DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Ram Kumar Singla, H.No.1731, Ph 5, SAS Nagar, Mohali. Pin : 160059.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

1.                 SBI Card & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12^th Floor, block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana)

2.                 State Bank of India (Credit Card Services), Sector 22C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Complainant in person

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OP No.1

                        Sh. Sumeer Bector, Counsel for OP No.2

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he obtained a credit card with account No.4006 6761 8013 9977 and primary card No.4006 6761 8414 2829 from State Bank of India.  He was sanctioned credit limit of Rs.20,000/- against FDR security of Rs.25,000/-. The card functioned well for a year but thereafter it was blocked when the credit limit exhausted and the card was not used for some time.  After receipt of monthly statement, the complainant paid the total amount due in the month of September 2012 and even paid the amount of Rs.100.44 demanded through the monthly statement of October 2012.  However, despite that the card was not initialized which caused him a lot of financial loss as well as mental and physical harassment.

2.                           On 6.5.2013, the case was fixed for filing reply and evidence of the opposite parties.  However, on the said date, neither the reply and evidence was filed on behalf of opposite party No.1, nor anybody appeared on its behalf.  Hence, opposite party No.1 was proceeded against exparte.

3.                           Opposite party No.2 in its written admitted that credit limit of Rs.20,000/- was sanctioned against FDR dated 25.2.2011 of Rs.25,000/- on the consent of the complainant.  It has been denied that the complainant made any request to opposite party No.2 to initialize his card.  It has been averred that the credit card in question was activated by opposite party No.1.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

4.                           We have heard the complainant in person, learned counsel for the opposite parties and have gone through the documents on record, including the written arguments filed by opposite party No.1.

5.                           Admittedly, the card in question was issued to the complainant.  It is also the admitted case of the parties that the card was blocked.  According to the complainant despite payment of all the amounts, as demanded by the opposite parties, the operation of the card was not restored which caused him a lot of harassment and agony. 

6.                           The only argument raised by the ld. Counsel for opposite party No.2 is that the power to grant or not to grant any financial facility is the sole discretion of the financer (OP No.1).  However, we do not find any merit in this argument as the opposite parties have failed to place on record any document in support thereof.  The complainant was provided with the card facility having credit limit of Rs.20,000/- against FDR of Rs.25,000/- lying with opposite party No.2.  No doubt the card was blocked due to exhaustion of credit limit but once the complainant cleared all the dues, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have restored the credit card facility to the complainant immediately, but they failed to do so and thereby forced the complainant to approach this Forum for redressal of his grievance and further incur losses on account of engaging a counsel.  It is not the case of the opposite parties that the complainant is still in default.  The act of the opposite parties in not restoring the credit card facility to the complainant, therefore, amounts to deficiency in service.

7.                           In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite parties are directed to :-

i)                   immediately restore the credit card facility to the complainant

ii)                to pay a consolidated compensation of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment caused.

8.                           This order be complied with by the opposite parties, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.

9.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

21.06.2013.

 Sd/-

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER