guidelines of the Govt., the applicable taxes are to be levied. The OP No.1 is charging the amount of Rs.100/- + taxes as cash handling charges and Rs.100/- on payment through cheque upto Rs.2000/- + applicable taxes. There is no illegality as the OP No.1 is following the guidelines and acting as per the terms and conditions produced on record by the OPs. The complainant has taken the credit card and is knowing the fact that this amount is to be charged whenever any cash payment or payment through cheque is to be made. In statements referred by the complainant, there is a reference also, which is a message. The complainant has simply produced on record the schedule of charges, whereas in the terms and conditions there is a specific reference of the charges i.e. fee + applicable taxes. If the OP No.1 is following the terms and conditions and is providing services as per the terms and conditions, there is no illegality. The complainant has no where alleged that an excess amount has been charged by the OPs intentionally and by following the unfair trade practice. Even in the entire complaint, the complainant has not mentioned about any transaction on which the charges as alleged by the complainant have been taken by the OP No.1. So, simply saying that the OP No.1 is charging Rs.100/- + taxes in cash handling and Rs.100/- + tax in payment through cheque upto Rs.2000/- does not prove the malpractice and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.1. The complainant has not alleged any transaction with OP No.2 nor any card was ever taken by the complainant from OP No.2 nor there is any service provided by the OP No.2 to the complainant, therefore it cannot be said that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP No.2. So, therefore the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of costs. Parties will bear their own costs. This complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.
9. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.
Dated Jaswant Singh Dhillon Jyotsna Dr. Harveen Bhardwaj
20.05.2022 Member Member President
