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

========

Sh. Ajay Kumar s/o  Shri Mangal Singh r/o #2063,  Sector  45-B, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

                            V E R S U S

1.        The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank, SCF No.50-51, Phase 3B2, 1^st and 2^nd Floor, Mohali (Punjab).

2.        National Manager Debt Management, HDFC Bank Cards Division, No.8, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600041.

3.        HDFC Bank, SCF No.21, Phase 10, Mohali (Punjab), through its Manager.

4.        HDFC Bank, SCO No.52-53, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

                                   ..…Opposite Parties

CORAM:        SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, PRESIDING MEMBER

              MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

Argued by:       Sh. Yogesh K. Saini, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs

PER MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

             The present complaint has been filed by Ajay Kumar, complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the OPs. 

              As per the facts, the complainant was given credit card facility in January 2008 by OP-1 for which he alleges that he was given a wrong commitment that the credit limit would be Rs.70,000/- when it was actually Rs.10,000/- only.  As no statement of the credit card account, bearing No.4346772005940506 was ever delivered, he was kept unaware about the extra charges.  However, the complainant kept making payment on the amounts due from him.  On 4.12.2008, the complainant intimated the OPs that his credit card had got lost, and requested that the same should be blocked.  The complainant also told the OP that he no longer wished to get another credit card in lieu of the old one, however, to his surprise the OPs orally intimated to him that the lost card has been blocked  and a new one bearing No.4346772008293598 has been issued. This card was never delivered to him.  The complainant has alleged that he has used the credit card for a very short time before it was lost.  He had also told the OPs that he was willing for amicable settlement of the account for all the amount outstanding.  However, the OPs continued to send him notices with regard to the outstanding payments.  Thereafter he paid a total of Rs.15,470/- to them on different occasions on their asking.  In October 2009 even his salary account was blocked by the OPs without any intimation/consent.  Harassed by the act and conduct of the OPs, he served a legal notice dated 20.2.2010 on them which was replied by them vide their single page reply dated 4.3.2010  admitting that the complainant was not liable for credit card account No.4346772008293598 as the same was never delivered to him. As per the complainant, the OPs have not cleared his account and are continuing to demand amounts which he feels are not due from him.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the complainant has filed the instant complaint praying for NOC for the credit card and compensation. 

2.        In their written reply the OPs admitted that the credit cards in question were issued to the complainant but it has been denied that the statements of account were not delivered to him.  It has been submitted that after the loss of the old credit card bearing No.4346 7720 0594 0506, the complainant was issued a fresh credit card bearing No.4346 7720 0829 3598 and the dues payable against the first credit card were transferred into the new one, but the complainant refused to make payment of these old credit card dues. It has been stated that the complainant was duly intimated through notice that on account of his failure to clear the dues, a lien had been placed on his salary account which was in terms of the general right of bankers lien as well as terms and conditions of the credit card.  Denying all other material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 
3.        Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.
4.        We have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and have also perused the record, including written arguments. 
5.        The complainant has alleged that the OPs are harassing him for making payment against the lost credit card. He has alleged that he has cleared all his dues and fails to understand why the bank is continuously demanding more payment.  He has also alleged that the bank seems to have issued a new credit card to him against the lost one which he has never received hence he is not liable to make any payment accruing against the new credit card. 
6.        The OPs in their reply and at the time of arguments have submitted that the complainant has used his credit card many times before its loss and the bank has only demanded the payment due on the credit card alongwith interest accrued thereon due to non payment/delayed payment.  No amount for any usage beyond the date of blockage of the credit card has ever been demanded from the complainant. When the complainant failed to clear the dues, the bank was constrained to impose a lien on his bank account and on his further failure to make payment, the amount was adjusted from the savings bank account of the complainant. The OP bank has also submitted that a fresh credit card has been issued to the complainant. This card, however, never reached the complainant.  Also the allegation of the complainant that a settlement of Rs.7,000/- would be done by the bank has been denied by the bank.  No promise was made to the complainant that the NOC would be issued on payment of Rs.2,000/-.  All payments made by the complainant against his dues have been adjusted and the bank has not demanded anything beyond what was actually due from the complainant.  The OPs have also attached a complete set of all duplicate credit card statements of the complainant. As per the statement dated 3.12.2008, the total amount due from the complainant was Rs.11,975/-. Thereafter all the statements are with regard to the new credit card.  Since the complainant has failed to make payment against this account, the interest and late fee charges alongwith other taxes have accumulated and the amount due from the complainant on the new card till 3.5.2010 is Rs.27,588.27.  A perusal of all these statements between 4.12.2008 and 5.5.2010 shows that there is no usage of the credit card in the intervening period and the only charges by the bank are due to the late payment and taxes.  The payments made by the complainant in the intervening period have also been adjusted.  The contention of the complainant is that the new credit card was not received by him.  Thus any charges for the new credit card should not have been demanded by the bank.  The statement of the bank attached upto 3.12.2008 shows a total due amount of Rs.11,975/-. This amount is payable by the complainant. The complainant has after this date made various payments amounting to Rs.9,470/- on different dates and an amount of Rs.4,767.88 have also been withdrawn from his savings bank account by the bank by imposing a lien.  Hence, in all an amount of Rs.14,237/- has been taken by the bank against a total amount of Rs.11,975/-.  Even if the interest factor were to be taken into consideration, the bank has  received far more than the amount due  on the date the credit card was blocked.  The new unwanted credit card has not reached the complainant.  In this regard reference needs to be made to the RBI circulars dated 1.7.2009 and 1.7.2010.  Clause 6.1.e reads as under :-

“e. Unsolicited loans or other credit facilities should not be offered to the credit card customers.  In case, an unsolicited credit facility is extended without the consent of the recipient and the latter objects to the same, the credit sanctioning bank/NBFC shall not only withdraw the credit limit, but also be liable to pay such penalty as may be considered appropriate.”

In view of these circulars, the bank should not demand any charges on the new credit card from the complainant.  They have already received more than the amount due on 3.12.2008. 

7.        The complainant is thus allowed in favour of the complainant with a direction to the OPs to square up the account of the complainant and not make any further demands for any charges. 

              The OPs/bank are also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for the harassment caused and Rs.2,500/- as costs of litigation.  This order be complied with by the OPs within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy failing which they would be liable to pay the aforesaid amount with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till payment is actually made to the complainant.

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