DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI
C.C.NO. 17 OF 2022
Date of Filing : 21.06.2022
Date of Order : 31.01.2023
Sri Rajendra Kumar Biswal,
S/o Bhabagrahi Biswal,
At/PO- Phiringia,
District- Kandhamal. …………………….. Complainant.
Versus.
- The Chief Manager,
State Bank of India, Phulbani.
District- Kandhamal.
2. SBI Cards Private Limited,
DLF Infinity Towers,
Tower C, 12th Flower, Block-2, Building-3,
Gurugaom – 122022 …………………….. Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra - President.
Sri Sudhakar Senapothi - Member.
For the Complainant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Sahoo Advocate
For O.P.1 and 2 : P.A. Holder
JUDGEMENT
Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President
Complainant Rajendra Kumar Biswal has filed this case U/S 35 of the C.P. Act 2019 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for debiting a sum of Rs. 5290/- from his account and for claiming a sum of Rs. 10289/- without any reason and praying therein for direction to the OPs to restore a sum of Rs. 5290/- with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of deduction till it is credited to his account, not to claim a sum of Rs. 10,289/-, not to deduct a single pie from his account without clear instruction and to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- for causing deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards cost of litigation.
- Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is a Havildar in Phiringia PS. He applied for a credit card in the year 2019 which was never provided to him. But, the opposite parties have deducted a sum of Rs. 5290/- from his Bank Accounts towards credit card charges. The petitioner has never given any authority to the OP No. 1 i.e. State Bank of India to deduct credit card charges from his account. SBI card is a separate entity and money can only be paid to them from his SBI Account under his instructions. But the OP No.1 has not only deducted a sum of Rs. 5290/- from his account, simultaneously, a sum of Rs. 10,289/- is being claimed by the OP No. 2 as outstanding on credit card. It is alleged that the OP No. 1 and 2 have connived with each other to grab the hard earned money of the complainant and in spite of repeated approaches to the OP No. 1 to stop his deduction, no action was initiated for which he was compelled to file this petition for the reliefs as discussed above.
- After receipt of the notice from this Commission, both the OPs appeared through their Advocates and filed written statements. In his affidavit, the OP No.1 stated that the complainant is an account holder in his Bank and the organization of OP No.2 is a separate entity having no role in issue of credit cards. Because of automanded i.e. electronic clearing system, the charges for the credit card is automatically deducted by an automated process over which he has no control. So, allegation against him is completely wrong and he prayed for dismissal of the case against him.
- The OP No.2, in his written statement stated that the complainant is an account holder in the Bank of OP No. 1. On the basis of the application, one credit card was issued in his favour. As per the record of the OP No. 2, the complainant has used the above mentioned credit card multiple times for various transactions and the complainant has not made the payment against the said purchases. The credit card was debited for the prescribed fees for two consecutive years and due to non-payment of the same, incremental charges was levied. He was advised to pay the outstanding amount and since he did not clear it, the outstanding amount is reflected in his statement. However as a customer centric approach, the OP has already reversed the outstanding of Rs. 11, 959/- which is reflected in the statement on 18.05.2022 and has also refunded the deducted amount of Rs. 6899/- to his SB account. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the case.
- On the face of pleadings and counter pleading of the parties, it is to be ascertained whether the credit card in question has been delivered to the complainant by the OP No. 2 not ?
It is specifically pleaded in Para-3 of the complaint petition that no credit has been provided to the petitioner from 2019 till filing of the case. The opposite party No.2 has not specifically denied this part of the complainant. No document has been filed before this commission to show that the credit card was dispatched from their end to the address of the complainant and it has been duly delivered to him. In the absence of specific denial of the allegation regarding non-delivery of the card and also in absence of any proof to show that the card has been delivered to the complainant, I am satisfied that the card has not at all been delivered to the complainant and his automanded given in the application form has been misutilised by the OP No. 2 which is not only illegal but also amounts to unfair trade practice. Since the amount deducted from the account of the complainant has been reverted back to his account. I take a linent view of the matter. As a case of unfair trade practice is made out in OP No. 2 is liable to compensate to the complainant for the loss and harassment meted out to him and hence the order.
O R D E R
The complaint petition is allowed on contest against OP No.2 and dismissed against OP No. 1. The OP No. 2 is made liable for practising unfair practice and causing harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards compensation for unfair trade practice and harassment to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. Rs. 5000/- towards cost of litigation. The order as to cost and compensation is to be paid within a period of 30 days of orders failing which it will carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order.
Computerized & corrected by me.
I Agree
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31st day of January 2023 in the presence of the parties.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
