DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.29/2007
Mr. Siddhanath Singh
S/o Mr. Nankoo Singh
R/o Duplex No.1, Swarnim Vihar
Sector-18, Noida
District Gautam Budh Nagar ….Complainant
Versus
1. Standard Chartered Bank
17, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
2. The Chairman
Standard Chartered Bank
17, Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001
3. The Regional Manager
Northern India
Standard Chartered Bank
Bahadurshah Zafar Marg,
Indian Express Building
ITO, New Delhi-11000 ……Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 4.10.096/09.01.07 Date of Order : 25.02.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant (who is M.Com. ICWAI (Inter) and LLB and had 17 years of practice in the field of export-import, direct and indirect taxation on the date of filing of complaint and who is management consultant) was possessing credit card of OPs, purchased goods from a shop in Noida for Rs.10,000/- by swapping his Credit Card during March 2010. Within two days, the shopkeeper called him to return the goods purchased by him owing to the reason that his membership had been cancelled and asked by OPs to take the goods back and issue credit note. Accordingly, the Complainant returned the goods to the shopkeeper and took a Credit Note from the shopkeeper (Annexure-II). The Complainant informed to the OPs about the said transaction and deposited the credit note with the OPs and the amount was credited back to his account; that suddenly violating all norms of prudent Banking, violating banking Norms and by indulging in unfair trade practice, the OP debited the amount of Rs. 10,000 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) vide the same reference number of March 2000 in the Complainant’s Account (Annexure-4). The debit of Rs.10,000/- was reflected in the statement of account dated 28.04.2000 (Copy annexure-1). In the statement of account dated 28.07.2000, the said amount of Rs.10,000/- had again been debited thereby bringing the new balance to Rs.29,686.92 (Copy annexure-4). Thereafter, the impasse remained unresolved between the Complainant and the OPs and as per the statement of account attached by the Complainant as annexure-6 (Colly.) [for various months from 28.08.2000 to 27.02.2002, the total amount due against the Complainant was Rs.43,489.04 as on 27.02.2002]. Complainant raised the issue of double debit of Rs. 10,000/- by his letter dated 30.6.2001. OPs issued a legal notice dated 6.11.2001 threatening him to take criminal and civil action and attach his property which notice was later on denied by the counsel for OPs. The OPs sent another notice through their recovery agent threatening the complainant to book him u/s 420 IPC. Complainant hired two Advocates and went to East Patel Office where alleged SHO or the person threatening him met The complainant suffered a loss of Rs. 25,000/- in the form of three working days productivity, petrol expenses and lawyer charges. However, notice was replied by the complainant through his Advocate who charged Rs. 11,000/- as fees. In Oct. 2005, OPs issued letter offering to settle the matter at Rs. 13,000/- which was replied by the complainant with documentary evidence. The Complainant applied for a loan from one of a bank for purchasing a house but was not getting the loan sanctioned for the reason that the OPs had put him in the defaulter’s list issued by association of Bankers. In order to procure loan from the bank, the Complainant contacted the OPs at their Indian Express Building, New Delhi where the matter was settled for Rs.20,000/-. This settlement resulted in issue of no dues by the OPs vide Annexure-12. The Complainant has further alleged that Rs.15,000/- was paid to three executives of OPs towards pocket expenses on their demand. However, despite settlement of the dispute, the OPs did not remove the name of the Complainant from defaulter’s list but still the HBSC Bank issued loan Rs. 36 Lacs to him. This transaction is documented vide receipt dated 21.11.05 (for the purpose of identification we mark the document as Annexure 12). Three executives of OPs offered to remove his name from the defaulters that provided the OPs are paid Rs. 20,000/- and they are paid Rs. 5,000/- each for meeting their out of pocket expenses. The executives gave receipt for Rs. 20,000/- to him but no receipt was issued for Rs. 15,000/-. This conduct of OPs provoked the Complainant to lodge a complaint against the OPs with this Forum with the following prayers:-
- Direct the OPs to refund a sum of Rs.35,000/- as illegally charged under the threat and pressure.
- Direct the OPs to remove the name of the Complainant from the defaulter list of the Satyam.
- Direct the OPs to reimburse the cost, expenditure and losses to the tune of Rs.1,000/- per man-day for a minimum of 35 man days, and a expenses of Rs.500/- per day towards conveyance etc. amounting to Rs.52,500/- which the Complainant has spent just to resolve the problems created by the OPs alongwith 8% interest
- Direct the OPs to pay Rs.1 lac as damages for causing unprecedented mental harassment, agony to the Complainant.
- Direct the OPs to reimburse Rs.21,000/- being the cost of two notices and legal cost of this complaint.
In their joint written statement, OPs have inter-alia stated that “a businessman viz graduate in law cannot be induced as is sought to be projected; that the Complainant did not deposit any Credit Note allegedly issued to him by the shopkeeper in respect of the transaction in question and in any case the Credit Note issued by an independent person cannot be binding upon them and was of no use to the complainant for the accounts with the OPs. They have justified the transaction of Rs.10,000/- on account of reversal made in the account by correcting the request of the Complainant. They have denied payment of any further amount over and above Rs.20,000/- towards personal expenses, as alleged by the Complainant. As regards removing the name of the Complainant from the defaulter’s list, the OPs have stated that “If the bank does a settlement and offers to take less amount of money and in turn agrees that the bank will not do a follow up with the customer for the remaining amount, will not mean that the said customer ceases to be a defaulter and this will not entitle the customer to get his name removed from the negative list”; that the RBI has issued guidelines that if the person not paying the dues of the banks, their names are to be put in defaulter’s list. OPs have further averred that the amount of Rs.20,000/- was received in settlement of the outstanding amount which was approx. Rs.50,000/- but no assurance was given by the OPs that the name of the Complainant will be removed from the defaulter’s list and the only assurance was that the OPs will not press for the claim of the remaining amount. It is denied that the three officials of the OPs had asked the complainant to pay Rs. 5000/- each to them for their personal expenses. Hence, denying deficiency in service on their parts, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
No rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the Complainant.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Ms. Meera Kapoor, Constituted attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of OPs. Complainant has filed fresh affidavit in evidence on 22.4.15.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties. We have heard the arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
We have examined the entire material on the record and given thoughtful consideration to the arguments put before us. The issue to be determined is as to whether the Complainant had been put to harassment and he should have been treated as a defaulter after having settled the matter and, if so, whether the OPs were well within their right to retain the name of Complainant as a defaulter.
The Complainant had been Credit Note given by the shopkeeper for Rs.10,000/- (copy annexure-2) and the same amount is found debited in annexure-1 and again in annexure-4. The OPs have not rebutted double debiting by any credible evidence. As per annexure-6 (Colly), the statement of account dated 28.8.2002 to 27.02.2002, the amount of Rs. 43,489.04 was to be paid by the complainant to the OPs. Para 11, 12 and 13 of OPs’ witness’ affidavit read as follows:
“11. I say that the defaulter is someone who has been irregular in making payment and has a substantial amount of outstanding against his account. I further say if the bank does a settlement and offers to take less amount of money and in turn agrees that the bank will not do a follow up with the customer for the remaining amount, it does not mean that the customer ceases to be a defaulter. It is stated that no due means that the remaining amount still outstanding on the account which has been written off by the bank will not be claimed from the customer again and this will not entitle the customer to get his name removed from the negative list.
12. I say that the amount of Rs. 20,000/- was received in settlement of the outstanding, which was approximately Rs. 50,000/-. I also say that the complainant did not pay any further amount for the personal expenses of any officer of the Opposite Party bank.
13. I say that no assurance was given by the Opposite Party that the name of the complainant will be removed from the defaulter’s list. The Opposite party bank only assured that the bank will not press for the claim of the remaining amount.”
The parties settled their dispute for Rs.20,000/- vide Ex. A. This voluntarily action on the part of Complainant puts the controversy at rest so far as the excess debiting is concerned.
OPs have not filed the RBI guidelines which may even show that when a settlement takes place between the parties and the customer pays the settlement amount to the Bank, still their names shall continue to be there in the defaulter’s list/negative list. No provision of law or any rule or any judgment has been brought to our notice that such a settlement between the customer and the Bank is not final in all respects. Therefore, we hold that the OPs have failed to prove that despite paying the settlement amount of Rs. 20,000/- towards settlement the name of the complainant was not liable to be removed from the list of defaulters/negative list.
Till the payment of all outstanding dues the complainant was not entitled to NOC from the OP Bank. He admittedly paid the settlement amount of Rs. 20,000/- to the OPs after he was given “offer for settlement of account” bearing serial No. ND R 4091 dated 21.11.15 (Annexure 12). His case is that despite non-receipt of the NOC from the OPs the HSBC Bank issued a loan of Rs. 36 Lacs to him. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the complainant did not suffer any mental harassment or any pecuniary loss and he is not entitled to the refund of any amount under any head. However, the OPs are liable to remove the name of the complainant from the list of defaulters/negative list with immediate effect. Accordingly, we direct the OPs to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list/negative list on the basis of the transaction in question. The complaint is disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Let copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 25.02.2016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 29/07
25.2.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, OPs are directed to remove the name of the complainant from the defaulter’s list/negative list on the basis of the transaction in question. The complaint is disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
