SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

Brief facts of the case are that the OP-1 issued a Credit Card (VISA PLATINUM)  bearing No. 4726 4268 9756 7618 to the complainant and since 22.02.2015 complainant has been using the said card. The complainant found discrepancy on the monthly statements supplied by the OPs and such discrepancy was informed to the Customer Care Department & Nodal Officer of the OPs through e-mail. Complainant had been to the office of the OP-1 and asked about the discrepancy but OP-1 refused to explain any reason. The OPs were reluctant to solve the issue for which the complainant compelled to stop payments since 22.10.2016. The claim of the OPs is erroneous and in violation of the terms of the agreement. The complainant tried to settle the issue through Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal but the representative of the OPs did not  appear before the authority. Finding no

other alternative, the complainant approached the Forum by way of consumer complaint.

The OPs have resisted the complaint on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as envisaged in Section 2 (c) of the C.P .Act. 1986 and in terms of  agreement  there is an arbitration clause which stipulates that in all events of dispute / difference between the card holder and SBI Cards, the same shall be resolved by appointment of a sole arbitrator. As such, the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the consumer complaint. The specific case of the OPs is that there is no discrepancy in the statements and the complainant had intentionally stopped making payment without any cogent reason. The complainant has miserably failed to point out any single fault against the OPs.  Complainant is a habitual defaulter and to avoid his liabilities filed the instant complaint by stating misleading facts. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 In the light of the pleadings of the parties the following points necessarily came up for determination:-

1)         Is the Consumer complaint maintainable in its present  form and in law ?

2)         Has the DCDRF territorial jurisdiction to try the consumer complaint?

3)         Are the OPs deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant?

4)         Is the complainant entitled to get any relief or reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons

Points No.-1 to 4.

All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity in discussion.

            To prove their case both parties have adduced evidence on affidavit. They have also filed questionnaire and replies vis-à-vis relevant documents in support of their respective cases. We have also examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

There is no dispute that the O.P. issued a Credit card (VISA Platinum) bearing No.4726 4268 9756 7618 to the complainant and the complainant has been using the said Card since 22/02/2015. The main grievance of the complainant is that there is a discrepancy on the monthly statement supplied by the O.P.-1 and such discrepancy was informed to the O.Ps. through e-mail but the O.Ps. were reluctant to solve the issue for which the complainant compelled to stop payments since 22/10/2016 as the claim of the O.P.-1 is erroneous and in violation of the terms and conditions  of the agreement.    

The O.Ps. denied the grievance of the complainant and state that the complainant has intentionally stopped making payment without any cogent reason. Complainant is a habitual defaulter and to avoid his liabilities has filed the instant consumer complaint by stating misleading facts.

Complainant had withdrawn Rs.12,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on 08/08/2015 and 09/08/2015  for which SBI ATM cash fees were levied twice which accumulated to Rs.23,061.07 on the bill cycle dated 22/08/2015. Out of Rs.23,061.07.  Complainant had paid Rs.1200/- for which late payment fees of Rs.750/- was levied. As a result, outstanding accumulated to Rs.23,074.51 as on 22/09/2015. Again, on 07/10/2015 complainant had withdrawn Rs.9,000/-  at Park Street and  Rs.4500/- on 09/10/2015 for which ATM Cash fees and finance charges were levied. The outstanding accumulated to Rs.28,774.53 as on 22/10/2015.

Complainant disputed regarding withdrawal of Rs.9000/- at Park Street but admitted the withdrawal of Rs.1900/- on 27/10/2015 at Park Street. In terms of the Card Holder Agreement “Unless the interest-free period applies as set out below, SBICPSL will levy a finance charge on any new purchase (and any related debited charge) from the day on which it is debited to the Card Account. The interest-free period for a purchase (and any related debited charge) in any statement period will apply if the outstanding balance on the Card Account for the previous statement period (if any) is paid in full by its due date. If the outstanding balance on the card account is not paid in full by its due date, a finance charge will be levied on any new purchase (and any related debited charge) from the day on which the purchase (and any related debited charge) is debited to the card account and on the outstanding account balance on the card account from the first day of the last statement period. SBICPSL will charge interest on a cash advance from the day on which the cash advance is debited to the card account”. Statement dated 22/008/2016 clearly evident that no charge under the head B.T. on EMI has been charged. The complainant has failed to point out the deficiency as alleged in the consumer complaint. Hence, by making non-payment, late payment fees levied and accumulated to principal amount. As per terms and conditions of the card holder agreement the O.Ps. are neither deficient in rendering service nor indulged in unfair trade practice. In a decision reported in 2015 (2) CPR 687 (NC) HDFC Bank & Ors. Vs. Kesto Naskar it has been held that credit card holder is bound to clear outstanding dues against his credit card account.

In this context, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has prayed for declaration to the effect that the amount claimed by the O.Ps. with regard to credit card No.4726 4268 9756 7618  is erroneous and nothing is payable by the complainant  and also remove the name of the complainant from Credit  Burro and confirm the same through official letter. Consumer Forum has no power to make any declaration as prayed for. Civil Court have vested such power.

The next question is regarding determination the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. As observed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in First Appeal 425 of 2010 it would defeat the very purpose and object of the Consumer Protection Act, if the provisions of an Agreement between a consumer and a service provider alone were to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. The submission of the O.Ps. that this Forum have no jurisdiction to try this consumer complaint because of an agreement does help the O.Ps.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the consumer complaint is not maintainable in its present form and in law. The complainant has failed to prove  any deficiency in service against the O.Ps. Accordingly all the points under determination are decided.

The merit of the case fails.

Hence,

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps. No cost is imposed upon any of the parties.

            Complainant may approach his redressal before the appropriate Civil Court.