Complaint filed on: 03-04-2010<br /> Disposed on: 20-08-2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT <br /> CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052 <br /> <br /> C.C.No.735/2010<br /> DATED THIS THE 20th AUGUST 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> SRI.GANGANARASAIAH., MEMBER<br /> <br /> SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER<br /> <br /> Complainant: - <br /> Sri.Hijaz Mohammed <br /> S/o. late M.A.Bari, <br /> Aged about 66 years, <br /> Residing at No.167, 5th Main,<br /> Byrasandra, Jayanagar, <br /> 1st Block East, Bangalore-11<br /> <br /> V/s<br /> Opposite party: - <br /> The HDFC Bank, <br /> Credit Department No.7-7/1,<br /> Lalbagh Road, Near Richmond<br /> Circle, Opp: Satyam Software, <br /> Bangalore, by its Manager <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> The grievance of the complainant against the opposite party in brief is that, he had obtained a credit card from the OP while he was in government service. That though he was regularly paying the amount due under credit card, the OP has imposed late fee charges and limits fee etc. charging a total sum of Rs.1,100/- ever month which is illegal. That he has retired from the service is having large family with kidney problem finding difficulties in maintaining the family. That he asked the OP to give some deduction and agree for one time settlement as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. But the OP has not come forward for one time settlement. That the OP has issued statement and shown due of Rs.51,919-00 as on 9-3-2010. That he is ready to pay sum of amount in one time settlement. The complainant further giving instance of Standard Chartered Bank and ABN Amro Bank where he was given concession for one time settlement has contended that the OP has not offered such facilities and therefore has prayed for a direction to OP to give reasonable deduction from out of the amount due as per the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and to award cost. <br /> <br /> 2. Op has appeared through his advocate and filed version, admitting to have issued a credit card to the complainant with credit limit of Rs.30,000/- and then upgraded the sum limit to Rs.37,000/. The complainant after utilizing the credit facilities under card has not made payment regularly as per the statement received from them. That on 9-2-2010 the complainant was due of Rs.51.657.95 and was required to pay minimum Rs.19,787.95 but only paid Rs.5,000/- towards total due. Like way the complainant has failed to pay the amount regularly or even the minimum amount payable, allowed the amount to accumulate which warranted imposing of interest and late payment charges, over limit changes which are applicable to the transaction as per the terms of the card as agreed by the complainant. The OP denying the allegations of imposing illegal charges has contended that one time settlement is the discretionary power vested in them which cannot be questioned as of right by the complainant and therefore denying any deficiency in his service has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Op have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. Both the parties have produced statement of account copies. We have heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the records. <br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the OP has charged illegal charges on the over due amount and the OP in not agreeing for one time settlement would amounts to deficiency in his service?<br /> 2. To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> 1. Answer Point No.1: In the negative <br /> 2. Answer Point No.2: To see the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> 6. Answer on Point No.1: As found from the contention of the complainant and admission of the OP, there is no dispute in that the complainant having availed credit card facility from the OP and that he become due in a sum of Rs.51,919.01 as on 9-3-2010. The complainant though has contended as if the OP has levied interest, late fee and over limit charges illegally and that the OP is charging Rs.1,110/- ever month, but has not proved the details of interest late fee and limit fee imposed and whether imposing of such charges is illegal. As against this allegation of the complainant, the OP has contended that interest and over due charges are levied in accordance with the terms of the transaction and on the basis of terms and conditions of the credit card facilities. The complainant has not denied that as per the condition imposed while issuing the credit card and he was made liable to pay interest on over due amount and imposition of late payment charges. Therefore we find that the complainant has not proved that those charges levied are illegal as the complainant who was receiving statement every month after obtaining credit card had not disputed leaving of those changes. <br /> <br /> 7. Coming to the claim of the complainant for giving deduction from out of the amount due and OP is not agreeing for one time settlement. The complainant in this regard has stated as if there are Reserve Bank of India guidelines in this regard and that the OP is not following those guidelines. But the complainant has not produced any such guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India making it obligatory on the OP to come round for one time settlement of the amount due by a customer. In the absence of such guidelines it is the discretionary power that they are required to exercise and that cannot be compelled. In the case on hand the OP has not agreed for one time settlement by giving reasonable deduction as requested by the complainant. Thus refusal cannot be construed as deficiency in their service as it is not a legal right of the complainant to claim. The complainant giving instance of certain concession he had with other bank cannot the OP. The complainant therefore has failed to prove any deficiency in the service of the OP. Hence the relief prayed by him for giving deduction in the amount due cannot be granted and therefore by answering point no.1 in the negative, we proposed to dismiss the complaint and thus pass the following order:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Both the parties to bear their own costs. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 20th August 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT <br />