| Final Order / Judgement | ORDER Dated: 09-02-2017 Mohd. Anwar Alam, President - The complainant filed this complaint on 07.07.2008 and alleged that complainant is a subscriber of S.B. Card no. 4129058682682360 and 5543748088099202 and OP had also issued a supplementary card no. 5543748287032749 in the name of complainant’s wife. Complainant further alleged that OP had not sent the statement of account/ bills to the complainant in respect of the said cards w.e.f. October 2007 though he has been regularly making the payments. Vide letters dated 8.1.2008 and 02.02.2008 complainant requested OP to look into his grievance and to issue statement of accounts/ bills. Vide letters dated 21.01.2008 and 26.02.2008 OP replied to the said letters along with bill for the month of Nov. 2007 to Feb. 2008 thereby showing the outstanding against the complainant. Complainant got shocked and surprised as OP had cancelled the cards of the complainant without any justification/ reasonable reasons and without any prior intimation/ notice to him. Complainant also came to know from the bills/ statement of accounts sent by OP along with reply dated 26.02.2008 that the name of the complainant has been included in the list of defaulters. In reply to the legal notice dated 21.04.2008, OP sent a false reply dated 13.05.2008 without any justification and reasons. Hence complainant prayed to direct OP to withdraw the exorbitant interest, overdue limit and over due late payment and to remove his name from the list of defaulters immediately. Complainant further prayed to direct OP to pay Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain , agony and harassment and Rs. 21,000/- as litigation cost.
- In reply, OP admitted that S. B. Cards no. 4126058682682360 and 5543748088099202 were issued in his favour and supplementary card no. 5543748287032749 was issued in the name of his wife and since the complainant is a multiple card holder of OP bank ,whenever a payment towards outstanding is to be made then the amount to be apportioned for the outstanding of every card has to be mentioned separately at the back of the cheque and further if no payment is to be made for a specific account, then “NIL” payment should be mentioned. OP submitted that the letter dated 02.02.2008 of the complainant was duly replied vide letter dated 26.02.2008 wherein OP as a service gesture had given reversal of the financial charges in the account of the complainant which were debited in the credit cards bearing no. 4129058682682360 and 5543748287032749 and apart from the regular procedure OP has made separate arrangements to deliver the statement of account to him and another copy of the statement were being posted through courier and as on date the complainant has an outstanding balance of Rs. 101595.18 /- towards VISA and Rs. 10103.73/- towards Master Classic Supplementary card. OP denied rest of the allegations made in the complaint and prayed that the complaint be dismissed with heavy cost.
- The complainant has filed rejoinder to the written statement and denied the objections made by OP and supported his complaint.
- In support of his complaint complainant filed his own affidavit along with documents i.e. letter dated 8/01/2008( Ex. CW-1/1) , postal receipt (Ex. CW1/2), photocopies of cheque dated 06-11-2007, 07-12-2007and 07-01-2008 (Ex. CW-1/3 to Ex. CW-1/5), letter dated 21-01-2008 by OP bank (Ex. CW-1/6) , copy of letter dated 02-02-2008 ( Ex. CW-1/7), copy of letter dated 26.02.2008 (Ex. CW-1/8) , copy of statement dated 20.12.2007 and 20.11.2007 (Ex. CW-1/9 and Ex. CW-1/10) , copy of statement dated 20.01.2008 (Ex. CW-1/11) , copy of statement dated 20.02.2008 (Ex. CW-1/12) , copy of statement dated 20.08.2002 (Ex. CW-1/13), copy of statement dated 20.12.2002 (Ex. CW-1/14) , copy of statement dated 20.04.2006 (Ex. CW-1/15) , copy of legal notice dated 21.04.2008 (Ex. CW-16), copy of postal receipts with AD card and UPC (Ex. CW-1/17 and Ex. CW-1/18) , copy of reply dated 13.05.2008 (Ex. CW-1/19) , copy of receipt of payment of Rs. 3000/- dated 19.07.2008 (Ex. CW-20).
- In support of reply OP filed affidavit of Mr. Anand Prakash (Constituted attorney) along with documents i.e. copy of card members rules & regulations (Ex. OP-1/A), copy of total statement of account (Ex. OP-1/B) (colly), copy of back of statement of account (Ex. OP-1/C)
- Both the parties filed their written arguments.
- We have heard the arguments and considered the evidence led by the parties and their written and oral arguments. In this case points to be considered are as under:-
- Whether complainant is a consumer?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs?
- Relief?
8. In reply, OP admitted that OP issued S. B. Cards no. 4126058682682360 and 5543748088099202 in favour of the complainant and supplementary card no. 5543748287032749 in the name of his wife hence complainant is a consumer. 9. OP vide letter dated 26.02.2008 (Ex. CW1/8) reversed the following amount mentioned as under:- ACCOUNT NUMBER | DESCRIPTION | AMOUNT (RS) | DATE | 4129058682682360 | LATE CHARGES | 600.00 | 13/02/2008 | 5543748287032749 | INTEREST | 242.81 | 20/12/2007 | 5543748287032749 | INTEREST | 221.60 | 19/01/2017 | 5543748287032749 | INTEREST | 224.99 | 20/02/2008 | 5543748287032749 | LATE CHARGES | 350.00 | 13/02/2008 |
And these reversals were also reflected in the statement dated 20.03.2008 issued by the OP wherein the previous balance was Rs. 75,416.26 and it was Rs.78,177.38 after reversal of the payment. It is pertinent to mention herein that these reversals were made prior to the filing of this complaint which is also proved by reversal letter dated 26.02.2008(Ex. CW1/8) filed by the complainant with the complaint. Hence the only dispute of the complainant remains regarding restoration of the cards and to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters immediately. As CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau of India Limited) is a competent authority to make the same which is not a party in this complaint hence this prayer of the complainant is not maintainable in the absence of CIBIL as a party. 10. Looking to the above facts and circumstances in this case and looking to the nature of the dispute which is related with the banking transaction of the credit card which is governed by the terms and conditions agreed between of the parties we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP and the complaint is dismissed accordingly. 11. Both the parties will bear their own cost. - Copy of the order made available to the parties free of cost as per law.
File be consigned to record room. Announced on……… | |
