Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/434/2018

Chendilnathan - Complainant(s)

Versus

State Bank of India - Opp.Party(s)

M/s S Jagananthan

25 Aug 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 22.10.2018

Date of Reservation      : 26.07.2022

Date of Order               : 25.08.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                            : PRESIDENT

                       THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,           :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,    : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 434/2018

THURSDAY, THE 25^th DAY OF AUGUST 2022

Mr.Chendilnathan,

S/o Mr. Rajapandian,

No.1A, Sivaraman Street,

Mylapore,

Chennai – 600 004.                                                           ... Complainant     

 

..Vs..

State Bank of India,

Credit Card Division,

SBI Card, 10^th Floor,

TVH Agnitio Park,

No.141, Rajiv Gandhi Salai,

Kandanchavadi, Chennai.

Tamil Nadu, India – 600 096.                                        ...  Opposite Party

 

******

Counsel for the Complainant       : M/s. S. Jaganathan

Counsel for the Opposite Party    : Exparte

 

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for the Complainant, we delivered the following:

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

1.      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to direct the Opposite Party to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony along with cost of this proceedings.

2.     The averments of Complaint in brief are as follows:-

        The Opposite Party issued a Credit Card bearing No.4006 6610 5771 3807 during the year 2003 with a credit limit of Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant used the card issued by the Opposite Party and made all the payments to the card promptly and regularly within the due date avoiding any late fee. The Complainant on 12-2-2003 made a purchase of fuel for his car in Indian Oil Corporation Madras, and gave the credit card to the petrol bunk and the said purchase was also approved by the Opposite Party. He was surprised to see some unknown charges reflecting in the monthly statement sent by Opposite Party, and immediately the Complainant called the customer care for clarification and he was shocked by the reply of the officer on the other side that the last purchase exceeded his total credit limit by Rs.510.99/-(the last purchase was for Rs.1116.22/-) and hence a fine of Rs.210/- was imposed for exceeding the limit i.e., the fuel purchase of Rs. 1116.22 overshot the credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- by Rs.510.99. In that event the Opposite party ought to have declined the transaction and the complainant would have used his other card to effect payment. But instead the Opposite party approved the transaction (beyond the monthly credit limit of Rs.20,000) without the consent of the complainant and imposed over limit charges defeating the very purpose of fixing the credit limit of Rs.20,000/- per month. The Complainant made, objection to fine (overlimit charges and finance charges) and was advised by the Opposite Party's phone banking executive to the Complainant to pay the amount excluding the fine and assured the Complainant that the wrong charges of Rs.210/- will be removed and the same will be reflected in the next statement. The Complainant made the payment excluding the said sum of Rs.210/-, but was surprised to find the said fine amount was not reversed in the next statement as assured by the Opposite Party's officer. The Complainant called again to the customer care and explained everything and was assured to remove the "fine" of Rs.210/-. The Complainant made the rest of the payment except that charge of Rs.210/- which was in dispute, and stopped using the card after that. The Complainant believing the representation of the phone banking officers at the customer care that the 'over limit' charge of Rs.210/- will be reversed the Complainant made entire outstanding amount on that card leaving out that Rs.210/ and stopped using the card. That around the year 2010 he found that his credit score in CIBIL has been lowered due to some SBI card entries against his name. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party and through a letter dated 22-1-2010 the Opposite Party has stated that an outstanding balance of Rs.30650.93/- payable to the Opposite Party by the Complainant as on 22-1-2010. The Complainant has been trying to zero the account as assured by the Opposite Party's phone banking officers in the customer care through all available remedies such as ombudsman and other officers of the Opposite Party's credit card division. The Opposite Party has also willfully notified the same to CIBIL and the Complainant's name was Black listed and therefore rendering him unable to obtain loan anywhere in India apart from degrading his stature. Hence the complaint.

3.      The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Arguments. On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-14  were marked.  

4. The Opposite Party did not appear before this Commission even after sufficient notice served on him and was called absent and set exparte.

5.     Points for Consideration

1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?

2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for reliefs claimed?

3. To what other reliefs the Complainant is entitled to?

Point No.1:-

The Complainant had availed a Credit Card bearing No.4006 6610 5771 3807 from the Opposite Party during the year 2003 with a credit limit of Rs.20,000/-.  On 12-2-2003 the Complainant had purchased fuel for his car in Indian Oil Corporation, Madras, and had given his credit card towards purchase of fuel, which payment was approved by the Opposite Party. From his monthly statement sent by Opposite Party, the Complainant came to know that the last purchase exceeded his total credit limit by Rs.510.99/-(the last purchase was for Rs.1116.22/-) and hence a fine of Rs.210 was imposed for exceeding the limit i.e., the fuel purchase of Rs. 1116.22 overshot the credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- by Rs.510.99 as found in Ex.A-1. In that event the Opposite party ought to have declined the transaction and the complainant would have used his other card to effect payment. But instead the Opposite party approved the transaction (beyond the monthly credit limit of Rs.20,000) without the consent of the complainant and imposed over limit charges defeating the very purpose of fixing the credit limit of Rs.20,000/- per month.

The  Complainant had informed CIBIL that he had made other payments except the over limit charge of Rs.210/- and to zeroise the amount overdue which was declined by CIBIL and had informed the Complainant to get in touch with the credit institution as evident from Ex.A-2 to Ex.A-4. As per Ex.A-5 to Ex.A-10, the Complainant had given  representation to the Banking Ombudsman to instruct the Opposite Party to do Zeroisation of his Account in the CIBIL and make his record clear and his CIBIL score is less due to improper updating by the Opposite Party as found in Ex.A-5. The Complainant had addressed his grievance to the Grievance Redressal Officer, Reserve Bank of India and the Banking Ombudsman. The Banking Ombudsman by its letter dated 18.05.2018, Ex.A-11 had rejected the claim of the Complainant for the reason that the SBI Credit Cards had acted as per the terms and conditions of the Credit Card and that Zeroisation of CIBIL records would be done only after settlement of outstanding dues. Thereafter, the Complainant had issued legal notice dated 06.08.2018, Ex.A-12 to the Opposite Party claiming compensation for deficiency of service which was replied by the Opposite party vide letter dated 04.09.2018, Ex.A-13 requesting the Complainant to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.51,981.69.

Upon careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the Exhibits marked on the side of the Complainant it could be seen that the contention of the Complainant that he had paid all other charges except the over limit charge of Rs.210/- is not substantiated by documentary evidence, the statement of account reveals that apart from the over limit charge of Rs.210/-, other amounts remains unpaid. The Opposite party having fixed the credit limit of Rs.20,000/- ought not have effected payment beyond the credit limit unless there is a contract / agreement with the Complainant to  extend beyond the credit limit with penal charges. The Opposite party would have very well declined the transaction if it exceeds the credit limit. However, the transaction of  fuel purchase of Rs. 1116.22 overshot the credit limit of Rs. 20,000/- by Rs.510.99 for which penal charge of Rs.210/- was charged was in the month of February 2003, which grievance should have been claimed with 2 years therefrom and not at this belated stage.

The Counsel for the Complainant relied upon the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in R.P.No.2387 of 2012, Japjeet Singh Chadda Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd., and another wherein it was observed that “ the cause of action first arose on the date of which alleged burglary took place, the cause of action for filing of the complaint agin arose when the insurance claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide letter dated 29.03.2004. The respondent, however, before the expiry of limitation of 2 years from the date of repudiation vide its letter dated 28.12.2004 registered the protest of the complainant against the repudiation of the claim and intimated him vide letter dated 28.12.2004 that his claim file was being reviewed. This obviously gives an impression to the petitioner that his request for review accepted and his claim file was under consideration, Therefore, he was justified for awaiting the outcome of the review instead of rushing for judicial remedy. Since the review has not been decide, we are of the view that given the peculiar facts of the case, the cause of action is still continuing.”

In the present case the transaction under dispute pertains to February, March and April 2003, subsequently the Complainant has alleged that he came to know of the CIBIL score only in the year 2010, on 22.01.2010, the Opposite Party has issued reply along with a statement reflecting the outstanding balance payable by the Complainant. Thereafter, after a period of more than 6 years the Complainant had sent representations to the RBI and Banking Ombudsman and finally had filed this complaint on 22.10.2018, in which case there is no continuing cause of action in so far as the Opposite Party had not reviewed any claim of the Complainant and had only insisted the payment of outstanding due by the Complainant. Hence the said order is not applicable to the present case.

In view of the forgoing discussions, this Commission is of the considered view that the Opposite Party has not committed deficiency of service. Accordingly Point No.1 is answered.

7.     Point No.2 and 3

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and thereby Complainant is not entitled to get any reliefs as claimed in the complaint. Accordingly, point Nos. 2 and 3 are answered.

In the result this complaint is dismissed. No cost.

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 25^thof August 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:-

 

Ex.A1	22.01.2010	Copy of Reply from SBI cards & payment services Pvt. Ltd
Ex.A2	-	Reply from Transunion CIBIL Ltd. For mail dt. 27.05.2017
Ex.A3	14.07.2017	Copy of CIBIL transaction score report
Ex.A4	23.10.2017	Copy of Reply email from Nodal Officer, SBI Cards
Ex.A5	08.02.2018	Copy of Letter to Office of the Banking Ombudsman
Ex.A6	06.03.2018	Copy of Letter to Public Information Officer, RBI
Ex.A7	16.03.2018	Copy of Reply from Asst. Public Information Officer RBI
Ex.A8	09.04.2018	Copy of Reply from Central Public Information Officer Office of the Banking Ombudsman
Ex.A9	09.04.2018	Copy of Letter to Executive Director and First Appellate Authority, RBI
Ex.A10	08.05.2018	Copy of Letter to the Office of the Ombudsman
Ex.A11	18.05.2018	Copy of Reply letter from the Office of the Ombudsman
Ex.A12	06.08.2018	Copy of Legal notice
Ex.A13	04.09.2018	Copy of Reply notice
Ex.A14	27.02.2003	Copy of Payment receipt

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Party:-

 

NIL

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                   B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                         PRESIDENT