BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Ashwini Luthra, IRS (Retd.), R/o H.No.2044, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                      V E R S U S

SBI Cards & Payments Services Limited (SBI Cards), No.11, Parliament Street, New Delhi 110001

                                                ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:     SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL            PRESIDENT

                   DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL                     MEMBER

                   SH. RAJINDER SINGH GILL                 MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Luv Malhotra, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP No.1.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                   Briefly stated, the complainant on receiving the statement of account for the month of June, 2007, received in Aug./Sept., 2007, in respect of his SBI Credit Card noticed that the amount of Rs.4500/- was wrongly debited by the OP on account of some Insurance Premium paid to M/s Royal Sundram whereas the complainant neither subscribed nor authorized OP to take any such insurance policy or make payment of the premium thereof.  The matter  was reported to OP, who initially gave full credit of the debited amount but at the same time passed another entry thereby debiting 50% of the amount i.e. approx. Rs.2300/.  Again the matter was taken with OP, who informed that since the complainant informed after one month from the date of debit, so they would reverse only 50% amount.  The complainant sent various e-mails to OP that he was not responsible for any wrong action of their employee, who without instructions from the complainant debited his account in respect of insurance premium to M/s Royal Sundram for the policy, which has never been subscribed or opted by the complainant.  It is averred that the said credit card was used by the complainant for a limited period and thereafter, it was not used by him from Oct., 2007 onwards.  It is also averred that all the payments were made in time in respect of actual usage of the credit card but the payment with regard to the insurance premium debited to his account by the OP illegally were not made and as such the OP started charging interest, finance charges and late fee charges for the unpaid premium amount.  Besides this, the complainant used to receive threatening telephone calls from OP for making payment of insurance premium.  It is further averred that ultimately, the collecting agent of OP came to complainant with all the statements from 2006 onwards and after reconciling the accounts, a cheque of Rs.2387/- was issued in favour of OP, which was duly debited from his account on 22.7.2008.  However, from the month of Jan., 2009, the complainant again started receiving calls on his mobile as well as SMS from OP for making the payment of approx. Rs.20,000/- as outstanding balance.  The complainant wrote many letters to OP in this respect but the same were not replied, rather, he received another SMS in Nov., 2009 from OP for making payment of unpaid premium amounting to Rs.25,700/-.  It is asserted that due to the above deficient act of OP as well as their indulgence in unfair trade practice, the complainant had to suffer great mental tension and physical harassment.  Hence, this complaint.

2]                OP filed reply and admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It is stated that the amount of Insurance premium was debited from the account of complainant on the basis of option given by him and since insurance policy was retained by the complainant for more than three months, so he was liable to pay 40% of the annual premium, which was duly informed to him whereas the remaining amount of Rs.2,566/- was refunded to him on pro rata basis.  However, it was open to the complainant not to accept the insurance policy within the stipulated period of 30 days.  It is further stated that since the card stands inactive for usage, thus the OP has reversed all the charges and as on date no dues are payable to the OP (Ann.OP-1).  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, OP prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

3]                Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]                We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 

5]                It was admitted by the complainant in para number 5 of the complaint that the statement for the month of June, 2007 was received by him in August/September 2007 when he found a sum of Rs.4,500/-  debited to his account as insurance premium to M/s Royal Sundram.  The complaint to challenge the same could be filed by him within 2 years from the said date but the present complaint filed on 20.11.2009 is barred by time.

6]                Earlier also the complainant had filed a complaint with respect to the same matter which has already been dismissed vide order dated 5.08.2009.  It was held in para number 11 of the order dated 5.08.2009 that the complainant had retained the insurance policy till 10.10.2007 when it was cancelled.  The OP had referred to rules relating to the charging of the annual premium providing that if the insurance was retained for more than 3 months the complainant was liable to pay 40% of the annual premium and therefore 40% of the amount was applied towards the premium and the remaining amount of Rs.2,566/-  was refunded to the complainant.  It was held that the said refund was perfectly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy. When this finding has come against the complainant, it was not challenged by him in Appeal or Revision.  We are of the opinion that he was bound by the same and cannot reagitate the said finding before this Forum.

7]                It was the contention of the complainant in the earlier case filed against the Senior Manager of State Bank of India that Rs.4,500/- were deducted by the OPs on account of insurance paid to M/s Royal Sundram. The said company Royal Sundram was made a party in the previous complaint as OP-3 and they contended that they were acting as an agent of SBI cards and had issued the insurance policy at their instance.  The amount was paid by SBI card to Royal Sundram which had issued the insurance policy and the premium was also paid to Royal Sundram. Initially Royal Sundram was made a party in this complaint also as OP-2 but subsequently as per the statement dated 4.12.2009 it was given up by the Counsel for the complainant for the reasons best known to him. When the policy was issued by Royal Sundram the premium deducted by the OP was also credited to the account of Royal Sundram, Royal Sundram was the necessary party.  Infact the real dispute is between the complainant and Royal Sundram and the fact whether the complainant asked for insurance policy or not cannot be decided in the absence of Royal Sundram as a party.  The complainant has intentionally given up Royal Sundram as a party so that the request made by him to the said company for issuing an insurance policy does not come to light.  We are therefore of the opinion that in the absence of Royal Sundram the present complaint cannot succeed.

8]                In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is accordingly dismissed.

                   Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.