COMPLAINT FILED: 30.06.2008<br /> 26th SEPTEMBER 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO. 1467/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT M. Devappa,<br /> No. 52/11, 2nd Cross Road,<br /> Vidyanagar,<br /> P & T Layout,<br /> Kurubarahalli Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 086.<br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. The Manager,<br /> SBICPSL.,<br /> Post Bag No. 24,<br /> New Delhi – 100 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Mr. Sunil Mishra,<br /> (Senior Manager)<br /> SBI Cards, <br /> Subarama Complex,<br /> No. 144, 4th Floor,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Near Ajamtha Hotel,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> 3. Satish,<br /> Legal Manager,<br /> SBI Cards, <br /> No. 144/1, Subbaram Complex,<br /> M.G. Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 001.<br /> <br /> <br /> Advocate (Harsha P. Banad)<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant to direct the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.12,000/- and for such other reliefs on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> Complainant is the credit card holder of OP bearing No. 0004317575027311928. Complainant is prompt in making payment of the said credit card transactions without default. With all that OP raised some bill. Complainant when contacted the OP they came forward to settle the said outstanding balance as full and final settlement under one time payment for Rs.8,000/-. Complainant paid Rs.8,000/- on 26.09.2006 as a full and final settlement. OP passed the receipt, thereafter also OP failed to close his credit card account. On the other hand made a demand of payment of Rs.16,000/- as an outstanding due on 10.03.2008. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of his, he is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Under the circumstances he is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the said credit card scheme. He is liable to pay the interest for the delayed payment in addition to the contractual rate of interest. Complainant exceeded the credit limit. At no point of time OP intended to settle the said balance as a full and final settlement for Rs.8,000/- as alleged. The other allegations are false and baseless. As the complainant is in due of Rs.16,000/-, hence they demanded the same and that act cannot be said as deficiency in service. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the reliefs now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative <br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant is the credit card holder of the OP and he has transacted as per the limits. Then OP raised certain bill claiming outstanding dues, though complainant is prompt in making payment regularly, but still to settle the said dues complainant approached the OP under one time settlement scheme. OP agreed for the same and expressed to collect Rs.8,000/- as full and final settlement and promised to close his account. Complainant paid the said Rs.8,000/- on 26.09.2006. The agent of the OP collected the same and passed the receipt. That receipt is produced, which bears the signature of the collector Sridar. H and that of the complainant, wherein it is specifically mentioned that towards the full and final settlement Rs.8,000/- is received. There is no due.<br /> <br /> 7. It is further contended with all that OP again raised the bill for Rs.16,000/- on 10.03.2008. Thus complainant felt the deficiency in service. The evidence of the complainant appears to be very much natural, cogent and consistent. There is nothing to discard his sworn testimony, which finds full corroboration from the contents of the undisputed documents. As against this unimpeachable evidence of the complainant, the defence set out by the OP is that complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card, payment of the interest, overdue interest, delayed payment, etc. They charged the interest on the amount in due as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. It is further contended that at no point of time OP agreed to settle the outstanding dues under one time settlement for Rs.8,000/-.<br /> <br /> 8. On going through the version and the evidence of the OP nowhere OP denied the fact that their collecting agent Sridar. H having received Rs.8,000/- from the complainant on 26.09.2006 towards the full and final settlement. The signature of the said Sridar. H as well as the contents of the said receipts issued by him are not denied or disputed. When that is so, OP is estopped from contending that the receipt of Rs.8,000/- from complainant on 26.09.2006 is not towards the full and final settlement. <br /> <br /> 9. The approach of the OP in that regard rather does not appears to be very much fair and honest. If OP is so aggrieved with regard to the remaining balance they can proceed against their own collecting agent Sridar. H and get redressal if at all he has committed a mistake in receiving only Rs.8,000/- towards full and final settlement. No such steps are taken against Sridar. H and when there is no denial about the contents of the said documents, we do not find force in the defence of the OP.<br /> <br /> 10. The hostile attitude of the OP must have naturally caused both mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Though complainant collected the entire amount in due on 26.09.2006 nearly after 1½ years on 10.03.2008 OP again raised the demand bill for Rs.16,000/-. All these acts of the OP amounts to deficiency in service. Under such circumstances the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. This order is to be complied within 4 weeks from the date of its communication. <br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 26th day of September 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> p.n.g. <br />