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

========

Subhash Chand Sharma s/o Sh. Shakti Chand Sharma, R/o H.No. 1169, Dhanas, U.T. Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No. 137-138, 1^st Floor, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Incharge.

                      ……Opposite Party

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                    PRESIDENT

         SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

         DR.(MRS).MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA  MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. B.L. Sharma, Counsel for Complainant.

           Sh. Jatin Kumar, Counsel for OP.

PER DR.[MRS.]MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

         Succinctly put, the Complainant, who as having Credit Card of OP, valid from May 2005 to June 2008, swapped the same on 4.7.2005, for making payment of Rs.7322/- to Kumar Medical Store, Sector 11, Chandigarh for buying some medicines. However, the payment against the said purchase was made to the OP by Cheque No. 289782 drawn on Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sector 21, Chandigarh and the amount was debited from the account of the Complainant on 29.07.2005. Accordingly, he requested the OP Bank to issue a ‘no due certificate’ against the aforesaid credit card, after adjusting the payment made through the aforesaid Cheque vide his representation   [C-2], but instead of giving clearance certificate, the OP, without giving him any notice, sent his name to CIBIL as a defaulter, by showing an outstanding amount of Rs.30,677.18P against him. It was alleged that there was zero balance in the books of account of the OP Bank, but still it raised the alleged demand. It was only after persistent follow-up, the OP agreed to settle the account at Rs.3200/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.30,677.18P, which the Complainant paid under protest, to avoid any further harassment, vide receipt dated 20.1.2011 [C-7]. Faced with this situation, the Complainant got issued a legal notice dated 19.5.2011 upon the OP Bank, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint.

2.         Notice of the complaint was sent to OP seeking its version of the case.

3.         The OP in its written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the Complainant did not discharge his debt liability arisen out of the transactions done by him through his credit card. The Complainant had kept on utilizing the said credit card, as per his requirements. It was further pleaded that there was an outstanding amount of Rs.10,140.87P as on November 25, 2005 against the Complainant and the cheque payment for Rs.7,322/- had been adjusted against the said account. Since, it was only a part payment, it cannot be said that the Complainant has cleared the outstanding in his credit card account. Hence, applicable financial charges had been levied towards the Complainant’s account, as per the schedule of service charges. It was asserted that the Complainant never approached the OP Bank for issuance of the no dues certificate against the aforesaid credit card. The replying OP was regular in sending the monthly card statement to the Complainant, showing the status of the account. Since the Complainant had defaulted in repayment of amount in his credit card account, despite receiving monthly statement and reminders from the replying OP; it has rightly updated his status account in CIBIL. While pleading that the Complainant is trying to mislead this Forum by stating that there was a zero balance in his account; it was admitted that the representative of the OP bank interacted with the Complainant to arrive at a settlement and accordingly, offered him a settlement of Rs.3200/- against the actual outstanding, which the Complainant deposited, without any murmur. While admitting the receipt of legal notice dated 19.5.2011, it was pleaded that the same was duly replied, vide Annexure R-3, clearly mentioning therein the status of the account and that the CIBIL records had been appropriately amended. All other material contentions of the complaint were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6.         The sole grouse of the Complainant in the instant complaint is that despite “zero balance” against the credit card held by him, the OP Bank illegally and arbitrarily raised a demand of Rs.30,677/- (Annexure C-1 & C-2). It is the case of the Complainant that subsequently, the OP settled the said credit card account by forcing him to pay Rs.3200/- only (Annexure C-6 & C-7) and thereafter, issued “Settlement Completion Certificate” qua Annexure C-8. The Complainant further contended that although he had duly discharged his debt liability, arisen out of the transaction done through the credit card, yet the OP Bank, firstly, denied him the “No Due Certificate” and secondly, made his integrity doubtful, by sending his name to CIBIL as a defaulter (Annexure C-3 to C-5), for which no notice was ever issued. Due to this act of the OP Bank, the Complainant was deprived of any other loan facility, which tantamount to clear deficiency in service & indulgence in unfair trade practice by the OP.

7.         On the contrary, the OP in their reply, without admitting any deficiency in service, submitted that they have provided sufficient information to the Complainant by way of            sending monthly statements about his over due outstanding. But, the Complainant has failed to discharge his debt liability arisen out of the transaction done by him through his credit card [Annexure R-1]. It was further submitted that the Complainant had kept on utilizing the said credit card, as per his requirements. The OP Bank clarified that in the declaration part of the application form, duly signed by the Complainant; had authorized the Bank to disclose information related to his credit facility to statutory, regulatory or organizational bodies [Annexure R-2 and R-2/1].   

8.         Learned counsel for the OP raised a plea that the complaint is barred by limitation. We do not find any merit in this argument. No doubt, the transaction pertains to July 2005, which is the origin of the dispute, but the cause of action continued, as the OP reported to the CIBIL, declaring the Complainant defaulter in the year 2010 and ultimately, Rs.3200/- were paid in January 2011, so the complaint is well within limitation, as prescribed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

9.         Admittedly, the Complainant held SCB Credit Card in question issued by the OP Bank. It is also admitted that the Complainant made three transactions i.e. for Rs.310, Rs.592/- and Rs.6500/- against the aforesaid card upto 05.07.2005 and thereafter, never used the said credit card for making any transaction.

10.       There is no dispute that the Complainant made the payment to the OP Bank on account of the purchases made by him upto 5.7.2005 vide Cheque No. 289782 for Rs.7322/- which was debited to his account with the Oriental Bank of Commerce on 29.07.2005, which  is evident from the statement of account Annexure C-1. However, the OP did not credit this amount in its account, as is clear from the statements of account Ex.R1 and Ex.R2. Rather, the said amount has been shown adjusted in the account statement dated 21.12.2005. The OP instead of adjusting the cheque amount, continued to levy late charges interest, service tax and cess, unilaterally and arbitrarily and the amount swelled to Rs.10,140.87P as per statement dated 21.12.2005, when the cheque amount of Rs.7322/- was shown adjusted. Had this amount been credited in the month of July, 2005, itself, then the amount shown due would not have swelled to Rs.10,140/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.80/- (Rs.7402/- -  Rs.7322/-).

11.       The OP never wrote to the Complainant about any amount due. Even no such copy of any communication sent to the Complainant has been produced and proved on record.  When confronted, learned counsel for the OP raised a plea that OP Bank had been communicating all relevant details of outstanding dues to the Complainant vide monthly statements. However, a careful perusal of Annexure R-1 and R-2, which are the monthly statements placed on record by the OP to substantiate their contention, makes it amply clear that these are not attested by any authorized signatory, therefore, it carries no evidentiary value and is of no help to the OP Bank. 

12.       Now, it is well established that the Complainant had made the payment of Rs.7322/- in July, 2005, itself, even then as per the statement of account the amount shown as Rs.6403.09 on 21.06.2006, but the Bank without any basis reflected the outstanding amount as Rs.30,677/- on 31.10.2010 in the CIBIL records. There is not an iota of evidence to prove that how this figure arrived at, when the credit card was never used after 05.07.2005. When the Complainant protested about sending his name to CIBIL, the representative of the OP in the month of January, 2011, asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.3200/- in order to settle all previous disputes, which he deposited on 25.1.2011, upon which the whole outstanding amount in the account was annulled.

13.       There is nothing on record to prove that how the representative of the OP asked the Complainant to deposit Rs.3200/- in order to settle all previous dispute against the whole outstanding amount. It is not at all understandable that on one hand the OP is reflecting outstanding amount of Rs.30,677/- and on the other hand, it is settling                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               the account at Rs.3200/-. It is beyond reasoning that a Bank would received Rs.3200/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.30,677/-, which proves that the demand raised by the OP Bank was illegal and unjustified.  

14.       Sending the name of Complainant to CIBIL, despite their own negligent acts and furthermore, publicizing his name as a defaulter in the record maintained by the CIBIL is nothing, but a sheer highhandedness on the part of OP Bank. All this had not only maligned, but also tarnished the image of the Complainant, which is apparent from the fact, that when he applied for a car loan from State Bank of Patiala, the same was declined due to mentioning of his name by the OP in the list of defaulters maintained by CIBIL. Such type of arm twisting tactics adopted by OP Bank for recovery of loan amount, without any fault on the part of Complainant, is nothing, but indulgence in unfair trade practice, especially when there has been zero balance against the credit card account in the books of accounts of the OP-Bank.

15.       In view of the foregoings, it is our considered view that the present case has a lot of merit, substance and weight and it richly deserves acceptance. Therefore, we accept the complaint and decide the same in favour of the Complainant and against the OP No.1, with the following directions:-

i]  The OP shall pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant for causing physical harassment, mental agony and great deal of inconvenience and humiliation.

iii]  The OP shall also pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant.

16.      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OP, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, failing which, it shall pay the sum of Rs.20,000/- along with interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 16.06.2011, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/-.

17.      copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Pronounced

04.10.2011

Sd/-

[P.D. GOEL]

President

Sd/-

[Rajinder Singh Gill]

Member

Sd/-

[Madanjit Kaur Sahota]

Member