DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.

Case No. 1183/2007

Shri Sunil Kumar Verma

S/o Sh. Madan Mohan Lal

R/o A-59, Ground Floor

Near Mother Dairy

Pandav Nagar, Delhi                                             ….Complainant

Versus

The Senior Manager

Credit Card Division

Standard Chartered Bank

Ist Floor, Express Building

9-10, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg

New Delhi - 110002                                             .…Opposite Party 

                                                          Date of Institution          : 14.11.2007                                                Date of Order        :  20.09.2016

Coram:

Sh. N.K. Goel, President

Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member

O R D E R

The case of the Complainant, in succinct, is that he was issued Master Gold Credit Card bearing No. 5543 7576 8067 6366 (to be referred as the First card) in the month of November 2005  by the OP and thereafter he was issued another Master Gold Credit Card bearing No. 5543 7576 8083 2126 (to be referred as the Second card) in the month of April 2006 by the OP without any formal request from his side.  The complainant had been paying regular payment of the bills raised against these cards; however, the officials of the OP several times had taken the payment in respect of Card No. 4940 7680 2495 9667 (to be referred as the Third card) of the complainant whereas the complainant had only the first card and the second card.  The complainant  had been receiving threatening as well as abusive calls from the collection  agents of the OP against which the complainant also lodged a complaint with Pandav Nagar Police Station and thereafter he sent a legal notice to the OP through his advocate and demanded a statement of account containing payments made towards actual expenditure, abstain from such type of illegal practices and to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant on account of mental torture, harassment and irreparable damage to the reputation of the complainant and also to pay Rs. 1100/- to the complainant towards the cost of this legal notice but it did not yield any result.  Therefore, claiming deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP, the complainant  has filed the present complaint for directing the OP to stop its agents/officials from harassing the complainant and his family members from realizing the money, to direct the OP to pay Rs. 1 Lakh for the loss on account of harassment, mental agony, humiliation and damage of self esteem, to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for harassing and pursuing the matter of OP and to pay Rs. 5000/- towards litigation expenses.

The OP has filed the detailed reply to the complaint.  It has inter-alia stated that at the request of the Complainant, the following credit Cards were issued to the complainant by the OP Bank:

1. 4940 7680 2286 7227
2. 4940 7680 2495 9667
3. 5543 7576 8067 6366

and while issuing the aforesaid Credit Cards, the complainant was supplied with the Credit Cards Members’ Rules & Regulations and the terms and conditions mentioned therein were duly accepted by the complainant; that as per the Statement of Account dated 28.1.2006, the complainant had following outstanding balance towards his cards:

Thereafter in the month of April 2006 he gave his consent for obtaining a Master Gold Credit Card and acceding to his request, Second card was issued to him by the OP.  It is stated that as per Clause 21(e) of the Card Members’ Rules and Regulations, in the event payment for the account of each card is not specified separately, then the bank reserves the right to apportion/transfer any credit balance/payment in one card account to another card account as per its own system of accounting with or without the consent of the card member and this fact was also mentioned in the back of very Statement of Account being supplied to the customer on a regular basis by the bank;  that the details of the apportioned payment  are clearly reflected in the Statements of Account of the complainant.  It is inter-alia stated that on 28.9.2008, the following outstanding amount were due to the Credit Cards of the complainant:

The other averments made in the complaint have been denied.  It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

 Complainant has filed rejoinder and has stated that he never received credit card bearing Nos. (i) 4940 7680 2286 7227 and (ii) 4940 7480 2495 9667 (Third Card) and he had received only the first card.  We  must say at once that the averments made in the replication are totally in contradiction to the averments made in the complaint inasmuch as the complainant himself has filed the complaint by stating that he had been issued the first and second cards by the OP bank.

Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence.  On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Khalid Saifullah, Constituted Attorney has been filed on behalf of the OP.

Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the OP.

We have heard counsel for the OP and have also carefully gone through the record.

The complaint is vague and not specific. The complaint does not describe the nature of the complaint in specific words nor does it provide how much excess amount had been deducted from the credit cards in question from the complainant and  for how much amount the agents/officials of the OP were/are allegedly harassing the complainant and his family members.  Moreover, as stated hereinabove, the complaint states about the issuance of the first and second card to the complainant but in the replication the complainant has stated about receiving only one credit card i.e. the first card. Thus, the complainant himself is not sure as to how many credit cards had, infact, been issued to him by the OP Bank.  As per the evidence placed  on the record which is led by the OP, there is every reason to believe that besides the above stated credit cards, the complainant had also been issued 4^th credit card.  Therefore, the complainant has suppressed the very material facts in the complaint with some ulterior motives.  Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.

     Let a 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 20.9.2016.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                          (N.K. GOEL)       MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

Case No. 1183/07

20.9.2016

Present –   None.

        Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.

(NAINA BAKSHI)                                                                                                                                                          (N.K. GOEL)       MEMBER                                                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT