BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT BANGALORE (URBAN)

DATED 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022

ORDER

SRI.M.SHOBHA, PRESIDENT

1. The  complainant  has filed this complaint against the Opposite party  for reliefs

1. To direct the OP to stop making payment reminder calls and withdraw their claim on balance amount to be paid by him further claiming compensation of  Rs.20,000/- for mental agony caused to him and his wife by  contacting registered mobile number of his wife  through several  telephone calls day in day out for the past  one year and for cost and such other reliefs.

2.  The case of the complainant is that:

The complainant  purchased some goods on Amazon Seller services worth of Rs.35,999/- using credit card on 11.06.2019.  As he was not  in a position to clear the entire amount by the next due date of credit card payment. He got the amount of Rs.35,996.53 converted into an EMI payment on 13.06.2019 for a period of 24 months. The EMI amount  was worked out for Rs.1,745.35 per month payable starting from July 2019. The EMI amount included certain amount to be adjusted towards his principle amount Plus interest. Over and above this, GST on interest will also be applicable, which will be added to the EMI amount.

It is further case of the complainant that EMI started from the month of July 2019 which included the EMI amount as well as GST on interest amount as reflected in their monthly credit card statement. Fortunately during the month of December 2019 he had some funds and wanted to prepay the balance  principle amount outstanding along with pre-closure fee. As a family the complainant had the habit of closing any outstanding amount against Credit card/any loan if he is in a position to do so before the expiry of the final due date and not to  carry the burden.

It is further case of the complainant that the complainant on 11.12.2019 paid sum of Rs.28,698/- towards outstanding principle amount of Rs.26,581.54 of the EMI along with pre-closure fee after ascertaining the  same over phone  call to the customer care of SBI card.  Further, SBI has been claiming that this complainant has not called them  and hence the amount paid by him  will not be adjusted against the EMI loan closure. In spite of pointing out to them repeatedly that by their own admission in their credit card statement  dt.21.12.2019 balance is Rs.-308.00.

It is further case of the complainant that further he made the payment with calling them as claimed by SBI as loan of Rs.28,698/- since the principle amount against his loan amount of Rs.26,581.54 only after making payment of EMI amount for the month of December 2019 and if pre-closure  fee of 3% were to be added to this he should have to pay Rs.27,378.97p. This itself proves the complainant could not have imagined Rs.28,698.00 to be paid without getting the information from SBI customer care.

The complainant has also stated about the reason  given by the OP for non closing the EMI as that 1) We would like to inform you that any extra payment made on your SBI card account does not mean that automatically all your pending EMI’s will be closed rather extra balance gets adjusted against fresh purchases or outstanding in next following statement.

It is further case of the complainant that if this is what they claim and mention to me as a point for not accounting the payment against his EMI loan, then  in their on 21.12.2019 statement they should have shown his balance as Rs.-28,698.00 and not Rs.-308.00. Not only this on 21.01.2020 statement again they should  have adjusted only Rs.1,805.16p against his excess payment of Rs.28,698.00 and shown the balance in his account as Rs.-26,892.84p., but instead they have shown some figure which is no meaning.

It is further case of the complainant that above statement proves that OP claimed for not adjusting the loan payment since he has not contacted them is a total lie and an after thought  by SBI.

It is further reason by OP that they would like to share with complainant that merchant EMI can be cancelled only full refund received from the merchant. Hence, they have unable to cancel merchant EMI.

It is further case of the complainant that he is not able to understand the above statement  of SBI as again another reason for not accounting the amount and closing the loan account.

It is further case of the complainant that  he  used the credit card of SBI  for making payment to the merchant for the purchase of goods. As a seller of the goods, he has received the payment from the buyer i.e. this complainant. in what way they would be interested to know whether the complainant pay the credit card in full in the next due date itself or he opt for any other mode of payment against his credit card. This transaction is between the complainant and SBI only. Why they have to refund the balance amount for getting his EMI to be cancelled. The transaction between  the complainant as a buyer and Amazon as a seller is over. Once Amazon has received  full payment from the complainant  does SBI above statement makes any sense.

It is further case of the complainant that he has posted question to the OP that what happens if the merchant has closed the business next month itself or if he is not traceable and if the complainant want to pre-close his EMI loan, where do get him? Should he keep paying the EMI till the end of the EMI tenure even though pay him earlier. There was no answer from OP for this and only a repeated statement that  he not called them for pre-closure.

It is further case of the complainant that the above fact proves that their claim of this complainant  not contacting them for closure of the EMI loan account before payment is a blatant lie and looks like they are  trying to extract more money from this complainant.

It is further case of the complainant that it is worst unfortunate situation is neither SBI Ombudsman nor RBI Ombudsman  want to go through complainants correspondences  and look into facts before giving their verdict. Hence, as a last resort he left with other choice except to approach this court to get this issue sorted. He do not want his credit rating to be spoiled because of this issue and he would request to address the issue also. Hence, he prays for allow the complaint.

3. After service of notice, OP has appeared before this commission through their counsel and  filed their version.

The OP have admitted about the transaction made by the complainant by swiping an amount of Rs.35,999/- from his credit card on 13.06.2019 and latter the complainant has converted the said amount into EMI for a period 24 months which will be ending on July 2021 and the EMI amount was Rs.1,745.35p by monthly and same was approved.

It is the specific contention taken by the OP the complainant with regard to making repayment of amount in the month of 11.12.2019 for the amount swiped July 2019 is true. It is the main objection raised by the OP is that the complainant has made the payment without any written information to the OP and that only 04.11.2020 the complainant has written a mail to the OP and for this OP replied suitably. The OP has reproduced the email communication sent on 09.11.2020 to the complainant. As per the Email the OP has informed the complainant that the remaining amount to be paid is Rs.4,040.65P and if the complainant agreed to pay the foreclosure amount he has to inform the OP. they have further instructed the complainant not make the payment without foreclosure request confirmation from OP side. 

It is further case of the OP that if the complainant wants to foreclosure of the payment for the EMI’s then they have to follow the card holder agreement clause-3. It is also the case of the OP that as per email dt.09.11.2020 this OP has informed to the complainant to pay the remaining amount of Rs.4,040.65p after the foreclosure request confirmed by them. The complainant without paying the balance amount has approached this commission by hiding the facts has filed this complaint and liable to be dismissed.

It is also the case of the OP that the complainant has also approached the RBI and Banking Ombudsman and he has not made them as party in this complaint in order to explain the true facts. The allegation against this OP is also to be dismissed with regard to credit rating as the CIBIL is not a party in this complaint. The Ombudsman has suitably replied to the complaint filed by the complainant before them. The complainant after approaching all the necessary banking authorities was in vain there upon he has approached this commission. The complaint is not at all maintainable and liable to be dismissed. The complainant with an ulterior motive and to avoid making payment to the OP has filed this complaint and it is liable to be dismissed. The complainant failed to establish the deficiency of service against this OP. Hence, the OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. The complainant in order to prove the complainant has not filed any affidavit evidence at the time of the evidence. He has filed copies of 05 documents at the time of filing of the complaint.   On the other hand  Asst.Legal Manager of OP  filed his affidavit evidence and got marked Ex.R1 to R11.

5. OP filed written arguments.

6. The following points do arise for our consideration are as under:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the OP?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as sought for?
3. What order?

7. Our answer to the above points are as under:

       Point No.1:-Affirmative

      Point no.2:- Affirmative.

      Point No.3:-As per the final order.

REASONS

8. Point Nos.1 and 2:. These two points are interrelated and hence they have  taken up for common discussion.

9. The complainant has not filed any affidavit evidence on his behalf. Hence, we have gone through the complaint and the documents filed by the complainant at time of filing of this complaint.

10. It is clear from the complaint and version and documents relied on by both the parties that the complainant has purchased some goods on Amazon seller services worth Rs.35,999/- using his credit card on 11.06.2019 and later he has converted into EMI payments on 13.06.2019 for a period of 24 months and the EMI was Rs.1,745.35p per month and payment started from July 2019.

11. It is the specific grievance of the complainant that during the month December 2019 he has some funds and wanted to prepay balance principle amount outstanding along with pre-closure fee. Accordingly, on 11.12.2019 he has paid a sum of Rs.28,698/- towards outstanding principle amount of Rs.26,581.54p of EMI along with pre-closure fee after ascertaining the same from the customer care of SBI card.

12. In support of his contention the complainant also filed credit card statement dt.21.12.2019 as document no.3. It is further grievance of the complainant that even though he has paid the entire amount the OP has been claiming that this complainant has not called them and amount paid by him will not be adjusted to EMI loan closure. In spite of he pointing out to them repeatedly that their own admission in their credit card statement dt.21.12.2019 his balance is Rs.-308.00.

13. It is further grievance of the complainant if he had made the payment without calling them as claimed by the OP then why would he pay Rs.28,698/- since the principle amount against his loan was Rs.26,581.54p only after making payment of EMI amount for the month of Dec. 2019 also and if pre-closure fee of 3% were to be added to this he should have paid only Rs.27,378.97p. This itself proves that he could not have imagined Rs.28,698/- to be paid without getting information from SBI customer care. Under these circumstance the complainant has sought for relief to pass an order directing the OP to stop making payment reminder calls  and withdraw their claim on balance amount to be paid by him and further to direct the OP bank not to harass by making telephone calls day in and day out for the past one year and harassing his wife whose mobile number was registered contact number SBI and also sought for Rs.20,000/- compensation and legal fee.

14. On the other hand the main objection raised by the OP is that they came to know about payment made by the complainant about pre-closure only on 04.11.2020 and they have not adjusted the amount since the complainant has made the payment without informing them. Hence, they are claiming that the complainant has to pay Rs.4,040.65p and they are ready to foreclose the amount if the complainant paid the balance amount.

15. On these background we have   gone through credit card statement dt.21.12.2019 i.e. document no.3 referred by the complainant. It is clear from this statement that the complainant has paid Rs.28,698/- on 11.12.2019. According to the complainant he has paid the amount of Rs.28,698/- towards outstanding principle amount of Rs.26,581.54P along with pre-closure fee after ascertaining the same from SBI  customer care. The said amount is also clearly reflected in the gmail statement sent by OP bank as per page-7 and serial no.7 of the statement of complainant document. The Complainant has paid the amount with pre-closure fee on 11.12.2019 itself. The OP without giving any deductions has continued to  collect the EMI from the complainant. The OP is not entitled to claim any interest on the amount from 11.12.2019. In spite of that they  have dragged the matter till 09.11.2020 only with an intention to extract more money from the complainant and they have accepted the payment stating that the complainant have to pay remaining amount  of Rs.4,040.65p even though the complainant is not liable to pay the said amount.

16. It is clear from the very gmail statements issued by the OP bank itself that the complainant has paid Rs.28,698/- on 11.12.2019 with pre-closure fee after ascertaining the same from customer care of OP SBI card division. In spite of that the OP has claimed the above amount for the only reason that the complainant has not called them and hence they have not adjusted the amount paid by the complainant with pre-closure fee. Instead of adjusting the amount for pre-closure the OP have harassed the complainant even though he has contacted the customer care and paid the amount with pre-closure fee. The OP have claimed the excess amount of Rs.4,040.65p even though the complainant is not liable to pay the amount. In addition to this the OP without giving proper instructions to their officials have harassed the complainant and his wife by making several telephone calls day in and day out for more than year. Under these circumstances, the complainant has clearly established the deficiency of service and harassment and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the complainant is entitled for relief claimed in this complaint. Hence, we answer point no.1 & 2 in affirmative.  

17. Point no.3:-.  In view of the above discussions, the complaint is liable to be allowed and complainant is entitled for an order to direct the OP to stop making payment reminder calls and further direction to withdraw their claim on balance amount to be paid by the complainant and further directing the OP to stop making telephone calls day in and day out  to the complainant and his wife. The complainant is also entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- for harassment and causing mental agony and  complainant is also entitled for litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following 

O R D E R

1. The complaint is allowed.
2. The OP is directed to  stop making payment reminder calls and further direction to withdraw their claim on balance amount to be paid by the complainant and further directing the OP to stop making telephone calls day in and day out  to the complainant and his wife and further directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.
3. Furnish the copy of this order to both the parties, and return the spare pleadings and documents to the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Commission on this 28^th  day of December, 2022)

Documents produced by the Complainant-P.W.1 are as follows:

Documents produced by the representative of opposite party – R.W.1 :  

*SKA