Order-13.
Date-22/07/2015.
Complainant Sailendra Nath Ghsoh Roy by filing this complaint has submitted that a Credit Card No. 4129047381970713 was allotted in favour of the complainant by the op Bank during the year 2005 with no yearly services charges and the card was utilized by the complainant for one year and entire dues have been paid by the complainant in time and there was no dues.
After completion of one year, complainant received a bill of Rs. 999/- towards yearly service charges for one year, though the Bank’s Representative assured the complainant that the credit card was free from any yearly service charges. On receipt of the above bill, complainant surrendered the credit card to their Kolkata Main Office with a covering letter and dropped the same to the Bank’s Drop Box designed for that purpose on 06.06.2006.
Since after that there was no whisper regarding the credit card by the Bank, but in the month of June, 2014 complainant went before the State Bank of India, Credit Hub, Kolkata for an application of a car loan, and the State Bank Authority informed that they were unable to sanction the loan in favour of complainant as his name has been enlisted in the CIBIL as defaulter due to non payment of outstanding against the credit card of Rs. 74,915/-. But the outstanding amount is false and fabricated and malafide and in fact after 06.06.2006 or prior to that complainant never used the credit card because it was already surrendered on 06.06.2006.
But after getting those information, complainant personally sent several letters to the bank under Speed Post for redressal and no reply was given by the Bank and finally complainant sent a letter to the Ombudsman, RBI Kolkata for taking action against the Bank. Subsequently on 20.02.2015 complainant received a letter from the Bank that they had reversed the outstanding amount and deleted complainant’s name from CIBIL after getting letter from the Ombudsman, RBI, Kolkata and in the above circumstances, complainant for negligent and deficient manner of service has filed this complaint for redressal.
On the other hand op by filing written statement submitted that the complaint is barred by limitation. Further submitted that complainant did not pay the Renewal Fee of his credit card being No. 4129047381970713 despite being aware of the same and did not submit any evidence in support of his purported claim that he had surrendered the said credit card with a covering letter and dropped the same to the Bank’s Drop Box and it is a fact that the card was never surrendered and the complainant never followed up with the Bank regarding his alleged surrender.
Complainant being a retired Bank Manager, knew very well that his non payment of a legitimate due would definitely lead to a specific remark in the CIBIL Report and despite such awareness, as on 06.06.2006 when the complainant admittedly did not pay the bank’s dues and the actual cause of action for the adverse CIBIL Report arose and since then complainant did not take any action against the Bank to redress his grievances as per provision of the C.P. Act. So, this case filed in 2015, i.e. after 9 years of the origin of cause of action. Complainant did not report this matter to the op Bank even after 06.06.2006, though monthly statement was sent month by month.
It is further submitted that complainant suppressed the material fact that he had also taken a loan of Rs, 70,000/- against the said credit card on 24.08.2005 and ultimately on 21.08.2006 the op Bank transferred the unpaid outstanding of Rs. 4,519.93 paisa to written-off Base as per internal decision. But op Bank did not make any further follow up with complainant for recovery of the said amount and as per norms, op Bank rightfully updated the CIBIL record for non payment of dues by the complainant. But however afterwards when the matter was raised by the complainant, as a service gesture, op Bank also modified the CIBIL Report as NIL Due and this was also duly informed to the complainant vide a letter dated 06.02.2015.
So, the entire complainant’s grievance has been fully reversed prior to filing of this case that is on 06.02.2015. So, there is no ground to file this complaint.
Decision with reasons
On careful study of the complaint and also the written version and further relying upon the argument as advanced by the complainant himself and the Ld. Lawyer for the op and further relying upon the documents, it is clear that no document was sent by the op to the complainant intimating that complainant did not get the monthly statement of account which was sent to the complainant in each month since 06.06.2006. But from the statement of account dated 20.01.2006, it is found that balance was only Rs. 1,745/-. But that balance was due charging several charges and in fact after that on 20.02.2006 complainant never used the said credit card.
Further from statement of account dated 20.02.2006, it is found that balance was Rs. 825/- whereas in the month of April 2006, balance became increased up to Rs. 2,285/-. But all those papers were never sent to the complainant, probably they are aware of the fact that same are not sent to the complainant when complainant already surrendered the same for which bank did not send the monthly statement and also did not inform any ultimatum letter asking the complainant to appear and considering all the above circumstances, we have gathered that complainant rightly stated that he surrendered the said credit card on 06.06.2006.
Anyhow from 06.06.2006 till submission of letter to the Ombudsman, op Bank was completely silent and they did not submit all those papers and invariably in that case complainant ought to have met with the op to settle the matter. But as because complainant did not receive any reply or document from the op, he was quite satisfied that the entire matter was cancelled and the account was disclosed.
Another factor is that op did not send any document to the complainant since 06.06.2006 till 31.01.2015 because from the op’s letter dated 13.01.2015, it is clear that op reported the complainant that the matter has been arranged and outstanding dues in the complainant’s own account is reversed and further submitted that they have updated properly in the record of CIBIL and same would be done within 45 days as there is no dues and from the CIBIL his name shall be removed and relying upon that it is clear that op realized that they have their fault for which on receipt of the letter of the Ombudsman, op in details reported on 06.02.2015 in this regard.
Then it is clear that ops have their some fault. But fact remains that ultimately op closed the entire credit card account and they have showed that there is no outstanding and they reported the CIBIL that there is no outstanding and in this regard op has not produced any documents to show that in the CIBIL his name has been deleted as defaulter though op has tried to show that they had already reported to the CIBIL Authority and it would be clear within short time.
Anyhow after considering the entire matter, we have gathered practically for negligent manner of service of the ops and their staff that this matter was pending since 06.06.2006 and from 06.06.2006 to 20.02.2015 op was silent about the surrender of the said credit card and about outstanding, ops’ allegation is that he took loan of Rs. 70,000/- that is not proved but whatever it may be, actually the balance was of Rs. 825/- in the month of Feburary-2006. But that balance should not be a balance in view of the fact that complainant took credit card No. 4129047381970713 having no yearly service charges. But op has submitted that was subsequently converted as service chargeable. But in this regard op has failed to produce any document to show that complainant accepted such proposal for changing the status of credit card. Fact remains that in all cases changes are made by the op illegally and without any information and in the present case op has also failed to produce any document to prove that account was converted as yearly services chargeable. So, no doubt any charge for use of the said credit card from the date of 06.06.2006 is completely illegal and in fact any charge as assessed by the op month to month in their hidden ledger is completely against the principal of law and in fact as per bank rules, bank cannot convert anything from one scheme to another scheme without the consent of the customer and RBI already in their guidelines ordered all the banks to follow the rules before changing any card to another scheme without the consent of the customer and in this case no doubt op has failed to prove that fact and RBI has already directed to bank to act fairly and reasonably for all their dealings with their customers and to ensure that all their dealings based on ethical and transparency and to commit yearly free charge when things go wrong against the customer.
Most interesting things is that complainant as customer wrote many letters to the op Bank but Op Bank did not respond. But as per RBI guideline, banks are required to set up redressal grievance machinery to handle the record with regard to deficiency in service and banks are also liable to respond against any complaint after acknowledging the customers grievance and final response must be given within 6 weeks. But in this case that had not been done. But everything has been done after receipt of the Ombudsman Letter by the bank.
So, it is clear that it is one kind of deficiency of service in view of the guideline of the RBI. Another factor is that complainant invariably dropped the same in the Drop Box and it was in the custody of the bank but bank did not dispose of it, but everything was disposed of finally by stating entire outstanding of credit card account is closed and by informing CIBIL, there is no outstanding. If actually ops are diligent in discharging their duties as per RBI guideline in respect of the Ex Manager, op ought to have respond but that was not done. It is no doubt deceitful manner of service and at the same time negligent manner of service for which we are convinced to hold that no doubt complainant did not get proper service from the bank since 06.06.2006 for which as an Ex-Branch Manager of SBI, he has suffered much.
In the light of the above observation and findings, we are convinced to hold that invariably complainant is entitled to get litigation cost and some compensation only for the negative attitude as shown by the op Bank to an Ex-Branch Manager of SBI.
Accordingly the complaint succeeds.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs. 2,000/- against the op/Bank.
Op Bank is hereby directed to pay compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for harassing the complainant in such a manner till entire receipt of the letter from the Ombudsman and no doubt it was a negligent and deficient manner of service. So, op is directed to pay litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- + Rs. 3,000/- as compensation that is total Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Op Bank shall have to send a letter to the complainant informing that his name has been deleted from the CIBIL within one month from the date of this order, failing which op Bank shall have to pay penal damages at the rate Rs. 200/- per day till full satisfaction of the entire decretal amount.
Even if complainant is found reluctant to comply the order, in that case, penal action shall be started against them u/s 25/27 of C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine shall be imposed upon the op.
