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

========

Complt. Case No : 1415 of 2009

Date of Institution:    29.10.2009

Date of Decision  :    03.09.2010

Ishwar Dutt Kalra s/o Basawa Ram, GM & Company Secretary, Chandigarh Industrial Tourism Dev. Corpn. Ltd., SCO 121-122, Ist Floor, Sector 17, Chandigarh.

……Complainant

V E R S U S

1]       The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, SCO No.137-138, Sector 9, Chandigarh

2]          Surajit Laha, Head-Customer Care, Standard Chartered bank, Customer Care Unit, 19, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001

3]       The Relationship Manager, Bajaj Allianz Life Insurance Co. SCO No.139-140, IInd Floor, Sector 8-C, Chandigarh.

.…..Opposite Parties

CORAM:          SH.LAKSHMAN SHARMA                         PRESIDENT

                    SH.ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI            MEMBER

                    MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA                        MEMBER

PRESENT:     Sh.S.S.Kanwal, Adv. for the complainant.

                   Sh.Jatin, Adv. for the OPs No1. & 2.

Sh.Varun, Adv. for OP No.3.

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER

                This complaint has been filed by Sh.Ishwar Dutt Kalra, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. 

                    The complainant has demanded that the OPs No.1 & 2 be directed to act upon their commitment, and waive off all hidden/previous charges on the Credit Card as admitted and proposed in the e-mail letter dated 15.4.2009; and OP No.3 be directed to supply an original insurance policy with validity in the current financial year i.e. 2009-2010.  The complainant has also made a prayer for compensation/damages for unnecessary harassment and mental tension as well as cost of litigation.

1]                 The complainant has submitted that he is a consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the C.P.Act and the  complaint pertains to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by the OPs.

                    As per the facts of the case, the complainant was a customer of OP No.1, and held a SCB Titanium Credit Card with A/C No.5546-2329 = 0749-4404.  At the time of issuance of this card, the authorized agent had informed the complainant that there would be no hidden charges on the Credit Card.  However, the complainant found in the statement issued by the bank on 21.12.2007 and received by him in Feb., 2008 that the bank had claimed Rs.3211.33.  The complainant asked the bank to clarify this claim as by then the complainant had already made a request to the bank to discontinue the card.  The bank apparently did not comply with this request.

                    In July, 2008 another Credit Card Statement was issued to the complainant where an amount of Rs.1954.64 was shown due from him.  The statement also contained the information regarding suspension of Credit Card Account.  The complainant again contacted the bank officials and requested for waiver of this amount. 

                    The bank officials gave an offer to the complainant that all hidden charges would be waived off incase the complainant took up a special Bajaj Alliance Insurance Policy.  The payment for this policy would be made by the bank on behalf of the complainant, and could be paid by the complainant in installments to the bank.  The benefit of income tax rebate for the then financial year i.e. 2008-09 seemed very attractive to the complainant, so he consented to take the insurance policy in the month of Sept., 2008.  He was assured by the representative of the bank as well as Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company that he would get the cover note/policy document of the insurance policy within 15 days. 

                    The Credit Card of the complainant was already lying suspended w.e.f. 21.12.2007.  In view of this factual position, the complainant was very surprised to receive a Credit Card Statement for Sept., 2008 where a sum of Rs.40,000/- had been released to Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company on his behalf and the previous balance of Rs.2370/- also stood payable and not waived off.  This statement has been placed at Ann.C-2.  The complainant then approached the bank to act upon their commitment as well as get the policy document from the insurance company, otherwise the complainant was not interested in the investment proposal (Ann.C-3).

                    On receiving another Credit Card statement with the same claims, the complainant again contacted the bank as well as the insurance company, but he was never given any policy document.  The complainant by now was totally harassed. 

                    To add fuel to the fire, he was informed on 26.3.2009 that a criminal complaint had been registered by the OP No.1 against him and the police were coming to arrest him.  Then the complainant wrote to the OP Bank to investigate the matter and withdraw the case registered against him.  After exchange of numerous letters with the bank, an official proposal was received through e-mail (Ann.C-7) that the total account would be settled for Rs.40,000/- against the total outstanding amount of Rs.55066.05.  The complainant accepted the proposal and contacted the concerned official of the bank.  Surprisingly, the concerned official Mr.Ajay Misra showed his inability to provide the policy document issued by Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company, to the complainant. 

                    The complainant finally issued a legal notice dated 5.6.2009 to the bank and requested them to provide the original policy document and waive off all previous and hidden charges.  After a reminder to the legal notice was issued, the bank replied that the insurance policy had been delivered to the complainant.  The complainant was surprised to hear this since he had never received this document.  In view of the above facts & circumstances, the complainant has filed the instant complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank as well as insurance company. 

                    According to him the OPs are sister concerns, and they have cleverly played a fraud with him and involved him in an insurance transaction to continue with their business.  He has not been able to avail the benefit of income tax rebate for the relevant financial year due to non-availability of policy. This also amounts to unfair trade practice. 

                    The complainant is willing to pay Rs.40,000/- to the bank as proposed by their e-mail dated 15.4.2009 on the condition that a revised insurance policy for the current financial year be made available to him to avail the benefit of income tax rebate. 

2]                 After admission of the complaint, notices were sent to the parties.

3]                 The OPs No.1 & 2 in their joint written statement have stated that the complainant was issued a Master Gold Credit Card in Aug., 2005, which was converted to the Titanium Credit Card later on.  The facilities offered to the customers by the bank is as per the terms & conditions and schedule of service charges as applicable.  There is no question of any “hidden charges”.  At the time of issuance of Credit Card, the bank executives always inform the customers about the terms & conditions.  When the Master Gold Credit Card of the complainant was converted to Titanium Credit Card, a one time fee of Rs.1999/- was debited to his account with his consent in Oct., 2007.  When this payment was not received , late charges and interest were levied on this amount in the subsequent statements.  The complainant as also all other customers, were sent regular statements on the mailling address recorded with the bank.  When payments were not received, penal charges were debited to the card account and the total outstanding now came to Rs.3211.33. The card facility was also automatically estopped due to non-payment of outstanding amount and the customer was advised to immediately deposit the minimum payment due to reactivate the card facility.  No hidden charges were ever debited to the credit card account of the complainant, as alleged by him.  With regard to the allegation of connivance with Bajaj Alliance Insurance Company for issuance of a policy, the OP bank has submitted that the complainant had taken the policy to get income tax rebate and availing the policy has no relevance with waiver of charges on the credit card account.

4]                 However, the bank has offered to settle the account of the complainant at Rs.40,000/- and is still ready to waive off the outstanding amount in the credit card ending with ….4404.  With regard to the policy document, the OP No1. & 2 state that the complainant may take up the matter with the insurance company (OP-3).

5]                 In the reply filed byOPNo.3, it is submitted that the complainant had proposed for Unit Linked 10 year plan and had filled up a form on 25.9.2008.  On the basis of the proposal form, a Young Care Policy Plan No.0109876621 with date of commencement as 30.9.2008 was issued.  The complainant had opted for 100% money to be invested in Equity Index Fund-II.  As per his proposal form (Ann.R-1), the policy was dispatched to the complainant on 3.10.2008 and was received back undelivered on 15.10.2008 due to non-availability of the complainant at his mailing address.  Subsequently, the policy was sent to HO (UDM) on 11.11.2008; and after that it was sent to NAX (Storage Dept.).  A request was made to them by the Standard Chartered Credit Card Division for the policy bond, therefore, the policy was dispatched on 13.1.2009 to the Delhi Branch of Standard Chartered Bank.  Thereafter the policy was dispatched  to the complainant on his Chandigarh address and was received by him on 2.7.2009.  OP No.3 has denied that the complainant was ever enticed to take the policy on false assurances.  Infact, it is the complainant, who was at fault by not performing his duty to pay the annual premium due on 3.9.2009 due to which the policy has now lapsed.  The complainant has failed to avail tax benefit due to his own fault and the blame cannot be fostered on the answering OPs for his failure to avail tax benefit as per the insurance policy.  In view of the above submissions, OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

6]                 We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the evidence and documents placed on record by the parties.

7]                 The ld.Counsel for the complainant was adamant in his contention that the amount demanded from the complainant by the OP Bank was illegal because the bank had not given any prior information for any charges to be levied for using the Credit Card.  Therefore, any charges imposed by the bank subsequently were illegal and unjustified.  Further, he has alleged that all the OPs had connived with each other to entice the complainant to take out the insurance policy.  A ‘bait of cancellation of all dues’ on the credit card was given to the complainant if he took an insurance policy.  Being attracted by this waiver offer, and also the tax benefit derived from the insurance policy, the complainant was agreeable to take out the policy.  He actually derived no benefit at all.

8]                 OPs No.1 & 2 have submitted that the hidden charges as alleged by the complainant for the Credit Card issued to him were all routine services charges as applicable to all, and for reactivation of Credit Card.  No amount was illegally demanded from the complainant.  With regard to the insurance policy, OPs No.1 & 2 have categorically stated that it was the complainant, who had taken the decision to take the insurance policy, to avail the benefit of income tax and there was no issue of any waiver of bank/penal charges incase the complainant agreed to take the policy.  Further, if the complainant has not received the insurance policy, it is not due to any fault of the bank.  The complainant should have taken up the matter directly with the Insurance Company (OP No.3).  However, as a gesture of goodwill the bank has offered to waive-off the outstanding charges of the credit card of the complainant provided he makes payment of Rs.40,000/- paid by them to OP No.3 towards premium for the insurance policy issued in the name of the complainant.

9]             The OP No.3 in their reply have accepted that they had issued and sent an insurance policy to the complainant. When the policy was received back undelivered, it was sent to the storage department of OP No.3 and when request was made by the Delhi Branch of OPs No.1 & 2, the policy was dispatched to the bank on 13.1.2009.  Subsequently the policy was delivered to the complainant on 2.7.2009 through Blazeflash Courier vide POD No.205748554. 

                The case involves evaluation on two issues:

(i)        Charges due from complainant on upgradation of Credit Card;

(ii)      Rs.40,000/- paid by the bank on behalf of the complainant to OP No.3 to issue an insurance policy in the name of the complainant.

                With regard to the first point, the allegation of the complainant for wrong charges by the bank can be said to be settled as the OP No.1 & 2 have, in their written statement, offered to waive off these charges. Thus this matter need not to be taken further.

10]            As regards to payment made for the insurance policy, it is clear that the bank has made payment on behalf of the complainant to OP No.3. The policy document, as alleged by OP No.3, was dispatched to the complainant on 3.10.2008 and subsequently on 2.7.2009. 

11]            The document was delivered through Blazeflash Courier but the OPs have not placed any receipt of the courier duly signed by the complainant to prove the actual delivery of the policy document.  Since the delivery has not been proved, it is not a certainty that the document was delivered to the complainant. His registered letter to OPNo.1 dated 14.11.2008 at Ann.C-3 clearly shows that the document was not delivered to him.

12]            From the facts brought out above, it is evident that the complainant has apparently not received the policy document, the premium of which was paid for by OP No.1 to Op No.3 on behalf of the complainant.  The complainant has also not paid this amount to the bank since he did not receive any such policy.  The OPs have not been able to prove the delivery of policy document to the complainant.   

13]            In view of the above findings, this complaint is disposed of with following directions:-

i)         The complainant need not to pay any amount to any of the OPs either with regard to Credit Card ending with “…4404”, or the amount of Rs.40000/- paid by the OP No.1 to OP No.3 for issuance of the alleged insurance policy in the name of the complainant.

ii)        OPs No.1 & 3 may sort out the matter amongst themselves as to who would be liable for the amount of premium for the policy alleged to be issued in the name of complainant by OP No.3

If the policy in question has been lying with the bank, then they should not claim the amount from anyone else as it is their own deficiency in service; and if the policy has not been sent to them by OP No.3, then they may claim the amount from OP No.3 as it is deficiency in service by OP No.3. The complainant has no role here.  

                Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of any charge. The file be consigned to the record room after compliance.    

Announced

3^rd Sept., 2010                                                            ---------------

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

                                                                   ------------------

                                       (ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI)

MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-  

                                                    (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

‘Om’