BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

PRESENT:

SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

C.C No: 82/2008

Dated : 15..09..2009

Complainant:

E. Ebenzer Rajakumar, “Sangeet”, PJRRA No.FF2, Pothujanam Lane, Kumarapuram, Thiruvananthapuram-695011

(By Adv. Rajasree. R.S)

Opposite parties:

1. SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Limited, 11,Parliament Street, New Delhi-01. Represented by its Branch Manager.

2. SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Limited, DLF Infinity Towers, Tower C, 12^th Floor, Block 2, Building 3, DLF, Cyber City Gurgaon, Haryana-122 002, Represented by its Branch Manager.

3. SBI Cards and Payment Services Private Limited, Thiruvananthapuram Branch, Panavila Junction, Represented by the Area Manager.

   (By Sri. A. Abdul Kharim)

4. State Bank of India, Zonal Office, LMS Compound, Thiruvananthapuram. Represented by its Deputy General Manager.

(By Adv. Dhanya. R)

This O.P having been heard on 31..08..2009, the Forum on 15..09..2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. S.K.SREELA, MEMBER:

The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was issued with a credit card by opposite parties 1 to 3 and the services offered by the opposite parties remained proper initially till early 2006. Whileso, due to an internal problem within the Thumba Branch of the 4^th opposite party, one of the cheques for Rs.5,064.05/- issued by the complainant in favour of opposite parties 1 to 3 got dishonoured, and the opposite parties 1 to 3 levied a penalty of Rs.280.60 plus Rs.561.20 from the complainant, that the complainant immediately issued another cheque for the payment due in the next month including an extra amount in lieu of the dishonoured cheque to the opposite parties 1 to 3, that thereafter the complainant decided not to use the SBI card for any more purchases till the problem was settled. Since May 2006, the complainant was not using the card for any purposes whatsoever, and was waiting only to finish the 12 month installment flexi-pay option the opposite parties had given him in November 2005 for a payment due. Thus save for an amount of Rs.3,430.81 per month plus government service tax on the loan amount, no amount was due to the opposite parties since May 2006. However, when the complainant was issued with the monthly statement dated 16^th June, 2006 complainant was shocked to find that instead of cashing a single cheque to cover the amount which was earlier dishonoured, the opposite parties had encashed both cheques, leaving a credit balance of Rs.605.66 in favour of the complainant. From there on the system of accounting of the opposite parties became highly erratic, insensible and totally berserk in some instances, that there was no rationality or sense in the system of billing since August 2006. In September 2006 itself the complainant had written to the 3^rd opposite party to rectify the billing system. There was no reply. In January 2008, absolutely fed up with the apathy and indifference on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant terminated the relationship and cut the card into several pieces and sent them by speed post to the 2^nd opposite party with a forwarding letter. However, the 1^st opposite party inspite of being fully aware of all facts and circumstances surrounding the complainant's card bearing No.4006 6760 1934 3246 issued a Lawyer's notice calling upon the complainant to pay Rs.6,138/-, that the logic, reason or sense of calling for payment of the above amount is not reflected in the said letter. The complainant believes that the attempt of the opposite parties is to eke out money from the complainant by hook or by crook-and by threatening him with unwarranted legal action. The action of the opposite parties have caused severe harassment, strain and difficulty to the complainant. Hence this complaint has been necessitated.

2.Opposite parties 1 to 3 remain ex-parte.

3. 4^th opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complaint is not maintainable. All the services under credit cards are provided by SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd and the 4^th opposite party never offered any service of credit card to the complainant. The 4^th opposite party is a banking institution a body corporate constituted and functioning under SBI Act 1955 and is not connected with the transactions of credit card. The dishonour of cheque was intimated by the branch to the concerned for rectifying the dishonour immediately. This opposite party is a stranger to the transaction between the complainant and the other parties and this opposite party never issued bill to complainant or anybody and never harassed the complainant and hence prays for dismissal of the complaint as against the 4^th opposite party.

4.Complainant, as PW1, has filed affidavit, marked Exts.P1 to P15 and has been cross examined by 4^th opposite party. 4^th opposite party has filed their affidavit.

5. The points to be decided as per the contentions made by the complainant are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency in service?

2. If the above is in affirmative, then by whom, opposite parties 1 to 3 or all the opposite parties?

3. Reliefs and costs?

6. Points (i) to (iii) : The statement of accounts produced by the complainant show that he is the holder of the SBI Gold card 4006 6760 1934 3246. The complainant alleges that, in the statement dated 16/7/2006, the complainant has been shown as a defaulter inspite of making regular monthly payments and a penalty fee of Rs.561.20 for payment not received by due date was included in the amount of Rs.2,568.28/- demanded as monthly charges. Besides this Rs.1,683.60/- has been demanded as annual fee for card charges on a free SBI Gold Card. The complainant further alleges that there is no correlation between the total amount due in the description of entries and the amount demanded in the statements and inspite of repeated telephone calls no reply has been given to the complainant promptly. The complainant has sworn as PW1 that Rs.716.61/- is due to him from the opposite parties. Complainant has produced documents in support of his contentions. The 4^th opposite party has challenged the same. From the records on file we do not find any consumer relationship between the complainant and the 4^th opposite party. The card has been issued by opposite parties 1 to 3 and the statement of accounts are also issued by these opposite parties 1 to 3. In such a circumstance, we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of 4^th opposite party. The duty upon opposite parties 1 to 3, as a financial institution, were of a higher degree of care and caution which they have failed. Having received the entire amount and the credit card, from the complainant, they are bound to account the same promptly. Moreover, opposite parties 1 to 3 have neither contested the case nor challenged the allegations levelled against them. In such a circumstance on the basis of documents and affidavit on record, we find that the opposite parties 1 to 3 are guilty of deficiency in service.

In the result, complaint is allowed and the opposite parties 1 to 3 shall refund Rs.716.61/- to the complainant with 12% from 16/11/2005 till realisation along with a compensation of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs within a period of two months. Opposite parties 1 to 3 shall issue proper statement of accounts to the complainant. 4^th opposite party is exempted from any liabilities. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 15^th day of September, 2009.

S.K. SREELA, MEMBER.

G. SIVAPRASAD,

PRESIDENT.

BEENA KUMARI.A, MEMBER.

ad..

C.C.No.82/2008

APPENDIX

I. Complainant's witness:

PW1 : E. Ebenzer Rajakumar

II. Complainant's documents:

P1series : Monthly statement issued by the opposite parties (1) dated 16/10/2005

(2) : " dated 16/11/2005

(3) : " dated 16/12/2005

(4) : " dated 16/1/2006

(5) : " dated 16/2/2006

(6) : " dated 16/3/2006

(7) : " dated 16/4/2006

P2 : Photocopy of certificate dated 23/5/2006 issued by Branch Manager (Thumba Branch, SBI., Tvpm)

P3 : Monthly statement issued by opposite parties dated 16/5/2006.

P4 : dated 16/6/2006

P5 : dated 16/7/2006

P6 : dated 16/8/2006

P7 : Copy of letter dated 4/9/2006 issued by complainant

P8series : Monthly statement issued by opposite parties date (1) 16/9/2006

(2) : dated 16/10/2006

(3) : dated 16/11/2006

(4) : dated 16/12/2006

(5) : dated 16/1/2007

(6) : dated 16/2/2007

(7) : dated 16/3/2007

(8) : dated 16/4/2007

(9) : dated 16/5/2007

(10) : dated 16/6/2007

(11) : dated 16/7/2007

(12) : dated 16/8/2007

(13) : dated 16/9/2007

(14) : dated 16/11/2007

(15) : dated 16/01/2008

(16) : dated 16/3/2008

P9 : Copy of E-mail send by complainant dated 26/3/2007

P10series:

(2 Nos) : Analysis of SBI card statements 16/11/05 to 16/11/06

P11 : Copy of letter No.LB/SBI/Nov-2007/16535 dated 13/11/2007 by the opposite parties.

P12series:

(2 nos) : Reply letter by complainant

1. dated 3/12/2007 with the copy of receipt dated 4/12/2007

2. Analysis of SBI card statements 16/11/2005 to 16/11/2006

P13 : Copy of letter by complainant dated 16/1/2008 with the copy of receipt dated 16/1/2008.

P14 : Copy of Lawyers notice bearing No.QL/150/March/08/15388 dated 26/3/2008 send by opp. Parties.

P15 : Copy of lawyer's notice bearing No.QL/150/10-Oct- 08/31369 dated 10/10/08.

3. Opposite parties' witness : NIL

4. Opposite parties' documents : NIL

PRESIDENT