| Final Order / Judgement | DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area (Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016 Case No.63/15 Mr. Om Khorwal R/o K-63 SFS Flats Sarita Vihar New Delhi-110044. Mrs. Sumitra Khorwal W/o Mr. Om Khorwal R/o K-63 SFS Flats Sarita Vihar New Delhi-110044. .…Complainants VERSUS Tata Motors Through its President Passenger Vehicles Business Unit Having Registered Office at: Bambay House 24, Homy Mody Street, Fort Mumbai-400001. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. Having Registered office at: 3rd Floor, Nanavati Mahalaya 18, Homy Mody Street, Hutatma Chowk Mumbai-400001. Concorde Motors (India) Ltd. M-10, South Extension Part-II New Delhi-110049. Standard Chartered Bank Customer Care Unit 19, Rajaji Salai Chennai – 600001 Tamil Nadu. ….Opposite Parties Coram: Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member ORDER Date of Institution:04.03.2015 Date of Order :14.12.2023 President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava Complainant has filed the present complaint seeking reimbursement of the amount of Rs.1,53,000/- with interest @18% per annum from 14.06.2013, imposition of punitive damages upon the OP as per Section 14(1)(d), discontinuation of unfair and restrictive trade practices and litigation cost of Rs.25,000/-. OP-1 is TATA Motors, OP-2 Concord Motors, OP-3 is again Concord Motors with different address and OP-4 is Standard Chartered Bank. - It the case of the complainant that he purchased a Tata Nano in a scheme that was offered by the OP known as “just swipe and drive out in a Tata Nano” (hereinafter referred as scheme) wherein it was represented by the OPs that any customer who would buy the Tata Nano under the said scheme could convert the entire amount on the credit card in interest free instalments over a period of 12 months to manage monthly cash flow. The print out of the advertisement of the scheme is annexed as Annexure P-1.
- Complainant purchased the Tata Nano under the scheme by swiping the Standard Chartered credit card with “payments in 12 interest free instalments”. However, complainant received this first monthly statement in the month of May where it showed that Tata Nano was purchased in lieu of 19 EMIs with retail interest @3.10% per month.
- It is stated that on 29.04.2013, the complainant purchased Tata nano against the receipt for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- issued by OP-3 was issued as proof of payment. It was clearly and prominently stated “no interest shall be paid”. The same is annexed as Annexure P-2.
- It is stated by the complainant that the total official price was Rs.1,62,148/-, copy of the retail invoice debit note and the commitment form are annexed as Annexure P-3 (colly).
- It is the case of the complainant that at the time of issuance of credit card under the scheme, no communication was made by OP-4 regarding the credit limit in the credit card account and the consequences of excess withdrawal. Copy of the credit card statement dated 12.05.2013 is annexed as Annexure P-6.
- On 24.05.2013, complainant No. 2 issued an email through mail ID of her husband to the Customer Care Department of OP-1 with a copy of OP-4 wherein she wrote about her grievance regarding wrongfully converting the 12 EMIs opted by the complainants in 19 EMIs and charging of interest @3.10% whereas the OPs were supposed to charge 0% as per the scheme.
- It is further stated that on 31.05.2013 disputed amount of Rs.6,000/- was paid by the complainant but on 11.06.2013 when the complainant No.1 received the next credit card statement it was realised that the total payment due was now Rs.1,53,968.64. Previous balance of Rs.1,50,000/- and an apportioned payment 10454 SEQ 14 of Rs.5439.25/- interest charged Rs.679.53/-, new balance of Rs.1,52,980/- a minimum payment due of Rs.18,906.57. Copy of the credit card statement is annexed as Annexure P-8.
- It is further stated by the complainant No.2 that the complainant deposited total amount of Rs.1,53,000/-and an amount of Rs.1,000/-It is stated on 11.07.2013 OP-4 issued another credit card statement wherein bearing a minor change and rest of the amount remained the same as per the June Statement. Copy of the credit card statement is annexed as Annexure P-10.
- It is further stated that on 08.08.2013 complainant deposited an amount of Rs.2,350/- against the due payment of Rs.1,967/-. It is further stated by the complainant that as per the credit card statement dated 11.08.2013, the total payment was now shown as Rs.2841.68/-. The same is annexed as Annexure P-11 and thereafter, it kept adding in complainant’s account. Copy of the detail statement of the complainant No. 1’s account is annexed as Annexure P-13.
- Complainant states that being aggrieved by the careless, negligent and unsatisfactory attitude of the OPs, complainant No.2 issued a letter to OP-3 on the subject for refund of loss on account of the said scheme. It the case of the complainant that on account of the unfair trade practice of the OPs, the complainants had encash their FD causing huge loss to them as were senior citizens and were receiving interest of 10% on the said deposit. It is stated by the complainant that many reminders, letters were written to the OP for refunding the amounts. In reply dated 13.10.2014 to the legal notice of the complainant dated 01.12.2014, OP 4 has denied all the averments made by the complainant and have stated that complainant No. 1 used his card for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- against his assigned credit limit of Rs.1,46,000/- on 29.04.2013 hence the over limit fee of Rs.500/- was charged from complainant No.1 on 30.04.2014. It was further stated that providing EMIs conversion facility is the sole discretion of OP-4 and since the complainant had utilised his credit card account more than one of the assigned credit limit. The said transaction was not converted into EMIs and OP-4 never confirmed to complainant No.1 that the transaction will be converted into EMI. The reply of OP-4 is annexed as Annexure P-20.
- It the case of the complainant that OPs are service providers and services delivered by them suffers from fault, imperfect shortcomings and the nature of manner of performance for deficiency in service. It is stated the OPs gave a false impression to the complainants that by opting for the scheme, complainants would be able to covert the entire amount of the credit card into interest free instalments over a period of 12 months for managing monthly cash flow better whereas the scheme was actually for the motive of arisen profits promoting business interest of OPs. Complainant has relied on the judgment of Society of Catalyst Vs. Vodaphone Essar Mobile Services Ltd. III (2008) CPJ 42 (Del) wherein OP was held guilty in indulging in unfair trade practice. Complainant has also placed reliance on the judgment of Bhawar Kanwar Vs. R.K. Gupta (2013) 4SCC 252 and on M/s Coca Cola India Ltd. Vs. Dr. Amarjeet Singh (3) CPR 346(NC) and SBI Vs. Beerpal Ram IV (2008) CPJ 114 (NC) & Ors.
- In their reply, OP-4 have stated that complainant does not disclose any deficiency in service on the part of the OP as no document has been filed to substantiate deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. It is stated that OP 4 acted in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract governing the usage of credit card and that the complainant was aware of the entire terms and conditions governing usage of the card. It is stated that complainant has been holding various credit cards of OP since March 1998 and that the complainant had transacted using the credit card ending 7196 to purchase a Tata Nano from OP-3. It is further stated that the transaction incurred in the complainant’s credit card exceeded the assigned credit limit of Rs.1,46,000/- as on 29.04.2013 and therefore over limit fee as applicable of Rs.500/- along with the corresponding service tax was debited from the complainant’s card account ending 4452 on 30.04.2013. Copy of the statement is annexed as Annexure-2.
- It is further stated that the customers are expected to transact within the credit limit assigned to their card account. In the event if the customer attempts to transact slightly above the available credit limit, the bank considers the same and as per policy customers are allowed to transact up to 5%-20% higher than the credit card limit based on their individual credit eligibility. The applicable over limit fee of Rs.500/- or 2.5% on the amount exceeded whichever is higher will be debited from the customers card account for such excess withdrawal and is communicated clearly to the customers on the reverse side of the statement. The fee is applicable even if the customer makes a payment immediately in order to bring down the outstanding. It is stated that OP-4 monthly statement carries the details of all the transactions in the card account, late payment fee, cheque returned, payment received, total payment due, limit due, due date including credit limit available etc.
- It is further stated by OP-4 that “important information” relating to the credit card is given on the reverse side of the monthly statement such as method of payment, interest free credit period, cash advance limit, methods of interest to be levied. Late payment charges, over limit charges etc.
- It is further stated by OP-4 that they have been communicating all relevant details to the complainant vide monthly statement but it appears that the complainant is making vague allegations without relating to the original statement of account issued to him.
- OP-4 further states that as per the offer received in March end, OP-4 tried to convert the EMI for the tenure of 12 months with repayable with interest rate of zero per cent per annum for the amount of Rs.1,50,000/- on 02.05.2013 and as per the process the total amount of the transaction get debited in the customers card account and subsequently recovered in the account with EMI starting debited in the separate card.
- It is the case of the complainant that the transaction amount exceeded the assigned credit limit which was Rs.1,46,000/- and the EMI conversion could not take place therefore, OP-4 denies the allegation that it had converted the transaction amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- into 19 months EMI @3.10 interest. In the event of partial repayment or non-payment towards outstanding before the schedule due dates, the applicable late fee/charges are levied as per the schedule of service charges of OP-4. The card member rules and regulations are enclosed as Annexure-5.
- It is stated that OP-4 is within its right to levy late charges and interest for non-receipt of payment within due date. It is further stated that the complainant contacted banking unit of OP-4 on 31.05.2013 and unclear about the balance outstanding and she was informed the reason non-conversion of the transaction amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to EMIs. It is also stated that on the request of the complainant for conversion, the bank official took an exceptional approval for converting the transaction Rs.1,50,000/- into EMI with the requirement for the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- immediately to adjust his credit limit (Rs.1,46,000/-) and advised him to approach the bank to furnish for EMI conversion. It is further stated by the OP that complainant did not approach the bank after affecting the payment of Rs.6,000/- dated 03.06.2013 and therefore the transaction was not converted into EMI repayable @ zero per cent per month.
- It is further stated that as the complainant did not approach the OP to convert the transaction into EMIs the OP-4 system considered the payment of Rs.6,000/- as normal payment made in the normal course of business and the payment was apportioned as Rs.5439.25 in the card ending 7196 and Rs.560.75 towards card ending 4652 and accordingly converting charges were debited in the complainant’s card account in the statement dated 11.06.2013.
- It is further stated by the OP in case multiple payments are made by the customer clear instructions towards payment are requested to be mentioned with card no. on the face of cheque along with the details of allocation to respective card accounts on the reverse of the cheque. In the event, the customer issues separate cheques in each card account then the customer is expected to specify “not to allocate” on the reverse of the cheque. In the event, the payment is made through a single cheque for a multiple card accounts, anyone of the credit card number along with the relevant amount being paid is to be specified on the reverse of the cheque. In the absence of any specific instructions, OP-4 ensures payment is made to card accounts for the minimum amount due to avoid temporary invalidation. It is stated that OP-4 has applied the amount in conformity with the terms and conditions of the contract.
- In their reply, OP-2 and OP-3 have stated that there is no cause of action against them and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is stated that the complainant knowingly entered into the transaction above the credit limit of the complainant which resulted into the said inconvenience and now he is shifting act of his own wrong upon OPs. It is further stated that the transactions under the scheme are totally controlled and monitored by the respective banks and the policy are at the discretion of the banks including the transaction of the complainant for which OP-2 & 3 cannot be held liable. It is stated that OP-2 & 3 partnered with OP-4 for the said scheme and was nowhere involved in the transaction between OP-4 and its customers.
- OP-1in their reply, states that complainants do not have any locus standi to present complaint in the present form. It is stated that complainant No.1 has stated that he has alleged allegations against OP-4 and complainant No.2 purchased vehicle from OP-2 & 3 and has alleged against them. Neither of the transactions have been done jointly by the complainants. Thus present complaint is not maintainable.
- OP-1 has further stated that his relationship on principal to principal basis and cannot be held liable for any independent act and/or omission committed by the other OPs. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Oil Corporation Vs. Consumer Protection Council (1994) 1SCC 397, Maruti Udyog Ltd. Vs. Narendra Pratap Sinha II (2009) CPJ 295 (NC), Hind Motors India Ltd. Vs. Balvinder Singh Sood RP No.3298/2044 and reliance has also been placed on RP No.3307/2004, 3299/2004, RP No.3315/2004.
- It is further submitted by OP-1 being a manufacturer of the vehicle in question has nothing to do with the controversy and there is no occasion for the complainant to approach this OP for redressal of his alleged grievance. It is denied by OP-1 that complainant No.2 has prematurely encashed FD which is evident from the account statement of complainant No.1annexed along with the complaint. It is stated that complainant is levelling false allegations to gain undue sympathy. It is reiterated that OP-1 has nothing to do with the controversy.
- In their rejoinder, complainants have reiterated that the scheme was introduced that the sole motive of earning profits and for promoting the business interest of the OP. It is denied by the complainants that they had exceeded the assigned credit limit of Rs.1,46,000/- and further denied that over limit fee of Rs.500/- along with the corresponding service tax should have been debited. It is stated by the complainants that there is no annexure filed by OP-2 along with the reply. The other allegations made by OP-4 are denied by the complainants.
- All the parties have filed their respective evidence affidavits and written submissions. This Commission has gone through the entire material on record. It is seen that there is no dispute regarding the fact that the complainants had taken a Tata Nano car under a scheme floated by OP 4. The amounts deposited by the complainants are also not in dispute, the dispute is limited to the application of that amount to various credit cards issued to the complainant. The most important point of contention between the complainant and OP 4 is the non-implementation of the scheme i.e conversion of Rs. 1,50,000/- into 12 EMIs with zero % interest. It is also seen that the complainant’s story of having deposited Rs.6,000/- towards conversion of the amount stands confirmed by the OP 4 in their WS where it is stated
“It is further stated that the complainant contacted banking unit of OP-4 on 31.05.2013 and unclear about the balance outstanding and she was informed the reason non-conversion of the transaction amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to EMIs. It is also stated that on the request of the complainant for conversion, the bank official took an exceptional approval for converting the transaction Rs.1,50,000/- into EMI with the requirement for the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- immediately to adjust his credit limit (Rs.1,46,000/-) and advised him to approach the bank to furnish for EMI conversion. It is further stated by the OP that complainant did not approach the bank after affecting the payment of Rs.6,000/- dated 03.06.2013 and therefore the transaction was not converted into EMI repayable @ zero per cent per month.” It is noticed that despite the complainant paying a sum of Rs.6,000/- on the direction of OP 4 and despite themselves averring that the bank official took an exceptional approval for converting the transaction Rs.1,50,000/- into EMI with the requirement for the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.6,000/- immediately, has failed to do so. It is also seen that once the amount of Rs.6,000/- was accepted by the OP4 towards conversion of the outstanding amount, OP 4 could not have applied the said amount towards other credit cards held by the complainants. It is seen that despite leading the complainant to pay Rs.6,000/- towards the outstanding of the card on which the car was purchased yet the OP 4 on its own volition applied those funds towards other cards. It is also seen that the complainants have paid this entire amount in June 2013. It is also seen that though it is the duty of the complainants to spend as per the available balance in their credit card however it is also the duty of the OP4 to communicate with the complainants at the time when the complainants are trying to exceed their credit card limit and inform/advise them of their expenditure beyond the credit limit. OP 4 is found to be guilty of deficiency in service and therefore OP 4 is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/-to the complainant within three months from the date of the order failing which the OP4 would be liable to pay a further sum of Rs. 40,000/-. File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules. | |
