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

========

                                        Complaint Case No : 1084 of 2009

                                        Date of Institution   :    31.07.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :    09.12.2009

Dinesh Kumar son of late Sh.Mohan Lal, R/o 3389/1, Sector 45/D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Standard Chrtered, SCO No.137-138, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL      PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:         Complainant in person.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP.

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                Concisely put, the complainant and his wife were issued Credit Cards (Visa Gold) by the OP but the same were never used since date of their issuance.  However, the OP without any request sent a cheque of Rs.30,000/- as a loan in favour of the complainant, which was immediately returned vide letter dated 19.1.2005 (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the OP issued one statement of account dated 6.2.2005 (Ann.C-2) and thereafter did not issue any such statement till June, 2009.  It is also averred that on 26.6.2009 complainant received a telephonic call to the effect that OP had lodged a complaint against him and his wife before JMIC, Jodhpur where they had to appear on 27.6.2009.  He was also asked to contact one Vashisht, Legal Advisor of OP, who told the complainant that an amount of Rs.16,470/- was due from him on his credit card.  It is next averred that the complainant had to deposit the said amount with OP but inspite of that the OPs did not supply him either the account statement or the copies of the proceedings of the court.  It is asserted that due to the above deficient act of OP, the complainant had to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed. 

2]             OP filed reply and admitted the issuance of credit cards to the complainant and his wife.  It is stated that the facility on the said credit cards was free only for the first year and not for life, as alleged.  The Credit Cards were available with the complainant and his wife for the purposes of usage as and when they liked and they never surrendered it and continued to enjoy the credit card facility.  It is also stated that since the complainant never surrendered the credit cards and availed the facility thereof, as such he was liable to pay the charges accrued thereon including charges of Annual Fees.  As regards the advancement of loan of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, it is submitted that the same was cancelled on the request of the complainant.  The complainant has been regularly issued the monthly statements and the amount deposited by the complainant was as per the statement issued to him with regard to availing facility of credit cards.  All other the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.               

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.  

4]             We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP and have perused the file.  

5]             There is no dispute about it that the complainant holds a credit card issued by the OP and that a cheque of Rs.30,000/- was sent to him by the OP as a loan without any request from the complainant.  The OP admitted having sent the cheque as loan but have not been able to produce any such document to suggest, if any request was made by the complainant for granting him the above said amount of loan.  It appears the OP is squandering the money even without request and causing harassment to their customers.  The complainant has to send the money back, sending the request annexure C-1 that the Demand Draft should be cancelled. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the statement showing that the amount was sent as a loan to the complaint and the same was thereafter returned.  This in itself constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

6]             It appears that OP got infuriated due to the return of the unwanted loan by the complainant.  OP therefore started threatening him to pay Rs.16,470/- and also imposed a sum of Rs.493.18/- on him. The call made to the complainant was a threat given to him that a criminal case has been lodged before the JMIC, Jodhpur from where the warrant would be obtained, if he did not pay the said amount promptly.  It was on account of this threat that the complainant had to deposit the said amount. It is admitted that the amount of Rs.16,470/- was paid by the complainant on 26.06.09.  The OP has attached in their reply the credit card statement dated 27.05.09(now marked as Ann. R-1) showing that the sum of Rs.16,469.65P was due from the complainant , there is another statement dated 28.06.09(now marked as annexure R-2) showing that the said amount was paid by the complainant on 26.06.09.  However, even after the payment of the total amount, the OP showed in annexure R-2 another sum of Rs.493.53P, on the very next date that is 27.06.09, showing it to be interest.  The said amount was carried forward in the next statement annexure R-3 dated 21.07.09.  However, without any deposit having been made by the complainant, the said amount was said to have been credited leaving zero balance.  The Learned Counsel  for the complainant has argued that it was done only after repeated phone calls and visits made by the complainant to their office causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant.  This conduct of the OP is deplorable and they must compensate the complainant for the harassment caused to him.

7]             The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the use of the credit card was free only for one year and thereafter the complainant was liable to pay the charges therefor.  This fact is denied by the complainant. The OP however did not produce any such contract between the parties under which the complainant was liable to pay rent for use of the credit card after the expiry of one year.  It appears that the OP is introducing a new term in the existing agreement to harass the complainant to pay the charges which are not due from him.  It also amount the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP which they may be adopting in number of other cases also.

8]             Needless to mention that the facts referred to above have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which he needs to be compensated.  The OP is therefore directed not to demand any such rent etc. from the complainant for use of the credit card. The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs of Rs.1,100/-, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which they will be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of filing of the complaint i.e.31.07.09, till the amount is paid to the complainant. The complaint stands allowed in above terms.

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