Complaint filed on: 03-06-2012 Disposed on: 31-07-2013 BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 C.C.No.1137/2012 DATED THIS THE 31st JULY 2013 PRESENT SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER Complainant: - Abhaya Kumar Phadiwal, No.54, Ashirwad, 7th Cross, Ramakrishna Layout, Malagala Main Road, Nagarbhavi 2nd Stage, Bangalore-91 V/s Opposite party: - Standard Charted Bank, 3rd Floor, East Wing, Raheja Towers, No.26 M.G.Road, Bangalore And also at No.112, Koramangala 5th block, Koramangala Bangalore-95 ORDER SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OP, praying to pass an order, directing the OP to intervene in the matter and give justice to him, in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under. During the year 2007 in the month of August, the complainant had requested the OP for a personal loan of Rs.75,000=00. But the OP instead of sanctioning the loan, advised the complainant to accept their smart credit facility which is like a OD account. Since the amount was needed by the complainant urgently he agreed to the proposal of the OP and the OP sanctioned a credit limit up to Rs.83,000=00 under smart credit/OD account tno.4550520826. The complainant has been operating this account from the month of August 2007. During the year 2010 from the month of August, the OP withdrew this facility of Smart credit and advised the complainant to repay the amount due to them. Accordingly the complainant has been repaying the amount without fail and he has monthly installment amount was approximately Rs.3000=00. During the month of August 2010 approximate amount due to OP was Rs.74,990.09 and from then onwards, the complainant did not stop the payment till 2012 April. During this period the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.55,000=00 approximately. But the complainant pained to bring to the kind attention of this forum that the amount accounted towards the principle and during this period is only up to Rs.17,000=00 approximately and now also the OP is telling the complainant that he is due more than Rs.57,000=00. In this connection, the complainant has requested the OP several times for the upto date statement but in vain. The complainant did not know how the calculation was done and on what basis they were telling the outstanding amount. The complainant did not know even the rate of interest that is being charged as they had not given smart credit sanctioning letter. Therefore on 29-5-2012, the complainant sent email to the bank informing that he is approaching consumer forum for the justice in this regard. However, on 30-5-2012 the OP sent email stating that their rate of interest was 38% and the interest is calculated on daily basis. Hence, the complainant has come up with the present complaint. 3. After service of the notice, the OP has appeared through its counsel and filed version, contending interalia as under: The complaint of complainant is bereft of merits and it is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The complainant denies the averments of the complaint para no.1 to 13. The OP bank has Foreign Bank Company and functioning as a schedule commercial bank under the provision of the Banking Regulation Act, having various branches throughout the world and interalia branch at No.26, 2nd and 3rd Floors, East wing, Raheja Towers, MG Road, Bangalore. Senthil Kumar Murugesan presently working as an Associate legal manager is duly authorized to file, verify and sign this version on behalf of the OP bank. The complainant has approached the OP bank in the month of August 2007 and submitted the duly filled application form for availing the smart credit facility and the OP bank on consideration of the application and the relevant documents, the complainant was sanctioned the smart credit over draft facility for a sum of Rs.83,000=00 vide account bearing no.4550520826 on signing the MID i.e. most important document on 18-8-2007. As per the terms and conditions of the smart credit facility sanctioned to the complainant, the complainant was required to pay month on month interest on the daily outstanding balance of the OD account and the complainant has duly signed the MID accepting the terms of payment and interest. The complainant has availed the said facility after understanding the features of the facility and has duly signed the facility documents and after lapse of five years of sanction of the facility he cannot raise up the contention that the bank persuaded him to avail the smart credit facility. It was clearly informed in the MID which is duly signed and accepted by the complainant that on sanction of the facility and post availing the facility, the complainant was given the 10 days interest free period to repay the transferred amount and that from the 11th day, the interest will be charged on the prevailing smart credit interest rate, and at this time also the complainant if he was not happy with the said facility then he could have repaid the entire amount which he has failed to and has been using the account by utilizing the funds and by repaying the minimum due amount on a monthly basis. As per the nature of the smart credit over draft account, the interest is charged on a daily basis, that apart from the above, the complainant is liable to pay a minimum due amount of 5% on the outstanding balance in the account. The complainant from the date of availing the facility is regularly utilizing the account by withdrawing the funds and also repaying the minimum due amount and the OP denies the allegations made in the complaint that he was required to pay the fixed installments. As the limit of operation of the smart credit account came to an end, the OP bank had written a letter on 16-7-2010 informing the complainant about the completion of full term of operation of OD account by 20-8-2010 and that over draft facility sanctioned will be withdrawn and to clear the complete outstanding balance reflecting in the OD account. The act of the OP bank in calling upon the complainant to pay the full outstanding balance in the OD account is due to the fact that the account facility had been terminated post review of the account. Evenafter withdrawal of the overdraft facility, the complainant had been issued the statement of accounts month on month with the details of outstanding balance and the debit interest levied in the account. Further at the bottom of the statement of accounts sent on each month from 13-11-2010 till 12-5-2012 the withdrawal of facility from 20-8-2010 was clearly mentioned and intimation to pay the full outstanding balance reflecting in the OD account, despite which the complainant has intentionally made the minimum payment according to his convenience ignoring the letters issued. On account of nonpayment of outstanding the late payment charges and interest was debited in the account wherein the interest had been calculated on the outstanding balance in the account on a daily basis and debited to the account at the end of the month. The monthly interest rate is annualized to arrive at the APR (27%). The interest rate will be communicated to the account holder at the time of each revision and will be applicable upto six months from the date of revision. Accordingly the interest for the above account had been fixed by the OP bank at 27% p.a. initially and subsequently the interest rate had been revised in the due course of the operation of the account and is currently being charged at an interest rate of 38% p.a. The present complaint is filed by the complainant on false and fictitious grounds and further there are no pleadings of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice forthcoming as a result the present complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. The present complaint is filed only with malafide intention to delay the payments which he is due and liable to pay the OP bank to discharge his OD account and hence the present complaint is liable to be dismissed. The complainant after utilizing and operating the said OD account for 3 years now, he has approached this forum and is making false allegations of his ignorance of the operation of the said OD account only with a malafide intention to cheat and restrain the OP bank from recovering the outstanding balance on the OD account, so it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost. 4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OP, the following points arise for our consideration. 1. Whether the complainant proves that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP in charging the interest as stated in the complaint? 2. If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to? 3. What order? 5. Our findings on the above points are; Point no.1: In the Negative Point no.2: In view of the negative findings on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint Point no.3: For the following order REASONS 6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced email exchange letters and copies of account statement of the complainant from 13-10-2007 to 3-9-2012, and copies of email exchange letters. On the other hand, one Senthil Kumar Murugesan, who being the Associate Legal Manager working in the OP bank has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced 27 documents with list dated 9-10-2012 which are marked as annexure-R1 to R27. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides meticulously. 7. One Abhaya Kumar Padiwala.M, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, he approached the Regional Manager of OP by name Sathya Srinivasan for a loan amount of Rs.75,000=00, since his monthly salary was credited by his employer with the OP. However, the Regional Manager directed him to loans department with telephonic recommendation. In tern the loan department of OP spoke to him over phone its willingness to give the loan under Smart Credit Scheme and with in two days time all the formalities were completed and the amount was sanctioned and he states that, he never visited the bank for availing the amount. The copy of application form goes to show that the OP has taken only his signature on the blank application form and later on they have filled in the application form. The OP for the first time started informing the complainant that the smart credit facility is nothing but over draft account when he received account statement from the bank after a continuous request by him and questioned the bank with respect to the balance payment to be made by him. It was a rude shock to him that on 30-5-2012 when the bank informed to him that the rate of interest levied on this account is 38% and it is charged on daily basis. According to his knowledge, overdraft facility is provided for the business purpose and it is really astonishing that such facility is provided to the salaried person with a moderate salary of about five lakhs per annum and that too with a balance of service of about four and half years. While providing such financial facility the OP has not demanded the credentials. Till April 2012 he has never failed in making monthly payment on a monthly average of above Rs.3,000=00 and during the two months i.e. in the month of June 2008 and November 2008 he has paid Rs.43,000=00 and Rs.12,000=00 respectively. The OP bank never bothered to send the monthly statements and also inspite of regular requests by him. Except getting signature on the blank formats, till date he has repaid an amount of approximately a sum of Rs.2,30,000=00 against the withdrawn amount of Rs.1,84,000=00, so he filed the present complaint, so order be passed as prayed in the complaint. 8. The complainant has produced copies of email correspondences made by him with OP stating that, the OP bank took his signatures in the blank format without explanation and interest is calculated at 38% p.a. on daily basis and the said interest is not at all acceptable to him. The OP has also sent email letter on 30-05-2012 stating that, the interest rate is 38% p.a. the complainant account is expired and called upon the complainant to clear the outstanding amount of Rs.60,840.28 at the earliest. The complainant has sent email dated 29-5-2012 to OP questioning the rate of interest charged and he will approach the District Consumer Forum for justice. Copies of account statement of complainant are produced and in the last statement copy dated 1-7-2011 it is shown that, the balance as on 13-8-2011 was Rs.68,716.09. The said documents produced by the complainant go to show that, the complainant has made payments from Oct.2007 to July 2011, still the balance amount of Rs.68,716.09 is shown in the account statement. The said documents of the complainant do not throw any light in respect of the entire payment of loan availed by the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has reiterated that, the OP has charged 38% interest p.a. on the daily basis. But unfortunately, no proper documentary evidence is not produced by the complainant to show that, the OP has charged 38% interest on daily basis. In the absence of vouchsafing convincing documentary evidence, it is superfluous to reiterate on the sworn testimony of the complainant that, the OP has charged 38% interest on daily basis. 9. At this stage, it is relevant to have a cursory glance at the material evidence of the OP. One Senthil Kumar Murugesan, who being the Associate Legal Manager working in the OP bank has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant has approached the OP bank in the month of August 2007 and submitted duly filled application form for availing the smart credit card facility and the OP bank on consideration of the application and relevant documents of the complainant has sanctioned the smart credit over draft facility for a sum of Rs.83,000=00 in the name of complainant. As per the terms and conditions of the smart credit facility sanctioned to the complainant, the complainant was required to pay month on month interest on a daily outstanding balance of the OD account, the complainant has duly signed the most important documents accepting the terms of payment and also rate of interest. The complainant has availed the said facility after understanding the features of the facility and has duly signed the documents and the complainant from the date of availing the facility is regularly utilizing the account by withdrawing the funds and also repaying the minimum due amount. As the limit of operation of the smart credit account came to an end, and the OP bank has written a letter on 16-7-2010 informing the complainant about the completion of full term of operation of OD account by 20-8-2010 and that over draft facility sanctioned will be withdrawn and to clear the complete outstanding balance reflecting in the OD account facility. The complainant has been issued the statement of accounts month on month with the details of outstanding balance and the debit interest levied in the account. As per the statement of account from 13-11-2010 to 12-5-2012 the withdrawal of facility was clearly mentioned and intimation to pay the full outstanding balance reflecting in the OD account, but the complainant has failed to pay the same. The complainant is currently being charged at an interest rate of 38% p.a, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The OP bank is making recovery of the balance amount from the complainant as per the banking rules, regulations and guidelines of RBI, so the complaint be dismissed. 10. Annexure-R1 and R2 are the copies of POA and application form given by the complainant for availing the smart credit facility duly signed by them. Annexue-R3 is the copy of most important documents given by the complainant dully signed. Annexure-R4 is the copy of account rules and regulations of the smart credit. Annexure-R5 is the copy of letter of OP dated 16-7-2012 addressed to the complainant stating that, from 20-8-2010 onwards the cash overdraft facility extended has been withdrawn. Annexure-R6 to R26 are the copies of statement of account for a period form 13-8-2010 to 13-7-2012 wherein the balance amount shown was of Rs.76,402.09. Annexure-R27 is true copy of statement of account from 13-11-2008 to 12-9-2009, informing the complainant with regard to the revision in the interest rate. Annexure-R28 is the copy account statement, the OP as on 12-9-2009 wherein it is stated that, an amount of Rs.68.922.32 is there as a balance. 11. The said documents of OP go to demonstrate that, the complainant has availed the smart credit facility by filing an application form and he was sanctioned Rs.83,000=00 by singing the most important document, the complainant has utilized the account by withdrawing the funds. Inspite of issuing statement of account outstanding balance and interest charged were not paid by the complainant and the complainant is liable to pay the loan amount alongwith interest to OP bank, as per the terms and conditions of the loan availed. The said oral evidence of the employee of OP stands corroborated by Annexure-R1 to R28, moreover, in the entire complaint and during the course of evidence of complainant, it is not stated with regard to deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank. The entire complaint and evidence of the complainant is ominous silent in this regard, for the reasons best know to the complainant. 12. So looking to the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant and compare the same with the material evidence of the OP, it is vivid and clear that, the oral and documentary evidence of the OP are more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of complainant. In fact, OP has acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of loan availed by the complainant, and there is no negligence or deficiency of service on the part of the OP. On the other hand, the complainant is negligent in paying the loan amount to the OP as per the terms and conditions of loan availed and still the complainant is liable to pay the loan amount alongwith interest agreed, and as such, we are of the view that, the complainant who comes to forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove this point with believable material evidence that, the OP is negligent and there is deficiency of service on the part of the OP as prayed in the complaint, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative. 13. In view of our negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost. Supply free copy of this order to both parties. (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 31st day of July 2013). MEMBER PRESIDENT |
