Date of Filing: 08/12/2011
Date of Order: 31/01/2012
BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE - 20
Dated: 31st DAY OF JANUARY 2012
PRESENT
SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.Sc.,B.L., PRESIDENT
SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER
C.C. NO.2229 OF 2011
T.K. Rajendra Prasad,
S/o. Late. T.N.Krishnamurthy,
Aged About 50 years,
R/at: No.37(A), Manu Vana,
Vijaynagar, Bangalore-560040.
(Rep. by Sri.H.N.Venkatesh, Advocate) …. Complainant.
V/s
(1) State Bank Of India,
Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Registered Office, SBI,
Local Head Office, No.11,
Parliament Street, New Delhi,
Rep. by its Manager.
(Rep. by Sri.M.H.Hidayathulla, Advocate)
(2) State Bank Of India,
Cards And Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,
Unit No.201 & 207, Embassy Square,
No.148, 2nd Floor, Infantry Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its Manager.
(Notice served – remained absent)
(3) G.E. Capital Services India,
Unit No.201 & 207,
Embassy Square, No.148,
2nd Floor, Infantry Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
Rep. by its Manager.
(Notice served – remained absent) …. Opposite Parties.
BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRARAO, PRESIDENT
-: ORDER:-
The brief antecedents that led to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay the sum of Rs.85,000/-, are necessary:-
As per the promises of the opposite parties 2 & 3, the complainant obtained the credit card facility of the opposite parties and was using since 2001-2002. Because of the exorbitant interest and disservice on 11.07.2005 the complainant wrote to the opposite parties seeking cancellation of the credit card and surrendered the credit card tearing it also. Even after that the opposite parties were sending statement of account claiming money. The complainant on 02.02.2006 wrote a letter to the opposite parties for which no response was there. On 30.05.2006 the opposite parties wrote a letter stating that there is due of Rs.5,904/- and also stated that if Rs.2,952/- is paid as one time settlement on or before 30.06.2006 the entire account will be closed. Accordingly by cheque dated: 06.06.2006 the complainant paid the said amount which was encashed on 08.06.2006 by the opposite parties. Even then the opposite parties are sending threatening calls to his mobile from various mobile numbers 9043871325, 443966601and 442914482 from Chennai, Delhi and Bangalore demanding the amount as due, though the complainant had paid the entire amount. This is nothing but deficiency in service. Even the opposite parties have issued notices on 16.02.2011 and on 15.10.2011 demanding huge amount though the account was closed. Hence the complaint.
2. In this case the opposite parties 2 and 3 though served remained absent throughout the proceedings. In brief the version of the opposite party No.1 are:-
The complaint is barred by time. The complainant is not a Consumer. The complainant has not paid the amount as per the statement of account letter dated: 06.06.2006 and 2007. Hence it has become nullity and void. All the allegations to the contrary are denied.
3. To substantiate their respective cases, the parties have filed their respective affidavits the complainant had filed the documents. The arguments were heard.
4. The points for consideration are:-
-:POINTS:-
(a) Whether there is any deficiency in service?
(b) What order?
5. Our findings are:-
Point (A) : In the Affirmative
Point (B) : As per the final Order
for the following:-
-:REASONS:-
Point A & B:-
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted fact that the complainant had obtained the credit card of the opposite parties bearing No.4006661037948069 and he was using it. It is also an admitted fact that on 11.07.2005 the complainant sought cancellation of the said credit card and also written to the opposite parties on 20.03.2006, to cancel the credit card and also cut the credit card and send it to the opposite parties. It is also an admitted fact that on 30.05.2006 the opposite parties have written to the complainant thus:-
“We are, however, giving you an opportunity to settle the above outstanding dues for Rs.2,952/- before 30th June 2006. We confirm that on receipt of the aforesaid amount, your account will stand fully settled and the balance outstanding on your account will be reversed.”
That is to say the opposite parties had offered one time settlement of Rs.2,952/- to be paid by the complainant within 30.06.2006 and if it is paid account will be closed and no further or other claim will be made. Further it is an admitted fact that in pursuance of the said one time settlement offer the complainant in order to purchase piece had given a cheque dated: 06.06.2006 bearing No.191379 and it was encashed by the opposite parties on 08.06.2006. That means settlement has become complete and the credit card account is closed and the credit card is cancelled. When that is the case the question of the opposite parties claiming the amount as not paid within time is untenable contention as rightly contended.
7. Further it is an admitted fact that the complainant has written to the opposite parties on 19.11.2006 asking them not to harass him further. Even then the opposite parties through their agents were demanding and threatening the complainant through phone calls to the mobile of the complainant No.9448062973 from this mobile numbers 9043871325, 4439666601 & 442914482 from Chennai, Delhi and Bangalore asking the complainant to pay the money. This is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
8. Further it is seen that the opposite parties have issued a notice to the complainant demanding Rs.15,295/- by notice dated: 16.02.2011 to which the complainant had replied on 16.03.2011 even then on 15.10.2011 the opposite parties demanded a sum of Rs.17,712.25 paise towards the said credit card. This clearly goes to show that its deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. When one time settlement has been made and paid the credit card account is closed and the credit card is cancelled and hence the question of demanding money will not arise. As it has not been done it is nothing but deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
9. It was contended that the claim is barred by time. How the claim is barred by time is not explained. When the opposite parties demanded the complainant to pay money, though it was cancelled and not due on 16.02.2011 and 15.10.2011 the cause of action aroused to the complainant in February and October-2011 and this complaint is filed on 08.12.2011 is well within time.
10. The other contention is that the complainant is not a Consumer. How the complainant is not a Consumer is not explained. The complainant availed the service of the opposite parties by paying money and obtained the credit card, he completely discharged the entre amount and noting was due, even then the opposite parties demanded money that means the complainant is Consumer and the opposite parties is a service provider. Hence this contention is an untenable contention.
11. Here the opposite parties though received the entre credit card amount, one time settlement has been made even then it is demanding money which clearly goes to show the personnel in the opposite parties are mischievous used their agents and advocates as a tool to recover money if possible by using threatening phone calls and issuing demand notices. Hence the compensation and costs that is going to be awarded will have to be recovered by the opposite parties from their personnel who are responsible for this. Under these circumstances we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-
ORDER
1. The complaint is allowed in part.
2. The opposite parties shall issue No Due Certificate to the complainant with respect to the credit card bearing No. 4006661037948069 within 30 days from today.
3. The opposite parties shall pay to the complainant the sum of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and harassment.
4. The opposite parties shall also pay Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation to the complainant.
5. The opposite parties shall comply with the above said order as ordered at serial Nos.2 to 4 within 30 days from today. The opposite parties shall submit the compliance report with proof of documents within 45 days from today.
6. Return the extra sets to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
7. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 31st Day of January 2012)
MEMBER PRESIDENT
