Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/06/2018

R.Krishna kumar S/o.mr.V.Ramamurthy - Complainant(s)

Versus

The General Manager HDFC Bank Limited Hdfc House - Opp.Party(s)

A.Murali

11 Feb 2020

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  03.01.2018

                                                               Order pronounced on:  11.02.2020

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT:  TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL -  PRESIDENT

 

TMT.P.V.JEYANTHI B.A., MEMBER - I

 

TUESDAY THE 11^th  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2020

 

C.C.NO.06/2018

 

R.Krishnakumar, (M/37 years),

S/o.Mr.V.Ramamurthy,

No.4/83, 2^nd Street, Sabapathy Nagar,

Madipakkam, Chennai – 600 091.

                                                                                     …..Complainant

 ..Vs..

1. The General Manager,

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

HDFC House,

Senapati Bapat marg,

Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.

 

2.The Bank Manager, (Lien Division),

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Ceebros Building,

No.110, Nelson Manickam Road,

Aminjikari, Chennai – 600 029.

 

3.The Bank Manager, (Lien Division),

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Credit Card Division,

Thiruvanmiyur Branch,

No.08, Lattice Bridge Road,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

 

 

 

4.The Bank Manager, (Lien Division),

HDFC Bank Ltd.,

Madipakkam Branch,

No.5, Sabari Salai, Madipakkam,

Madipakkam Ayyappan Temple,

Chennai – 600 091.

 

.....Opposite Parties

Counsel for Complainant                         : Mr.A.Murali

 

Counsel for  opposite parties                    : M/s.T.K.M.Saikrishnan,

                                                                      Mrs.N.Premalatha       

 

ORDER

 

BY PRESIDENT TMT.K.LAKSHMIKANTHAM, B.Sc., B.L., DTL.,DCL, DL & AL

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The complainant is one of the customers in the 4^th opposite party bank branch vide customer Identity No.6723604 and  holds the said account for the past 13 years. The complainant had a ‘Platinum Plus’ category of credit card vide No.9633. In the month of November 2016, the complainant has applied for Add-on card to his wife. However, to the shock and surprise to the complainant the 3^rd opposite party branch have sent intimation that they have despatched the different type of credit card (namely Allmiles Credit Card) which the complainant has not opted the said type of credit card. Immediately, in the month of November 2016, the complainant had called the 3^rd opposite party branch through customer care call service and requested  to revoke the said new version of card. On 09.12.2016, he received the monthly bill for the said new card by migrating the utility bills of the existing card. Only then, the complainant understood that the 3^rd opposite party has not revoked the said new credit card and add on card. On 13.03.2017, the 1^st opposite party has issued a letter to the complainant and requested to pay the entire dues existed in the old Credit Card and included the amount deducted through lien account. The 3^rd opposite party has deducted the amount of Rs.28,018.74 from the complainant’s salary account and closed the entire credit card of the complainant. The 2^nd opposite party had included the complainant’s name in the CIBIL and thereby the opposite parties have totally damaged the image of the complainant and put the complainant into a great mental agony. Hence this complaint.  

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

                 The opposite parties   bank had issued credit card number ending with 4 digits 9633 and the complainant started to use the said credit card extensively. The complainant himself had agreed that he had initiated online request with the opposite parties bank to issue new add-on card. The new credit card was issued to the complainant on complainant’s specific request. The complainant had failed to understand that the features of the new credit card and the old credit card is one and the same. In spite of explaining this fact to the complainant several times, the complainant did not satisfy himself for the reasons best known to him. The complainant himself agreed that he had applied for add on credit card for his wife. On the basis of good gesture the complainant was given one more opportunity to settle the dues for the sum of Rs.63,697.01 vide e-mail dated 13.03.2017. But the complainant remained very adamant  and failed to pay  the legitimate dues. Left with no other option and to protect the interest of the public money opposite parties bank exercised the Bankers right to lien and set off under section 171 of contract act and marked Bankers lien in complainants HDFC Bank account for a sum of Rs.47,517/- and Rs.26,940.17/- on 31.03.2017 and 02.06.17 respectively. Only on the request made by the complainant a new primary and  add on credit card named as “All Miles Credit Card” had been issued to the complainant, since the “Platinum Credit Card” was  phased out. All the reward points on the previous credit card was completely transferred to the new credit card. When a particular product is phased out from the system, the complainant cannot force the opposite parties bank to sell the same product to him. The complaint  is liable to be dismissed.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The complainant  is a customer of the 4^th opposite party  having his ID No. 6723604  and holding the account for the past 13 years. The complainant  is also the holder of the “platinum plus” category of credit card in the same bank vide No.9633 and had applied for Add-on card to his wife. Now the case of the complainant is that 3^rd opposite party  had despatched a different card namely “All miles credit card” which the complainant had not opted for. Since the complainant  is not satisfied with the new card he called the 3^rd opposite party  through customer care call service  in the month of November itself to cancel the card which was  supplied to him. Again the 2^nd opposite party had sent the new card but that the complainant had not utilized the card as per the instructions of the customer care. On 09.12.2016 the complainant received monthly bill for the new card where the utility of the bills in the existing card is migrated. Then the complainant came to understand that the 3^rd opposite party has not revoked the  supplied new card as requested by him. On 03.01.2017 the complainant sent e-mail to the 3^rd opposite party but 3^rd opposite party had forced   the complainant to accept the new card and also to pay the monthly bill in the new credit card. The complainant sent many e-mails and letters to the opposite parties. There is no reply from the opposite parties. But the 2^nd opposite party had issued a lien letter for the attachment of the salary of the complainant’s account existing before 4^th opposite party.  Hence complainant has come forward with this complaint to reverse the lien amount and also for compensation.

          05. The opposite parties bank had issued a credit card ending with number 9633 is admitted and its usage and request given for an add on card are admitted facts of the complainant. Therefore the new credit card had been issued by the bank at the request of the complainant only. Bank had issued ALLMILES card which has the same specification as the add on card for platinum plus as per the opposite parties. But the complainant was not satisfied with the issuance of ALLMILES card and complained before the customer care through e-mail under Ex.A3. It is understood from Ex.A4 reply given by the customer care services that the bank has decided to withdraw the old  card variant  and the existing card customers will be migrated  to a higher card product variant  based on usage  and payment pattern. Therefore it is only the migration with the same features. The correspondence continued through e-mail and the same answer was given by the customer care service.  New card ended with four digit number as ‘7337’. Complainant had not understood the position and alleged as the new card is a different one but had not explained the alleged disadvantages affecting the interest of the complainant in the complaint. On perusal of records it is also noticed that all the mail communication from the complainant was replied.

06. At one stage,  when the payment to be made by the complainant had become overdue  and intimation was sent to the complainant under Ex.A10 thereby complainant was requested to effect payment. Mail correspondences between the parties and every intimation by the bankers to the complainant for irregular payments hold on funds and exercising the powers of bankers lien and right to set off option to the extent of balance available on the account of the complainant went on and those correspondences are filed by the complainant as Ex.A1 to Ex.A89. Platinum Plus  Card which was availed by the complainant was phased out as per the statement of the opposite parties. Since the card is upgraded and a new name is given with the same features and its supply to the complainant at his request as add on card does not mean that a new card had been introduced without the consent of the complainant. Upgrading the new card to public is the business activity of the bank which cannot be questioned by an individual like complainant. Feature differences in the upgraded new card as alleged by the complainant is not substantiated by the complainant. More pertinently the benefits accrued by the complainant in the previous card have been  added in the existing card and reward points were also transferred to the new card. This version has not been denied by the complainant. Hence the allegation of the complainant is not correct  and true.

                    07. Due to non-payment, bank was constrained to  hold on the funds on the bank account of the complainant. Lien and set clause is envisaged in the card member agreement which prescribes that the bank will have the lien and right to set off all monies belonging to the card member standing in their credit in any account whatsoever with the  bank or in possession of the bank. All the quaries raised by the complainant and legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant was properly answered by the bank as noticed in the documents filed by the complainant himself. Ex. B1 statement of accounts of the complainant reveals the utilisation of the new card by the complainant and the due payments. Due to absence of re-payment, hold on funds was placed on the complainant’s bank account and it is reflected in the reply to ombudsman  of  the bank under Ex.B2. Due payments to the bank by the complainant is not denied by him but as per the contention of the complainant,  the due amount is only with respect to platinum plus card and not with a new card which has not been cancelled as per the request of the complainant. The complainant has not understood the facts as expressed by the opposite parties  regarding the new version which is a upgraded one for the purpose of new level of transactional security based on the new chip+ pin security solution without any disadvantageous effect to the interest of the complainant.  It is also understood from the record that the complainant had not utilized the opportunity given by the bank to settle the matter and failed to pay the legitimate dues to the opposite parties bank. When a particular card is phased out from the system the complainant has no right to force the opposite parties to sell or supply the same product to him. Therefore opposite parties have done their duty as per the guidelines and have not committed any deficiency in service accordingly point No.1 is answered.

08. POINT NO.2:

                      In view of the discussions held in point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief  and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result, this complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 14^th  day of February 2020.

 

MEMBER – I                                                                PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated NIL                     Allmiles Credit Card issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A2 dated 09.12.2016          New Credit Card Bill

 

Ex.A3 dated 12.01.2017          Complaint given by the complainant before the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A4 dated 13.01.2017          Reply mail issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A5 dated 14.01.2017          Rejoinder mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A6 dated 16.01.2017          Reply to the rejoinder issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A7 dated 16.01.2017          Reply to the mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A8 dated 16.01.2017          Due amount reminder mail from the 2^nd  opposite party

 

Ex.A9 dated 17.01.2017          Reminder mail issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A10 dated 17.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A11 dated 18.01.2017        Due amount reminder mail from the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A12 dated 18.01.2017        Reply to the due amount reminder mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A13 dated 19.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A14 dated 19.01.2017        Reply mail sent by the complainant

 

Ex.A15 dated 20.1.2017          Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A16 dated 21.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd  opposite party

 

Ex.A17 dated 22.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A18 dated 22.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A19 dated 22.01.2017        Rejoinder mail issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A20 dated 24.01.2017        Complaint issued to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A21 dated 24.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A22 dated 24.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A23 dated 24.01.2017        Mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A24 dated 24.01.2017        Mail issued by the 1^st  opposite party

 

Ex.A25 dated 25.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A26 dated 25.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A27 dated 25.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A28 dated 25.01.2017        Mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A29 dated 25.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A30 dated 25.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant to the 3^rd opposite party

 

Ex.A31 dated 28.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A32 dated 28.01.2017        2^nd mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A33 dated 28.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant for the 2^nd mail

Ex.A34 dated 29.01.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A35 dated 30.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A36 dated 30.01.2017        Reply to the reminder mail issued by the complainant

Ex.A37 dated 31.01.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant for his complaint issued before the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A38 dated 01.02.2017        2^nd reminder mail issued by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A39 dated 03.02.2017        1^st Lien applied in complainant account

 

Ex.A40 dated  04.02.2017       Requisition letter issued by the 1^st opposite party for seeking extension of time

 

Ex.A41 dated 09.02.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A42 dated 09.02.2017        Reminder mail issued by the 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A43 dated 10.02.2017        Auto mail issued by one RPMC code compliance officer cards

 

Ex.A44 dated 10.02.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A45 dated 10.02.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A46 dated 10.02.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant for the 2^nd mail

 

Ex.A47 dated 14.02.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to 2^nd opposite party

 

Ex.A48 dated 14.02.2017        Complaint registered by the 4^th opposite party with reference number

 

Ex.A49 dated 14.02.2017        Reply mail issued by the 1^st opposite party to the complainant and sought for extension of time for another 2 days

 

Ex.A50 dated 15.02.2017        Mail sent to the 1^st opposite party by the complainant and explained about the attachment of lien by its subordinates

 

Ex.A51 dated 15.02.2017        1^st opposite party have issued a refusal letter to the complainant

 

Ex.A52 dated 15.02.2017        Reply mail issued by the complainant and sought for proof

 

Ex.A53 dated 16.02.2017        The complainant has issued a letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A54 dated 17.02.2017        The complainant sent reminder letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A55 dated 17.02.2017        Reply issued by the 1^st opposite party issued a mail and requested to wait the complainant for another 4 working days

 

Ex.A56 dated 22.02.2017        The complainant sent reminder letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A57 dated 22.02.2017        Reply mail sent by the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A58 dated 23.02.2017        The complainant sent reminder letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A59 dated 23.02.2017        Reply letter issued by the complainant to the above said lien attachment

 

Ex.A60 dated 23.02.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to the above said lien attachment.

 

Ex.A61 dated 24.02.2017        The complainant sent reminder letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A62 dated 25.02.2017        The complainant sent reminder letter to the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A63 dated 02.03.2017        Reply mail issued by the 1^st opposite party seeking another extension of time for 4 weeks

 

Ex.A64 dated 07.03.2017        A mail sent by the 1^st opposite party and directed to pay the bill amount without any mentioning

 

Ex.A65 dated 08.03.2017        Mail sent by the complainant and informing that the bank authorities have sought for an apology

 

Ex.A66 dated08.03.2017         Mail sent by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party

Ex.A67 dated 09.03.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant to the opposite parties

 

Ex.A68 dated 10.03.2017        1^st opposite parties sought for time to reply for the said mail

Ex.A69 dated 10.03.2017        Reply letter issued by the complainant along with the attachment to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A70 dated 13.03.2017        Reminder mail issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A71 dated 13.03.2017        The opposite party directed the complainant to pay the bill amount to the old Credit Card.

 

Ex.A72 dated 15.03.2017        The complainant issued a reply letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A73 dated  15.03.2017       The complainant issued a reply letter to the 1^st opposite party

 

Ex.A74 dated 22.03.2017        The complainant issued a mail to the opposite party

 

Ex.A75 dated 27.03.2017        1^st opposite party has sent reply letter to the RBI. Chennai

 

Ex.A76 dated 31.03.2017        2^nd time, the 2^nd opposite party has applied for lien in the complainants account

 

Ex.A77 dated 05.05.2017        Reply mail issued by RBI. Chennai to the complainant

 

Ex.A78 dated 11.05.2017        Closure letter issued by RBI, Banking Ombudsman, Chennai

 

Ex.A79 dated 02.06.2017        The 2^nd opposite party applied the 3^rd lien

 

Ex.A80 dated 09.06.2017        Reminder letter issued by the complainant to RBI

 

Ex.A81 dated 14.06.2017        Closure letter issued by RBI

 

Ex.A82 dated 15.06.2017        Reply mail issued by the B.O.RBI

 

Ex.A83 dated 23.06.2017        Reminder letter issued by the complainant to the RBI

 

Ex.A84 dated 27.06.2017        Reminder letter issued by the complainant to the RBI

 

Ex.A85 dated 08.08.2017        Reply letter issued by the 1^st opposite party for the letter issued to the RBI

 

Ex.A86 dated NIL                   Statement of accounts showing the lien attachment of the complainant

 

Ex.A87 dated 07.08.2017        Legal  Notice issued by the complainant

 

Ex.A88 dated 13.10.2017        Reply notice issued by the opposite party

 

Ex.A89 dated 23.11.2017        Rejoinder notice issued by the complainant

 

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE   OPPOSITE PARTIES:

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL            Statement of accounts for the period from 08.10.2016 to 08.07.2017

 

Ex.B2 dated  NIL           Opposite parties bank letter dated 27.03.2017 to the    

                                       Banking Ombudsman                      

 

 

MEMBER – I                                                               PRESIDENT