DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

===========

Pardeep Gupta, R/o #142, Near Shiv Mandir, Sec.9, Panchkula.

                   ---Complainant

Vs

[1]     Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.137-138, Sec.9-C, Chandigarh – 160017, through its Manager.

[2]     Standard Chartered Bank, Cards Service Centre, 3^rd Floor, Express Building, 9-10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi -110 002, through its Manager.

---- Opposite Parties

BEFORE:         SH. LAKSHMAN SHARMA                              PRESIDENT

MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                                 MEMBER

                        SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU                      MEMBER

Argued By:             Sh. V.B. Aggarwal, Counsel for Complainant.

None for Opposite Parties.

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the Complainant, who was holding a credit card No.4129037083633602, had issued two issues, bearing No.848183 dated 17.3.2005 and 848184 dated 17.4.2005, amounting to Rs.5334/- each, in favour of Opposite Parties, as full & final payment towards the said credit card (Details at Annexure C-1 & C-2). Out of these cheques, Cheque bearing No.848184 was inadvertently dishonoured. It is alleged that as against the payment of Rs.5334/-, the Opposite Parties had wrongly claimed Rs.39,701.77/- from the Complainant, on 7.9.2009, which amount was paid by the Complainant, on the very same day, under the impression that the said amount might be due towards him (copies of deposit slip & payment coupon are at Annexure C-4 &    C-5). However, later on realizing that the Opposite Parties had wrongly charged the aforesaid amount, from the Complainant, towards the dishonoured cheque bearing No.848184, dated 17.04.2005, amounting to Rs.5334, he made repeated requests, to the Opposite Parties, to refund the excess amount, along with interest, but to no avail. Eventually, the Complainant served a legal notice dated 28.4.2011, upon the Opposite Parties (Annexure C-6), which was duly replied, vide letter dated 19.5.2011 (Annexure C-9), wherein it was stated that settlement of account in the sum of Rs.39,701/- had been offered to the Complainant in Sept.2009. In response to the said reply, the Complainant, vide letter dated 30.5.2011 (Annexure C-10), demanded a copy of the statement of accounts from the Opposite Parties, but there was no reply from the side of Opposite Parties. Alleging that the demand of Rs.39,701/- by the Opposite Parties was not genuine and the said amount was not due towards the Complainant, the present complaint has been filed by the Complainant.

                   The complaint of the Complainant is not verified, but is duly supported by a detailed affidavit of Complainant.

2.                Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

3.                Opposite Parties, in their joint reply have contested the claim of the Complainant by raising preliminary objections to the effect that the answering Opposite Parties had provided sufficient information and notice to the Complainant through monthly statements about his overdue outstanding, but the Complainant had defaulted in making the re-payments in his credit card account and admittedly the payments made by the Complainant got bounced as such there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the answering Opposite Parties.

                   On merits, the Opposite Parties have repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. It is admitted that Complainant was issued a Visa Classic Card in Aug. 2003. It is denied that answering Opposite Parties had offered full & final settlement to the Complainant in the year 2005 in two installments of Rs.5334/- each. It is pleaded that the Complainant utilized the aforesaid credit card, as per his requirements, but failed to make the payments against his usage. As the Complainant was not making the payments, in his credit card account, in time, therefore, the answering Opposite Parties was imposing late fee and interest upon the balance/ outstanding amount in the credit card account of the Complainant. Answering Opposite Parties claim that as per the statement dated 14.11.2004 there was an outstanding of Rs.17,980.91/- in the credit card account of the Complainant reflecting previous balance of Rs.16,858.86/- and as per the statement dated 14.12.2004 there was an outstanding balance of Rs.19,457.68/- and the said statement is showing the bouncing of cheque No. 473484 of Rs.5334/- therefore the Opposite Parties imposed return cheque fee along with late payment charges and interest. Further as per the statement for the month of Jan.2005, there was an outstanding of Rs.14,697.51/- in the credit card account of the Complainant. As per the said statement the Complainant had made the payment of Rs.5334/- in his credit card account and after the said payment, Complainant had made the payment of Rs.5334/- each in the month of Mar. 2005 and April, 2005 and the credit for the same is reflecting in May, 2005 and June, 2005 statements. As per the statement dated 14.5.2005, there was an outstanding of Rs.6390.51/- in the credit card account of the Complainant, however, after the said payments Complainant had only made the payment of Rs.39,701/- in the month of Sept. 2009 in his credit card account, therefore, the answering Opposite Parties imposed financial charges in the card account of the Complainant from April, 2005 till September, 2009, as per the terms and conditions of credit card. It is denied that the Opposite Parties have offered the Complainant to settle his account in two installments of Rs.5334/- each. (Copies of the statements w.e.f. Feb. 2004 to Nov. 2005 are at Annexure R-1 to R-21).  While admitting the issuance of settlement letter to the Complainant, in Sept., 2009, the answering Opposite Parties claim that they were not in receipt of any payment from the Complainant towards his card account post April, 2005 and hence, the financial charges were billed, as per the terms & conditions, and the outstanding accumulated to Rs.39,701/-, which the Complainant was liable to pay, and had paid the same after understanding the same in the month of Sept. 2009 with his free consent. It is denied that the Opposite Parties had to refund any amount to the Complainant on account of charging excess amount as the Complainant had made the payment as per the settlement arrived between the answering Opposite Parties and the Complainant. Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, the answering Opposite Parties pray for the dismissal of the complaint.  

4.                Since none appeared for the Opposite Parties on 21.12.2012, therefore, we proceed to dispose of this complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) even in the absence of the Opposite Parties.

5.                Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Parties, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have come to the following conclusions.

6.                The present complaint of the Complainant is borne out of his grievance towards the Opposite Parties for the reason that all his outstandings towards his credit card account had been paid in the year 2005, itself, and nothing was due towards him after that. Complainant having annexed Annexure C-1 and C-2, wherein he has made two payments of Rs.5334/- each and even a note is found appended in the end of Annexure C-2, wherein it is mentioned that payment is full and final, if the cheque is clear, as the Complainant had made these two payments vide Cheques of Bharat Overseas Bank. The Complainant felt aggrieved when he again received a notice in the year 2009 (Annexure C-3), vide which an amount of Rs.39,701/-  was demanded, which he paid on the same very day, in cash, with Opposite Party No.1. The Complainant claims that he had registered his objections to this illegal demand by the Opposite Parties, but the Opposite Parties on its part claims that there was some more amount due towards him, which they had waived off, after having received the amount of Rs.39,701/-. The Opposite Parties have attracted our attention to Annexure C-5, wherein an amount of Rs.1723/- is found mentioned and according to them, this amount they had waived off, after receiving the aforesaid amount.                     

7.                The Complainant on his part before filing the present complaint has served a legal notice dated 28.4.2011, raising his objections to the realization of Rs.39701/- by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties while replying to this legal notice had reiterated that the previous payments in the year 2005 were not full and final and as these receipts do not belong to them, and rather belonged to the collection agent, hence, the comment about full and final settlement given by their collection agent, is not binding upon them. The Opposite Parties claim that in case of full and final settlements there is a set procedure followed by the bank and in the absence of any such knowledge to them is of no consequence, and the amount realized by them, in the year 2009, was very much outstanding towards the Complainant.  Hence, the claim of the Complainant about its refund was ignored.            

8.                We have minutely perused the documents tendered by the Opposite Parties from Annexure R-1 to R-21, which are the statement of accounts of the credit card of the Complainant beginning 15.1.2004 to 14.11.2005, wherein, in the opening balance, vide Annexure R-1, the statement shows Rs.853/- as credit shown under the heading of previous balance. However, in Annexure R-21, the closing balance as on 14.11.2005 is shown to be Rs.10,493/- and that too when the Complainant had already made two payments of Rs.5,334/- each totaling to Rs.10,668/- on 14.1.2005 and 14.3.2005 respectively. The Opposite Parties while tendering these credit card account statements does not mention any where that these were being regularly supplied to the Complainant to make him aware of his outstandings. It would be out of place to mention here that in the normal banking parlance, the banker is supposed to provide one free annual account statements to its customers, to make them aware about the status of their account.  The act of the Opposite Parties in not intimating the Complainant about the status of account regularly amounts to deficiency in service.              

9.                Interestingly, while perusing Annexure R-1 and R-3 respectively, it is noticed that during the entire two years’ period, the Complainant had availed the credit card facility only on 24.2.2004 while purchasing some goods for the amount of Rs.717/- only; whereas, after the date 13.03.2004, there is a sudden increase of Rs.6,000/- before 7.5.2004, when the outstanding amount became Rs.14,135/- from Rs.8,667/-. The Opposite Parties have failed to bring on record any detail as to how this amount has increased to an extent of Rs.6,000/-, within a span of two months, and if, the complaint had made any purchased against this amount, the same is not found mentioned in these statements. This act of the Opposite Parties of claiming an unexplained amount is an unfair trade practice on its part which amounts to deficiency in service too.                                  

10.              It is noticed that during the entire period from 2005 to 2009, i.e. after receiving Rs.10,668/-, till demanding Rs.39,701/- the Opposite Parties silently kept on adding nearly Rs.800/- per month to the credit card of the Complainant, without letting him known, as to what was happening to him, at his back. Such an act of the Opposite Parties cannot in any manner deserves to be tolerated, as they have multiplied the liabilities of the Complainant by stealth which is an outright unfair trade practice on their part, as well as gross deficiency in service on account of which the Complainant has suffered harassment.

11.              In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are found deficient in giving proper service to the complainant. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant deserves to succeed against the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2, and the same is Allowed. The Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 are, jointly and severally, directed, to:-

[a]    To refund the excess amount of Rs.30,000/- illegally received from the Complainant;                                        

[b]    To pay Rs.15,000/-on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service and causing mental and physical harassment to the Complainant; 

[C]    To pay Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation;

12.              The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties No.1 & 2; thereafter, they shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount mentioned in sub-para [a] & [b] of para 11 above, apart from cost of litigation of Rs.10,000/-, from the date of institution of this complaint, till it is paid.  

13.              Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

10^th January, 2013.                                                                                   Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

(MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

 (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 (Complaint No. 408 of 2011)

Date of Order: 11.01.2013

DISSENTING  ORDER

1]                     I have read the order written by Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member, duly signed in agreement by learned President Sh. Lakshman Sharma. I have also perused the filed. However, I cannot bring myself to sign in agreement. Hence, this dissenting order.

2]                     The Complainant has relied on Annexures C-1 and C-2 to prove his case of full and final settlement to the Opposite Parties. A look at Annexure C-2 seems to show that the receipt has been pasted on a piece of paper and the wording:-                     

“All payment is full and final if the cheque is clear”

has been written under the receipt afterwards; thereafter, photocopy has been taken.  At the time of arguments, this doubt was pointed out to the learned counsel for the Complainant and he was asked to bring the original on record on 05.12.2012.

3]                     The learned counsel for the Complainant made the following statement on 21.12.2012:-

“The original of Annexure C-1 & C-2 are not traceable. So, the Complainant is unable to produce the same on record.”

4]                     The case was thereafter reserved for order.  Now, after the learned counsel for the Complainant has made the aforesaid statement, and these are the only documents on which he is relying to prove his case of no dues payable to the Opposite Parties, I do not understand how this complaint can be allowed? The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the Complainant about full and final payment, though the receipt of the amounts, as per Annexure C-1 and C-2, have not been denied.

5]                     In the given doubtful situation, to my mind, the complaint cannot be allowed. If the Complainant does not even have the original documents on which he is relying, the complaint only deserves dismissal. The Complainant is accordingly, dismissed, with no order as to costs.

6]                     However, the Opposite Parties are free to recover the amount due from the Complainant, as per law.

Sd/-

[Madhu Mutneja]

Member

“Dutt”