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. G.V.Balasubramanya<br /> B.E., LL.M - Member<br /> <br /> CC 191/06 DATED 21-12-2006<br /> <br /> Complainant N.R.Rajashekhar,Upper Division Clerk, Central Sericulture Research & Training Institute, Centre Sericulture Board, Government of India, Manandavadi Road, Srirampura, Mysore – 570 008.<br /> (By Sri.B.S.P. Advocate)<br /> Vs. <br /> Opposite Party H.G.Iyer, The Manager – Customer Services, SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd., Post Bag No.28, NEW DELHI – 110 001.<br /> (By M.H. Advocate<br /> <br /> Nature of complaint : Deficiency in service<br /> Date of filing of complaint : 03.07.2006<br /> Date of appearance of O.P. : 11.12.2006<br /> Date of order : 21.12.2006<br /> Duration of Proceeding : 10 DAYS<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT <br /> MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. G.V.Balasubramanya,<br /> Member, <br /> <br /> 1. It is the simple case of the complainant that in the year 2005 one Shri.Ravindra approached him and despite expressing unwillingness obtained his signatures on the application for issue of S.B.I. credit cards. When the credit card reached him, the complainant returned it to the sender by RPAD. Yet, he started receiving bills. A surprised complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party on 25.02.2006. But the bills continued to come.<br /> 2. The complainant observed in the bills sent to him that certain transactions had been carried out using the card in Delhi. He suspected that either Shri.H.G.Iyer, Manager-Customer-Services with the Opposite party or staff in his office must have misused the card.<br /> 3. The complainant has submitted that the Opposite party by sending him bills for a credit card which he never used has caused tension to him. He has prayed for quashing of the bills sent by the Opposite party and also award compensation of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 4. The Opposite party has been served at alternative local address and a counsel, Shri.H.S.K, filed a memo undertaking to file power for the Opposite party at the next date of hearing. But, neither the power nor version was filed. Hence, the Opposite party was placed exparte. However, after we heard the leaned counsel for the complainant and posted the case for Orders, the opposite party sought to file version. The same was permitted in the interest of justice by imposing a cost of Rs.1000/-.<br /> 5. The opposite party Shri.H.G.Iyer, is the manager of m/s SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of State Bank of India. The opposite party has disputed the complainant’s contention that he never wanted the credit card. On the other hand it is averred that the complainant’s application was processed in the usual course after it was received. It is alleged that the complainant sought a loan on his credit card and since obtaining the loan he has not paid the instalments. The opposite party has denied all the other allegations and has reiterated that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.6,368=52/-.<br /> 6. In view of the above, the only point that arises for our consideration is – Whether the complainant proves that the Opposite party has committed Unfair Trade Practice by sending bills even after the credit card was surrendered?<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 7. It is the specific case of the complainant that he never wanted a credit card but was coaxed by one Shri.Ravindra of HDFC Bank to sign an application. He has, also, categorically stated that as soon as he received the credit card he returned it to the sender. In support of his contention he has produced a copy of his letter dated 23.01.2006 which was written by him at the time of returning the credit card to the Opposite party. He has, also, filed the receipt issued by the Postal Department for having returned the credit card by RPAD. The Complainant has to prove that he returned the credit card immediately on receiving it without using it. There is no document to verify when exactly the Complainant received the credit card. But, the letter of the Opposite party which was received by the Complainant prior to receiving the credit card is on record. It is dated 01.12.2005. It says that the credit card had been dispatched and the Complainant would receive it shortly. In any case from the bills sent to the Complainant it is seen that there is no transaction has been recorded from 01.12.2005 to 23.01.2006 the date when the Complainant returned the credit card. Further, the Complainant in his letter dated 15.05.2006 written to the payment Assistance Unit has mentioned that he returned the credit card without even opening the envelop.<br /> 8. The credit card returned by the Complainant was received by the Opposite party on 07.02.2006 as per the information given by the postal authorities. Thereafter, the Complainant received a number of bills. It is not necessary to go into the details of the bills as they have been raised after the complainant returned the credit card to the Opposite party. An alarmed Complainant started corresponding with the Opposite party almost immediately. He wrote the first letter on 25.02.2006 telling the Opposite party that he had returned the credit card and as such there is no way any transaction can take place under the card and that too at Delhi. He wrote this because the transactions as per the bill had been made in Delhi. In spite of such letter, the Opposite party sent a reminder on 19.03.2006 to pay the bill amount. When the next bill dated 19.03.2006 came, the Complainant noticed again that transaction had been made at Delhi. Hence, he wrote another letter on 29.03.2006 to the Opposite party that as he had returned the credit card without even signing it and as such it was obvious that the card was being misused. After this letter, the Opposite party wrote back that his Complaint was under their consideration. Yet the bills continued to haunt the Complainant. <br /> 9. Finally, the Opposite party wrote a letter dated 22.04.2006 declining to accept responsibility for the misuse of the card and also declined to reverse the transactions under the card. The opposite party has virtually blamed the complainant for the misuse of the card. This was followed up with a letter on 15.05.2006 to the Complainant’s employer seeking his intervention for payment of bills. However, by then the Opposite party had blocked the card, but continued to send bills till October 2006. The last letter dated 20.11.2006 of the Opposite party says that as against the outstanding dues of Rs.6201=10, they are prepared to settle for Rs.3,100=55 if the payment is made before 31.12.2006.<br /> 10. The complainant has produced a letter from his employer dated 23.11.2006 stating that the complainant has not availed any leave from 10.2.2006 to 14.2.2006 and on 18.2.2006 and 9.3.2006. These were the dates on which the transaction using the credit card took place in Delhi. In fact, on 15.5.2006 the complainant has written a letter to one Shri.Vikas Arora of Payment Assistance Unit with SBI cards making a direct allegation that the opposite party was making use of his surrendered credit card by forging his signature. <br /> 11. The chain of events narrated above lead to an invincible conclusion that the Opposite party has harassed and hounded the Complainant needlessly by bombarding him with bills of a credit card which he never used. Further, the letters written by the Opposite party as reply to Complainant’s letters reflect the casual attitude to Complainant’s frantic queries. The Complainant has time & again reiterated in his letters that he is a resident of Mysore and there was no occasion for him to go to Delhi to make transactions using the card. It is perhaps looking at the rampant unhealthy and unethical practices followed by credit card operators, the Reserve Bank of India constituted a working Group on Regulatory Mechanism for cards which came up with many recommendations and the Reserve Bank directed all the credit card issuing banks/NBFCS should implement these guidelines immediately [Circular No.DBOP.FSD.BC 49/24, 01.011/2005-06 dated 21.11.2005 of the RBI filed by the Complainant]. On such guideline is with regard to wrong bills, which the card issuing bank has to explain with documentary evidence within 60 days. It is obvious that the Opposite party has thrown to wind the guidelines within months after the RBI issued the circular. <br /> 12. The act of the Opposite party is squarely covered under the definition of unfair trade practice in Section 2(r). In view of the above, we have no hesitation in answering the point in the affirmative.<br /> 13. It is an irony that the Opposite party has put up the “SBI Card Fair Practice” on its website elaborately describing the privileges of the card holders. It says that if the card holder does not recognise a transaction in the statement, then they would provide more information and also provide evidence. The mute question is whether the Opposite party follows these guidelines in letter and spirit. With these observations, we proceed to pass the following order.<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. Complaint is allowed.<br /> 2. The bills under the card returned by the Complainant are dis-allowed.<br /> 3. The Opposite party shall remit Rs.5,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Account maintained by the Forum within two months from today failing which the said amount shall carry interest at 10% p.a. from the date of this order, until the date of payment.<br /> 4. The opposite party shall pay the complainant cost of Rs.1,000/-.<br /> 5. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, transcript revised by us and then pronounced in the open Forum on this the day 21ST December 2006)<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> (D.Krishnappa) <br /> President <br /> (G.V.Balasubramanya)<br /> Member<br /> <br />