FINAL ORDER/JUDGMENT

Presented by:

Minakshi Chakraborty,  Presiding Member.

 Brief facts of the case: This case has been filed U/s. 34(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant stating that the complainant is a credit card holder under the credit card facility provided by the opposite party no. 1 in the name and style as Karnataka Bank Simply SAVE SBI Card bearing no. 4377-4848-5404-9841 with a credit limit facility to the tune of Rs. 74,000/- only extended with a cash limit facility to the tune of Rs. 14,800/- only and at that time of application for said credit card as well as at the time of activation of said card, the complainant has requested for physical monthly statement to be delivered each month at the said address of the complainant but they did not do so, even after several requests of the complainant they did not provide him any physical monthly statement. The complainant paid the outstanding in regard to the said card monthly transaction upto the period as obtained by the complainant within due date without leaving any single penny due but the opposite party no. 1 had without any information had blocked the said credit card of the complainant for any transaction without any reason specifying to the complainant. On 16.1.2019 as and when the complainant came to know that the said credit card was blocked by the opposite party, the complainant had made requests for unblocking of the said card but there was no result. Thereafter the complainant had requested further for physical statement and it resulted with delivery of two months statement for the statement dt. 6.12.2018 and 6.1.2019 enclosed with overdue letter delivered on 26.1.2019. But in the said statement the transacted due amount by the complainant was not indicted but only fee, taxes and interest charges were shown which are not as per the demand made by the complainant and also one consumer executive caller threatened the complainant over telephone with dire consequences. In between the month of September, 2019 the complainant was called upon by the opposite party no. 3 and the complainant moved there for granting justice but there were no fruitful result. On 15.5.2019 the complainant made a representative through speed post service before the Principle Nodal Officer of the opposite party no. 1 seeking demand for justice but they have not replied. Thereafter on 24.8.2020 the complainant through his registered email id has sent a request to the Head Customer Service at their registered email request to unblock the said credit card without affecting the CIBIL as prayed earlier and therefore a confirmation of receipt of the email was delivered by the Head Customer Service vide an email dt. 24.8.2020 where they stated that an outstanding demand of Rs. 10,199.81/- which is further a huge amount and on 4^th and 5^th Sep, 2020 a caller executive has called and warned to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 8524/- immediately which is further a different figure as demanded earlier by the Head Customer Service through email.

  Complainant filed the complaint petition praying direction upon the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 88,800/- for compensating with equal amount/ value of credit card for barred from the use of the said card and to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- for mental agony, loss and injury and to pay a sum of Rs. 5000/- towards litigation cost.

Defense Case:-The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 contested the case by filing written version denying inter-alia all the material allegation as leveled against them and stated that they had issued SBI card bearing no. 0004377484854049841 to the complainant on the basis of receipt of duly filled application form received in the month of October 2017 and the opposite parties had delivered the soft copy of the statement each month at the complainant’s mail id (which is stated in the written version of the opposite parties) and the same was also checked by the opposite party company when they received the grievance through their internal communication channel. On the basis of their investigation the opposite parties found that the statement dt. August 6, 2018 generated with total outstanding of Rs. 11081/- and the complainant had paid only Rs. 9401.54/- which is reflective in September 6, 2018. Hence the September 2018 statement generated with total outstanding of Rs. 2356/- which the complainant never heed to pay and the hard copy of August 2018 statement was sent through post which is stated in the written version of the opposite parties. The SBI cardholders are advised to pay total amount due as per monthly statements to avoid any charges or have the option to pay at least minimum amount due to avoid late payment charges. The process continues till the complete outstanding is cleared and the opposite parties duly communicate the same vide monthly statements, MITC and their website. In case the payments are missed or outstanding on the card is received less than the total amount due, then interest charges are applied on the balance amount, this is also applicable on all the fresh charges incurred in the same month. The finance charge will be levied at 3.35% per month plus service tax as per applicable charges. The opposite party company also providing online facilities to the cardholders 24*7 through their website www.sbicard.com by which the card holder can check 24 months statement and also providing facilities for payment. Due to prolonged non-payment and as internal policy of the opposite party company the card was blocked. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

Evidence on record

The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition and denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

  The O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 have filed a joint evidence on affidavit which reiterates  the averments of the written version.

Argument highlighted by the ld. Lawyers of the parties

Complainant and opposite parties have filed separate written notes of argument. As per BNA the evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument of both sides shall have to be taken into consideration for disposal of the instant proceeding.

  Heard argument of both sides at length. In course of argument ld. Lawyers of both sides have given emphasis on evidence and documents produced by the parties.

From the discussion hereinabove, we find the following issues/points for consideration.

Issues/points for consideration

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer?
2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief?

DECISION WITH REASONS

Issue no.1:

  In the light of the discussion hereinabove and from the materials on record, it transpires that the complainant is a Consumer as provided by the spirit of Section 2 (7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.The point is thus answered in the affirmative.  

Issue no.2:

            Both the complainants and the opposite parties are residents/having their office addresses within the district of Hooghly and the claims do not exceed the pecuniary limit of this commission. This point is thus disposed of accordingly.

Issue nos. 3 & 4:

  Both the issues are taken up simultaneously for the sake of convenience.

It appears from the complaint that the Complainant requested the customer Executive of the opposite party no. 1 thrice requesting him for sending physical monthly statement regarding the use of the said credit card on the ground that at the time of opening the credit card for use the complainant opted the facility for providing physical monthly statement with a request to send the same at his home address and lastly said request was made on 15.08.2018 while all of which remained unanswered. It is also the specific case of the complainant that on 16.01.2019 he came to know that said credit card has been blocked and further he made request to unblock said card which was rejected. It is the contention that on 26.01,2019 the complainant received two months’ monthly statement dated 6^th December, 2018 and 6^th January, 2019 with over due letter and in the said statements only fee, taxes and interest charges were shown but not the statements which were under the actual demand of the complainant. It is also the complaint case that till the month of September, 2019 the complainant was called upon by the opposite party no. 3 and the complainant moved there and there was no fruitful result. On 15.5.2019 the complainant made a representation through speed post before the Principle Nodal Officer of the opposite party no. 1 but they have not replied. Thereafter on 24.8.2020 the complainant through his registered email id has sent a request to the Head Customer Service at their registered email request to unblock the said credit card without affecting the CIBIL as prayed earlier and therefore a confirmation of receipt of the email was delivered by the Head Customer Service vide an email dt. 24.8.2020 where they stated that an outstanding demand of Rs. 10,199.81/- which is further a huge amount and on 4^th and 5^th Sep, 2020 a caller executive has called and warned to pay an outstanding amount of Rs. 8524/- immediately which is further a different figure as demanded earlier by the Head Customer Service through email. Whereas it is the specific case of the complainant that till date Rs. 416.07/- has been the actual due amount which is to be paid by him.

The opposite party Nos.1 to 3 have denied the case of the complainant and stated that they had issued SBI card bearing no. 0004377484854049841 to the complainant on the basis of receipt of duly filled in application form in October, 2017 and the opposite parties had delivered the soft copy of the statement each month at the complainant’s Email Id. It is the contention of the opposite parties that the statement dated August 6, 2018 generated with total outstanding of Rs. 11081/- and the complainant had paid only Rs. 9401.54/- which was in September 6, 2018. It is also the specific case of the OPs that statement of September, 2018 generated with total outstanding of Rs. 2356/- which the complainant never paid. It is also their statement that the hard copy of statement of August 2018 was sent through post. It is the further contention that SBI cardholders are advised to pay total amount due as per monthly statements to avoid any charges or have the option to pay at least minimum amount due to avoid late payment charges and the process continues till the complete outstanding is cleared and the opposite parties duly communicate the same vide monthly statements, MITC and their website. In case the payments are missed or outstanding on the card is received less than the total amount due, then interest charges are applied on the balance amount which is also applicable on all the fresh charges incurred in the same month. The finance charge is be levied at 3.35% per month plus service tax as per applicable charges. Due to prolonged non-payment and as internal policy of the opposite party company the card was blocked. So, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

This commission has made careful scrutiny of the petitions, replies and BNA of the both sides along the evidence on record. On consideration of the facts and circumstances in the light of the evidence on record , there appears reason to hold that the OPs’ denial does not seem to be justified and thus  it appears to the commission O.Ps are only entitled to get Rs. 419/- and thus the complainant has been successful to make out his case and the complainant deserves compensation.

 Thus this case succeeds.

Accordingly the issues are disposed of.

Hence

ordered

that the complaint case being no. 50 of 2020 be and the same is allowed on contest against the OPs.

The complainant will pay only Rs .419/ - to the OPs as actual due within a month from the date of this order.

The OPs shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 20000/- to the complainant within 45 days from date, in default complainant will take recourse of law.

In the event of nonpayment/ non compliance of the above noted direction the opposite parties are also directed to pay and/ or deposit Rs. 5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of D.C.D.R.C., Hooghly which is to be utilized for the purpose of poor litigant public.

Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.