BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.
F.A.No.975/2005 AGAINST C.D.No.231/2003, DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, HYDERABAD.
Between:
M.C.Swaminathan, S/o.late MKC Iyer,
Aged about 70 years,
R/o.8-3-169/66, Siddarthanagar,
Hyderabad-500 038. Appellant/
Complainant
And
SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,
PO Bag No.28,
Rep. by its Managing Director,
PO Bag No.28,
GPO, New Delhi. Respondent/
Opp.party.
Counsel for the Appellant: M/s.V.Vinod Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents:M/s.N.Harinath Reddy
CORAM:SMT.M.SHREESHA, SENIOR MEMBER.
AND
SRI G.BHOOPATHI REDDY, MEMBER.
THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND EIGHT.
Oral Order:(Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the order in C.D.No.231/2003 on the file of District Forum-II, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant attracted by the opposite party’s credit card scheme obtained a credit and used it regularly. The complainant submitted that he observed some credits which were not made by him in the statements given for August, September and October, 2000 and took them to the notice of the opposite party and the opposite party reversed two credits and failed to reverse the third one. The complainant also alleged that opposite party levied finance charges and interest and inspite of his letters, they did not respond properly and they suddenly cancelled the credit card of the complainant. Hence the complaint seeking a direction to the opposite party to reverse the entries regarding wrong debits and finance charges and interest, to restore the credit card immediately and to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- together with costs of Rs.3,000/-.
Opposite party filed counter and contended that as per their terms and conditions only. they levied the finance charges. They submitted that when the wrong credits mentioned in the statement for the months of August, September, October, 2000 were brought to their notice, they were reverse and the same was intimated to the complainant. Opposite party further contended that the Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and the complainant has to approach the courts at New Delhi as their head office is situated at New Delhi and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A24 and Ex.B1 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the respondent issued credit card No.4006 6610 1125 4096 in November 99 as part of its Credit Card business operation and payment of the required fee of Rs.500/- and the card was in use till 30-11-2002 and thereafter unilaterally cancelled by the respondent without reversing the wrong debits and causing inconvenience to the appellant. The District Forum erred in not appreciating that the third wrong debit was not reversed despite repeated representations. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant contended that the District Forum failed to see that the balance of Rs.5821/- shown in the letter of 20th September 2001 was once again shown as Rs.8630/- on 27-9-2001 when the card was not used. If the appellant had made purchase of Rs.4,408/- as per respondent’s contention, if these charges are added to Rs.5821/- the balance should be Rs.10,229/- and not Rs.8,630/-. Respondent failed to explain the discrepancy and charged the appellant for a purchase he did not make. Respondent cancelled the credit card without prior notice from 27-3-2002 which is contrary and illegal.
The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that as per the terms and conditions in clause 6, it is mentioned that the respondent is at liberty to levy finance charges and interest charges and the appellant agreed to abide by these terms and signed on the application. The respondent in their letter Ex.A21 clarified about the statement of account and on 27-3-2002 it temporarily withdrawn the credit card of the appellant because of the dues to be paid.
We have perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the complainant/appellant had taken S.B.I. credit card in November, 1999 attracted by the advertisement that there was interest free credit upto 50 days. The appellant’s credit card was renewed once in a year and the respondent issued a fresh card by giving fresh number every year and that the appellant has to pay annual fee of Rs.500/-. It is the appellant’s case that there were disputes which arose with respect to wrong debits for Rs.7,397/- which occurred in July, 2000 and these were reversed on the basis of his complaint. In the account of September and October 2000 there was wrong debits for exact the same amount of Rs.1001/- on behalf of the same merchant for purchase allegedly made on 4-9-2000 and 24-10-2000. It is the appellant’s case that one entry was reversed but not the second purchase. The appellant approached the respondent several times and made complaints but the respondent cancelled the credit card without giving any notice.
Respondent admitted in their counter i.e. in page 10 para 4 that they received a complaint regarding the alleged wrong debit of Rs.1001/- in September, 2000 statement if they found any discrepancy in the statement, that particular debt is reversed. If on due verification the debut is found to be correct, due finance charges are imposed on the non paid debts. The liability regarding the payment of dues on the credit card is clearly stated in clause 6 of the terms and conditions governing the credit card agreement. Since the appellant was not forthcoming with his, they were compelled to cancel his credit card as per clause 8, therefore, there is no deficiency of service on their behalf.
The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submitted that the respondent themselves stated that the amount outstanding against the credit card account on 20th September 2001 was Rs.5,821/- after the appellant’s representation to the respondent, it correct the closing balance at the end of the previous month i.e. August 2001 from 8630 to Rs.5821/- (Ex.A17)
The main point for consideration in the instant case is that whether there is variation between Ex.A17 i.e. statement of September, 2001 and the opening balance shown in the monthly statement of September, 2001, Ex.A20, which is a letter of the respondent stating that the appellant paid Rs.5821/-, the opening balance of this month should be the same as closing balance of the previous month and we observe from the record that this is not in consonance with the reply of Ex.A17. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant further contended in his reply arguments that there were frequent and threatening phone calls and collection agents visited him at his residence effecting his standing in the community.
We rely on the judgement of the National Commission in III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC) in CITY CORP. MARUTHI FINANCE LIMITED v. S.VIJAYA LAKSHMI in which the National Commission held that
‘recovery of loans or seizure of vehicle is permitted only through
legal means and there is no excuse for use of force for repossessing
the vehicle. No notice was given before repossessing and sale
of the vehicle’.
In the instant case also the bank in spite of an error committed by them without issuing any notice has unilaterally cancelled the card. It is observed from the record that the appellant had made frequent complaints with respect to discrepancy in his account. Taking into consideration that respondent had failed to explain how they arrived at the figure of Rs.8,630/- if the purchase allegedly made by the appellant is Rs.4,408/- and the previous balance is Rs.5,821/-, we are of the considered view that the act of the respondent is not reversing the wrong debit and also not issuing notice to the appellant prior to cancellation of credit is an act of deficiency in service and we direct the respondent to reverse the wrong debit and to restore the credit card and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
In the result this appeal is allowed in part and the order of the District Forum is set aside by directing the respondent/opposite party to reverse the wrong debit and restore the credit card and pay compensation of Rs.5,000/- together with costs of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
SENIOR MEMBER. MALE MEMBER.
JM Dated.19-6-2008
