DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW
CASE No.732 of 2005
Sri Brijendra Singh, aged abut 58 yrs.,
S/o Late Sri Raj Bux Singh,
R/o 11/204, Deepak, Sahara States,
Jankipuram, Lucknow.
……Complainant
Versus
1. SBI Cards
Through General Manager (Customer Services),
Customer Services Department, State Bank of India,
State Bank Bhawan, 8th Floor, Madame Cama Road,
Mumbai-400021.
2. Manager (Customer Services), SBI Card, SBI,
Local Head Office, 11, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001.
3. Collection Head, (SBI Card) C/o GE Capital,
501-502, Sriram Tower, 5th Floor, 13,
Ashok Marg, Lucknow-226001.
.......Opp. Parties
Present:-
Sri Vijai Varma, President.
Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.
Sri Rajarshi Shukla, Member.
JUDGMENT
This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for payment of amount of Rs.2,02,784.00 with interest within 30 days of the order.
The case in brief of the Complainant is that he is the subscriber of SBI Credit card bearing No.4006661159016778. In the month of January, 2005 the Complainant received a monthly statement dated 13.01.2005 in which the following discrepancies were found (i) the discrepancy of amount Rs.324.22 was wrongly charged (ii) the cheque No.917643 dated 28.12.2004 Rs.944 of Bank of Maharashtra, Vidhan
-2-
Sabha Marg, Lucknow was shown in the statement as paid on 05.01.2005 and again shown as unpaid on 11.01.2005. Thereafter Complainant had contacted the OPs’ office through their helpline many times, the details of which are given in the complaint. On 19.02.2005 and on several occasions, the Complainant contacted the customer care department through helpline but the official misbehaved with him, disconnected the phone line and did not try to understand and solve the problem. On 21.01.2005 and 25.01.2005 the Complainant also approached local collection centre OP No.3 and made a complaint on format on 25.01.2005 for the redressal of his grievances as informed by them. But no information was given by them to the Complainant till date. The Complainant also made a complaint dated 03.03.2005 and thereafter a detailed complaint to the OPs through their email address on 09.03.2005 wherein he informed the OPs about the discrepancies committed by them in detail. On 10.03.2005 OPs sent a misleading reply to the Complainant through email in which they stated that the cheque No.917643 of Rs.944.00 was dishonoured by the Bank of Maharashtra and the reason given was “others” and hence they would present it second time to the bank as per their internal guidelines whereas the Complainant was telephonically informed on 03.03.2005 by the CSR of the OPs that his cheque No.917643 of Rs.944.00 was returned by the bank as it was not signed. On 28.03.2005 and 10.04.2005 the Complainant again lodged complaints with the OPs. The letter of the Complainant dated 28.03.2005 was replied by the OPs on 05.04.2005 again the same misleading reply was given. On 11.04.2005 the Complainant again telephonically contacted the OPs but all in vain. Thereafter the Complainant received their reply dated 18.04.2005 in which the OPs admitted their mistake. The cheque No.917643 was returned finally to the Complainant vide letter dated 22.04.2008 and in another letter dated 19.04.2005 in which the
-3-
SBI card a/c number was shown as 400661150070824 the reason given for the return of cheque No.9177643 of Rs.944.00 was “Drawer’s signature differ.” The total cost incurred by the Complainant through email of the customer care department and then on 03.03.2005 onwards lodging several complaints is given in detail in the complaint. The non professional harassing attitude of employees of the OPs is evident from the fact that despite repeated requests of the Complainant his cheque was not returned to the Complainant and the same was presented to the Bank of Maharashtra time and again. Even though the Complainant had paid the money through another cheque No.917646 of Rs.2,000.00 the repeated presentation of the defective instrument has severely damaged the reputation of the Complainant. The OPs also deducted Rs.15.00 towards cheque return charges from the Complainant which they are liable to pay to the Complainant. Besides when it was in the knowledge of the OPs that the cheque was not signed then they should have returned the cheque and there was no occasion of forwarding the cheque again three times. The Complainant, therefore, sent a legal notice to the OPs and due to negligence of the OPs the Complainant suffered loss, harassment, mental agony, hence this complaint.
The OP No.1 has filed the objections wherein it is mainly submitted that they have wrongly been arrayed as OP No.1 and the description of the OP No.1 is also not correct. In fact, the OP is not liable or responsible for any alleged deficiency or negligence as there has been no transaction with regard to any SBI credit card with SBI. Even the allegations are vague. The liability or responsibility, if any, is that of SBI card & Payment Service Pvt. Ltd. The said company is a separate legal entity from that of SBI and the said company is answerable to the instant notice. It was further mentioned in
-4-
the said reply that the establishment of the SBI and its officers are not responsible for any act of SBI card services, therefore they are not liable to pay any amount.
The OP No.2 and 3 have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that the Complainant has not averred as to how Rs.324.22 has been wrongly charged and as far as cheque No.917643 is concerned it was first credited in the a/c and later on it was dishonoured then debited again in the a/c. It is simple accountancy and could not be said to be any discrepancies. The telephonic calls made by the Complainant were for his own satisfaction. The annexure 2 clearly shows that the customer care listened to the Complainant continuously for about an hour and fully cooperated with the Complainant. Every time the Complainant was confused regarding statements and made several complaints and reply received by him as per his own statement. Through email Complainant received the detailed information about his doubts and cheque in question was dishonoured with the reason mentioned on bank returning memo was ‘others’ and this was the actual cause of return, hence no misleading reply was ever given to the Complainant. Actual position is that Complainant intentionally gave the unsigned cheque of his a/c by filling amount knowingly that it will not clear in any manner. It is just typing error about the card number and reason of dishonour of cheque. Lots of cheques dishonour in general business transaction and letter issued under cut paste computer system and it was because of the same reason. Complainant has not suffered any type of deficiency in service because the cheque was presented in the account of Complainant and cheque return charges deducted from the account of the Complainant and reflected charges shown in monthly statement. The OPs are not liable for any expenses. Under the company policy and guideline OPs presented the cheque and payment made by cheque No.917646 for Rs.2,000.00 by the Complainant was
-5-
not against the cheque No.917646 because it was the routine payment and Complainant has not alleged the said payment in any of the complaint made in writing before the OPs. OPs always cleared all the queries and complaint of the Complainant and to send the bank statement of Complainant having cheque dishonour charges could not be said as damage of reputation of the Complainant in any manner. Cheque given by the person can be presented within six months of the date mentioned thereon. In spite of that there is no dispute of any amount charged from the Complainant as cheque bouncing charges. OPs are not liable to pay amount deducted from the a/c of Complainant against the cheque bouncing charges. Complainant used properly his credit card and against the usage received the monthly statements and if any complaint was made, then he received the reply of the same. No dispute arose with the Complainant about any additional cheque bouncing charges in monthly statements, hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. The Complainant was not informed by the OPs or by the bankers of Complainant before April 2005 then under what circumstances Complainant knew that the cheque was not signed which reveals that cheque was given without having any signature intentionally. The raising of monthly statement does not fall within the category of deficiency in service. A very little amount by the fact of mistake debited in the a/c of Complainant and thereafter on complaint credited in a/c of Complainant could not be said to be deficiency in service or any injury caused to the Complainant.
The Complainant has filed the reply against reply of OP No.1 with 8 annxures.
The Complainant has filed his affidavit and 18 annexures with the complaint. The Complainant has also filed written arguments. The OP No.1 has filed the affidavit of Sri Gora Chand Banerjee.
-6-
Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the entire record.
Now, it is to be seen as to whether the OPs have committed any deficiency in service in wrongly charging Rs.324.22 and presenting a cheque for Rs.944.00 many a times knowing that the cheque was not signed by the Complainant, whereby a certain amount was deducted from the a/c of the Complainant unnecessarily or the OPs did not charge any amount wrongly and that they presented the cheque in question as per norms and they did not commit any deficiency in service.
In this case, the Complainant had taken the stand that OPs have charged Rs.324.22 wrongly but the Complainant is unable to show as to how this amount of Rs.324.22 was charged wrongly by the OPs, therefore it cannot be said that the OPs if at all they charged a sum of Rs.324.22, charged it wrongly.
Now, we come to the next point i.e. whether the cheque was presented many a times without the signature of the Complainant whereby the cheque dishonour amount was deducted from the a/c of the Complainant or not. In this regard, according to the Complainant a cheque No.917643 dated 28.12.2004 for a sum of Rs.944.00 drawn on the Bank of Maharashtra was shown firstly as paid on 05.01.2005 and was shown as unpaid on 11.01.2005 in the statement of OPs. When the amount was shown as unpaid then the Complainant tried to contact the OPs but after much difficulty he could know that the cheque in question was dishonoured by the Bank of Maharashtra, hence it would be presented by the OPs second time to the bank as per their internal guidelines. Thereafter, the Complainant was informed on 03.03.2005 that the cheque in question was returned by the bank as it was not signed by the Complainant. The grouse of the Complainant is that the cheque despite not having his signature, was again and again presented
-7-
by the OPs in the Bank of Maharashtra resulting in deduction of the amount of dishonour of the cheque, whereas the cheque when it was found not to be having signatures of the Complainant, should not have been presented at all. Once the cheque was not signed by the Complainant then it should not have been sent for clearing as it could not have been honoured by the bank on which it is drawn. Thus, the Complainant was put to unnecessary deduction of amount from his a/c because of the dishonour of the cheque in addition to the inconvenience and difficulty in finding out the entire thing from the OPs. The statement annexure No.1 shows the amount of cheque No.917643 as payment received on 05.01.2005 and thereafter the amount of Rs.944.00 not paid shown on 11.01.2005. The OP No.2 and 3 have admitted that the cheque in question was unsigned but their stand is that the Complainant had intentionally given the unsigned cheque so that it could not clear in any manner. This stand is ridiculous as the Complainant cannot take any advantage of cheque not signed by him. If a cheque is not signed by a person then it cannot be encashed and therefore all the obligations remained with the executor of the cheque and therefore he cannot be benefited in any manner for not signing the cheque. It is important to discern that OP No.2 and 3 have not countered the specific allegation of the Complainant that the cheque despite not having the signatures of the Complainant, was again presented by them resulting in unnecessary deduction of the amount on account of its dishonour of cheque. This certainly is an act in futility committed by the OP No.2 and 3 because by presenting it again the cheque could not have been honoured, therefore there is clear cut deficiency on the part of the OPs. Besides the Complainant has filed a plethora of evidence to show that he made frantic efforts for getting the discrepancies cleared by the OP No.2 and 3 but it is only after much efforts and much delay that the Complainant could know about the reason behind the
-8-
discrepancies, therefore the OP No.2 and 3 have also committed deficiency in service in not redressing the problem of the Complainant in the right earnest but the deficiency appears to be only on the part of OP No.2 and 3 and OP No.1 has nothing to do with the problem of the Complainant as the matter pertains to SBI cards only and the OP No.1 State Bank of India has nothing to do with it and clearly the OP No.2 and 3 SBI credit cards services are distinct entity from the SBI and therefore it is only the OP No.2 and 3 which are responsible for the deficiency in service and not the OP No.1. The Complainant, therefore, is entitled to get the refund of Rs.13.00, Rs.12.00 and Rs.15.00 totalling Rs.40.00 deducted from his a/c as is evident from his passbook which is annexure 27 to 29 with interest. As the Complainant has been harassed in this regard, hence he is entitled to compensation considering the fact that the Complainant has suffered a lot because of the careless attitude of the OP No.2 and 3 and the fact that the case is lingering for the last about 10 years, we find it appropriate to award adequate compensation and cost of the litigation.
ORDER
The complaint is partly allowed. The OP No.2 and 3 are jointly and severally directed to refund the amount of Rs.40.00 (Rupees Forty Only) with 9% interest from the date of filing of the case till the final payment is made to the complainant.
The OP No.2 and 3 are also directed to pay Rs.5,000.00 (Rupees Five Thousand only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand only) as cost of the litigation. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month.
(Rajarshi Shukla) (Anju Awasthy) (Vijai Varma)
Member Member President
Dated: 14 May, 2015
