D.O.F:17/12/2021
D.O.O:18/04/2024
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION KASARAGOD
CC.240/2021
Dated this, the 18th day of April 2024
PRESENT:
SRI.KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA. K.G : MEMBER
Manoj K.K, Nikhil Nivas
Near Ganesh Bajana Mandhir
Soorlu, Post R.D Nagar
Kasaragod – 671124.
(Adv: C. Damodaran)
And
- The Branch Manager
State Bank of India
Civil Station Branch
P.O Vidyanagar, Kasaragod -671123.
(Adv: Mohan Prakash.K)
- The Managing Director and CEO : Opposite Parties
Now known as SBI Cards and Payments Services
Limited (formerly known as SBI Cards, SBI CPSL)
DFL Infinity Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2,
Building3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon 122002
Gurgaon Haryana.
(Adv: Radhika Rajendran)
ORDER
SRI. KRISHNAN.K : PRESIDENT
The case of the complainant is that opposite Party bank issued a credit card to him during December 2018. He used credit card only once in January 2019 at Kalyan Silks Kasaragod for Rs. 3399/-. Rs. 7087.23/- was available to his credit. On the specified date there was no sufficient balance. Bank informed to pay Rs. 5634/- for one day late fee. He paid the amount on 10/05/2019.
The Opposite Party debited only Rs. 588.82/- on 22/01/2019 balance available was Rs. 3383/- there was no sufficient fund during 13/02/2019 to 01/03/2019. The complainant sent letter dated 14/09/2021. The Opposite Party informed to pay Rs. 7973/- as on 04/12/2021. Thus there was deficiency in service complainant claims refund of amount debited towards credit card and compensation and cost of litigation.
The Opposite Party No:1 filed written version denying the allegations and stated that they have no connection with SBI credit card and stated that they were separate entities. The entire allegations made by the complainant is in respect of transactions relating to credit and which the complainant obtained from SBI cards and payment service limited. The Opposite Party No:1 cannot be held liable for the alleged grievance of the complainant. If any grievance for complainant Opposite Party No:2 is liable for the same and prayed to dismiss the complaint against Opposite Party No:1.
The Opposite Party No:2 later impleaded as party to the case but remind absent and set exparte. They filed IA 314/2023 to set aside exparte order but rejected for the reason that barred by limitation.
The complainant filed chief affidavit and cross examined as Pw1. Ext A1 to A3 marked from their side. Ext A1 is letter issued by complainant to Opposite Party No:1, Ext A2 is account summary, Ext A3 is copy of credit card. They not adduced any evidence.
Following points raised for consideration.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to refund of amount debited towards credit card issued by Opposite Party bank during the period from 28/01/2020 till 14/03/2022 and whether there is any deficiency in service or negligence in the service of Opposite Party in the matter.
- Whether complainant is entitled for compensation and if so for what reliefs?
All points are discussed together for convenience
According to the complainant Rs. 7069/- is debited shown in Ext A2 account summary. Another sum of Rs. 5316/- is debited. Thus according to him the total sum of Rs. 15385/- is debited during the period of 2 year for availing the credit cards towards purchase of article worth Rs. 3399/-.
Ext A1 to A3 documents are not issued to the complainant but denied the suggestion that the documents Ext A1 to A3 documents relates to the name of my sister’s husband. The complainant has no grievance that he paid the amount due otherwise than by debits.
From the entries shown in account summary there is no justification for debiting Rs. 15,385/- as per account summary maintained by Opposite Party No: 1. Further Opposite Party No:1 did not send any reply to the letter dated 14/09/2021. Though credit card facility is managed by Opposite Party No: 2 amount debited from the account of the complainant maintained with Opposite Party No:1. Hence Opposite Party No:1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable for the disputed claim relating to the subject matter. In any event there is services deficiency in service and negligence in the service of Opposite Party No:1 and 2 in not redressing the grievance raised by the complainant.
The complainant says Opposite Party is entitled to collect reasonable interest from the date of purchase only Opposite Party is entitled to collect interest at the rate agreed to between the parties.
Thus complaint is allowed in part Opposite Party No: 1 and 2 are here by directed to apply the correct rate of interest agreed for the amount covered by the credit card facility taking in to account the amount of Rs. 3399/- from the date of its user of the credit card and fix the correct amount payable by the complainant informing the justification for the claim with a reply by Opposite Party No: 1 to the complainant within one month from the date of service of the order. The complainant is entitled to compensation for deficiency in service. The Commission fixes Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) as reasonable in the nature of circumstance of the case and also Rs.3000/- (Rupees Three thousand only) as cost of litigation by Opposite Party No:1 and Opposite Party No:2 jointly and severally within 30 days of the receipt of the order.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exhibits
A1- Letter issued by complainant to Opposite Party No:1
A2- Account summary
A3- Copy of credit card
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Forwarded by Order
Ps/ Assistant Registrar
