DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Sushil Kumar Chandel, Permanent Resident of H.No.705/A, Harmilap Nagar, Baltana (Punjab)

                                                                                    ---Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       SBI Cards through its Manager, SCO 72-73, Sector 8, Madhya Marg, U.T., Chandigarh.

2]       SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City Gurgaon – 122002 (Haryana) India, through its Regional/Zonal Manager.

---Opposite Parties

BEFORE:            SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                    PRESIDENT

                        SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                   MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU            MEMBER

Argued By:            Sh.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the complainant

Sh.Saurabh Bindra, Adv. Proxy for Sh.Jatin Kumar, Adv. for the OPs.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1]             Complainant (hereinafter referred to as CC for short) has filed the present complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as OPs for short) on the ground that the CC was approached by OP-1 explaining the salient features of the SBI Credit Cards. Convinced, that CC would be at an advantage of lesser rate of interest  subscribed for the same.  CC availed the Membership of the SBI Card by signing necessary documents and was issued a Card by the OPs as Ann.C-1.  Thereafter, CC regularly used the said Card and made the required payments through cheques, the same is reflected in the statements as Ann.C-2 & C-3.

                Later on declaring the CC a preferred customer of the OPs, was offered a loan of Rs.22,000/- at a very low rate of interest to which CC verbally consented.  Subsequently, a draft of Rs.22,000/- dated 24.10.2005 was issued to the CC vide Ann.C-4.                     

                It was at later stage that the CC came to know of OPs charging a very high rate of interest instead of what they had committed in the very beginning.  CC decided to foreclose the account with the OPs and paid Rs.10,300/- as per the calculations of the Manager of OP-1, who promised that the case of the CC stands settled and he would be issued NOC within next 15 days.  The said payment of Rs.10,300/- was made vide Cheque NO.731193, dated 03.05.2007 drawn on P.N.B.  Receipt to this effect was issued by OP-1 reflecting as full and final amount of settlement of his account. 

                CC is aggrieved by the demand of Rs.1380/-, which he paid by Cheque No.012112, dated 31.7.2007 and thereafter another demand of Rs.50,294.68Ps was made.  However, the CC made a repeated representations with OP-1 to settle the matter once for all but they failed to give any satisfactory reason with regard to the demand of Rs.50,294.68Ps. 

                CC has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the OPs for their illegal demand of the money that he had already paid as full and final settlement. CC demands directions of this Forum to get the NOC issued by the OPs and seeks compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony, harassment, deceptive and restrictive trade practices along with Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation. 

2]             On notice, OPs filed their collective versions. 

                The OPs have taken preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; locus-standi of CC and jurisdiction of this Forum to try & adjudicate upon the present complaint as the same deserves to be dismissed on these very grounds.

                However, on merits OPs have contested the averments of the complaint on the ground that the answering OPs were charging the interest as per the terms and that the CC has nowhere submitted the settled rate of interest that he alleges to have been agreed upon by the OPs.  As per Para-5 of their reply, OPs state that the CC is intentionally disputing the rate of interest and making false allegations against the OPs. Further, OPs have also denied that at no point of time they had ever calculated the amount of Rs.10,300/- as full and final amount to settle the account of the CC and the CC having deposited Rs.10,300/- on his own without verifying the facts from the answering OPs, cannot claim as his  account having been closed. 

                OPs have also submitted in Para-7 that the CC had never approached the answering OPs with request for the issuance of NOC as he had not cleared the outstanding amount against his Credit Card Account and the payment of Rs.1380/- made by the CC was against his Credit Card Account only.  Finally, OPs state in Para-10 that CC is not eligible for NOC until & unless he clears his account with the answering OPs as per the terms and conditions of the OPs.

3]             Parties led their respective evidences.

4]             Having gone through the entire complaint and version of OPs and the evidence of the parties, we are of the considered view that the CC is successful in proving deficiency in service on the part of OPs on the following grounds:-

i)         It is clear from the bear facts of the complaint that CC had availed the services of OP-1 by having subscribed for SBI Credit Card, which was subsequently issued to him vide No.4317-5751-2403-0546-709 and the CC kept on using the said Card and had been making regular payments against his outstanding dues.

ii)        Thereafter, CC having availed a loan of Rs.22,000/- on 27.10.2005 as offered by the OPs and agreed to pay interest on the said amount.  The repayment plan of the said loan was calculated for a period of 36 months.  This fact is reflected in the Affidavit of one Sh.Ankit Goenka, Manager/Representative of SBI Cards/OP-1, tendered as evidence along with Ex.R-1, which is cited as an Excel Sheet maintained by the OPs, wherein the complete details of the Loan Account is printed and clearly shows two different versions i.e. the first chart on Page-2 of the said affidavit shows that the CC having taken an Encash of Rs.22,000/-.  An EMI of Rs.997.78 was calculated to be paid for a period of 36 months between 27-Oct-2005 to 27-Oct-2008. The OPs had also charged processing fee of Rs.363.66Ps and GST of Rs.1604.16Ps. The total amount of Rs.37,167.82Ps. was due as Total Encash Due  which also included Rs.13,200/- as interest.

iii)       However, in the Second Chart on the same page of the affidavit clearly shows that on the Encash Principal of Rs.22,000/- an interest for 20 months is calculated to be Rs.10027.83Ps, GSt for 20 EMIs as Rs.1155.67Ps, Proc. Fee of Rs.363.66 and one factor under the head “FCr fee” as Rs.420.31 is also mentioned.  This Chart includes a previous balance of Rs.11870.9Ps, which is probably the dues towards the Credit Card transactions and the Total due amounts to Rs.45838.37Ps. and on the payment of Rs.44492/- by the CC a Balance of Rs.1346.37Ps is shown to be Outstanding against the CC at the end of 20 months of Loan Period i.e. 27-May-2007.  However, it is also clear from Ex.R-1 that a Balance of Rs.1346.37 is shown outstanding against the CC against which the CC made payment of Rs.1380/- on 27-July-2007.

The above facts as reflected in Second Cart on comparison with the Excel Sheet Ex.R-1 clearly shows that as on 27-May-2007 after a payment of Rs.10300/- an amount of Rs.1379.58 is shown Outstanding.  Ex.R-1 too has the replica of Second Chart which is probably reproduced as it is from Ex.R-1 and the same shows Rs.1346.37Ps as Balance.

iv)      One factor which is very important to be observed that from the bare comparison of the Two Charts, as referred above, an amount of Rs.420.31 was claimed under the Head “FCr Fee”.  Though this factor has not been explained anywhere in the affidavit or in the reply by the OPs, but we believe that if they are calculating the amount at the end of 20 EMIs and an outstanding amount of Rs.1346.47 is shown as Balance, the “FCr fee” is nothing but a Foreclosure Fees that they have calculated on the request of the CC at the end of 20^th EMI i.e. on 27-May-2007.

v)        Now if the CC has made the payment of Rs.1380/- as per the facts explained in their Excel Sheet and the affidavit, it is true that the CC had dispensed with his obligation of having cleared his dues of the Encash Principal along with the previous balance outstanding against him and OPs having charged him with the Foreclosure Fee of Rs.420.31, the total outstanding against the CC stand paid as on 27-July-2007. Hence the demand of Rs.50,294.68 by the OPs is totally untenable whereas the CC stands eligible for the issue of N.O.C. from the OPs.   

vi)      Moreover, one more aspect that needs to be addressed is that the evidence filed by OP-1 through an affidavit along with Ex.R-1 (Excel Sheet) submitted on 13.5.2011. The details of the Excel Sheet-Ex.R-1 fail to display the details beyond the date 27-Feb-2008.  We feel that the OP-1 at the time of making statement on Oath has relied upon an incomplete document (Ex.R-1) which is a part of their own record.  Hence, the defence of the OPs is extremely weak on this aspect too. 

vii)     The demand of the CC for NOC from the OPs very much deserves to be honoured by them and having failed to act upon the request of the CC, we find the OPs deficient in rendering proper services to the CC.

5]             Hence, in view of the above observations, we allow the present complaint with directions to the OPs jointly & severally to issue No Due Certificate to the CC in respect of his Credit Card Account along with a written intimation to CIBIL to delete the name of the CC from their list of defaulters immediately, with an information to the CC for the same.  The OPs are also jointly & severally saddled with Rs.20,000/- as compensation on account of harassment and mental agony and Rs.7000/- as cost of litigation.

                This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, the OPs will be liable to pay interest on the amount of compensation @18% p.a. from the date of order till its actual payment besides cost of litigation. 

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

Announced

09.09.2011

                                                           (LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER 

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER