Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/147/2005

B.V. Soundararajan - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Head of Credit Cards. ICICI Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.S.Narasimhan

17 Nov 2016

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   26.10.2004

                                                                        Date of Order :   17.11.2016

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

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

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

C.C.NO.147/2005

THURSDAY THIS  17^TH  DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016

 

B.V.Soundarrajan

S/o N.B.Moorthi

Old No.4, New No.7

Dr.Solomon Street

Rajaji Nagar

Pallavaram, Chennai-43                                        ..Complainant

 

                                                  Vs

1. The Head of Credit Cards

ICICI Bank Ltd,

ICICI Bank Credit Corporation

Tulsiwada (P.O)

Mumbai

and having Local Office at

No.44, Gandhi Mandapam Road

Kotturpuram, Chennai-85.

 

2. The Manager Customer Services

SBI Card Payment Services Pvt. Ltd,

State Bank of India

No.11, Parliament Street

New Delhi-110 001 and having

Local Office at

No.7, Mc.Nichols Road,

Chetput, Chennai-31.                                       ..opposite parties

 

Counsel for complainant                   : M/s A.S.Narasimhan, I.Murugan

Counsel for 1^st opposite party            : M/s R.Balaji & Co

2^nd opposite party                             : Exparte

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- each from the opposite parties 1 and 2 totally Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- each towards litigation expenses to the complainant.

 1.  The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

        The complainant entered in an agreement with 1^st opposite party to utilize the Credit Card facility (namely ‘Solid Gold’ ) service offered by the 1^st opposite party bearing No.447747012701 5007. The Credit Card facility was initially sanctioned for a limit of Rs.34,000/- and cash limit is to 20% of the credit card. The 1^st opposite party agreed to generate statement of account on the 8^th day of every month. The 1^st statement was generated on 8.4.2003 out of sanctioned limit a sum of Rs.1000/- was adjusted towards annual and joining fee. Thereafter the complainant did not receive the bills on the 8^th day of every month. On 8.12.2003 the claimant received a Bill according to which sum of Rs.32,708/- is due towards credit card issued by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party did not render the service as promised on 8^th day of every month from May 2003 to November 2003. The failure to send the statement of accounts on the particular dates amounts to deficiency of service. The Branch office of the 1^st opposite party which is known as call center did not respond properly and the subordinate of the 1^st opposite party did not behave properly. Therefore the complainant decided to close the transaction with the 1^st opposite party by transferring the funds from the Credit Card account of the 2^nd opposite party.

2.       The complainant has instructed the 2^nd opposite party to transfer the amount due to the 1^st opposite party by transferring the funds available in the credit card account of the complainant with the 2^nd opposite party prior to 2.1.2004 and the 2^nd opposite party alleged to have transferred the fund from the credit card of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, on 5.1.2004 by cheque No.036205. Inspite of that the 1^st opposite party did not close the credit card balance and continued to send statement of accounts for the subsequent months.  Hence this complaint.

3. Written Version of  1st opposite party is  in briefly as follows:

        The 1^st opposite party denies all allegations as false and unwarranted. It is admitted that the complainant availed credit card facility from the 1^st opposite party bank and that he had utilized the same for his personal benefits and had been receiving the statement of accounts pertaining to the same. The allegation that the complainant failed to receive the statements within the time stipulated is false and if at all the same was true nothing prevented the complainant to avail the phone banking service of the bank and enquired about the amount due on the card account.

4.          The non receipt of the statement of accounts is not supported by any cogent evidence to prove that the same is true and the complainant himself  voluntarily decided to close the card account for reasons best known to him and in doing so, he had availed the “ Balance Transfer” facility from the second opposite party, where the complainant was holding yet another card account, the balance transfer of funds had not been received by this opposite party and hence the card account could not be closed for want of funds to be paid by the complainant.

5.       The complainant himself has stated that by non transfer of funds by the second opposite party to the 1^st opposite party, the complainant had been put to embarrassment before the 1^st opposite party. Thus the complainant himself categorically admitted in his complaint that it is the 2^nd opposite party who had failed to carry out his request for balance transfer and as such without the funds being transferred, this opposite party was not in a position to close the card account.

6.       Even the complainant stated in the complaint that the 2^nd opposite party alleged to have transferred funds on 5.1.2004 and thus he is sure and clear enough to understand that the 2^nd opposite party had mislead the complainant and this opposite party is innocent and not necessary for the complaint.  Further the complainant has not referred to any cogent material or convincing evidence on record to establish any loss or injury alleged to have been suffered by the complainant. In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected totally. Hence this complaint is liable to be dismissed.

7.        In spite of notice served to the 2^nd opposite party, the 2^nd opposite party has not chosen to appear before this Forum. Hence the 2^nd opposite party was set exparte.

 

8.       In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit along with his evidence and documents Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.10 marked. On the other hand, the 1^st opposite party has filed his proof affidavit. No documents were filed on the side of the 1^st opposite party.

 

9.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this Forum is:  

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

    Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2.  Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

 

10. Point No.1

        As per the case of the complainant, the 2^nd opposite party has failed to transfer the funds from the credit card account of the complainant to the 1^st opposite party, in order to close the credit card account of the complainant in the 1^st opposite party’s bank and in this regard, the 1^st opposite party has failed to send the statement of accounts to the complainant so for, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. While so, it is vehemently contended by the 1^st opposite party, the allegations made the complaint that the statement has not been sent by the 1^st opposite party within the time limit is utterly false and if at all the same has to be ascertained by means of phone banking service. Furthermore, the balance transfer of funds have not been received by the 1^st opposite party and therefore the credit card account could not be closed, but not as alleged by the complainant.

11.     At this juncture, the duty cast upon this Forum to decide whether the complainant has proved the allegations made against the opposite parties through relevant and consistent evidence before this Forum which is the bounden duty of the complainant.

12.        First of all, on careful perusal of the averments of the complaint as well as the proof affidavit submitted by the complainant, it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having credit card facility from both (opposite parties 1 and 2. The facility of credit card in the bank of the 1^st opposite party namely (Solid Gold) with the limit of Rs.34,000/- and cash limit has been sanctioned is marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2, Statement of Account dated 8.1.2004 issued by the 1^st opposite party.

13.      Such being so, it is further learnt that though the complainant has not satisfied with service of the 1^st opposite party who failed to send the statement of Account from May 2003 to November 2003, the complainant decided to close the credit card account with the 1^st opposite party bank and therefore the complainant instructed the 2^nd opposite party to transfer the amount due to the 1^st opposite party even prior to 2.1.2004. But the opposite party has not complied the demand of the complainant in time and therefore the complainant suffered some inconveniences and damages.

14.       At this point of time, on careful perusal of Ex.A.3 through naked eye, it is learnt that the 2^nd opposite party has transferred the amount of Rs.31,515/- to the 1^st opposite party by means of cheque No 036205 dated 5.1.2004. Whereas Ex.A.4, reveals the fact that the 1^st opposite party has not sent the acknowledgement to close the credit card account of the complainant. In such circumstances, on careful perusal of Ex.A.6, it has been mentioned by the 2^nd opposite party is follows as :-

    “ The Funds were sent to ICICI bank vide cheque No 036205 dated 05/01/2004. Taking note of the fact that the aforesaid cheque was not cleared till 19.02.2004, we have issued a stop payment on 20.2.2004. Further, please note that we are initiating a fresh Balance Transfer Request for the same amount on your account.

         We regret any inconvenience that may have been caused to you in the matter addressed to us”

 

       From the above reference of Ex.A.6, the 2^nd opposite party has clearly admitted his fault in clearing the said cheque amount to 1^st opposite party within the reasonable time limit. Furthermore, from Ex.A.7, it is crystal clear that the 1^st opposite party received transfer of fund from the 2^nd opposite party only on 25.02.2004, a sum of Rs.31,515/- and thereby it can be easily concluded that the transfer of funds from the 2^nd opposite party received by the 1^st opposite party only on 20.5.2004. It is certainly caused inconvenience to the complainant since the 1^st opposite party clearly narrated both in the written argument as well as in the proof affidavit that only due to the reason by non-receiving the transfer of funds in time, they could not able to close the credit card account of the complainant. Moreover, it is clearly seen from Ex.A.8 and A.9, statement of Account issued by the 1^st opposite party. From the foregoing facts, it is crystal clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party. Whereas, inspite of Ex.A.10, legal notice sent to the 2^nd opposite party and after filing of complaint before this Forum receipt of notice by the 2^nd opposite party he has not chosen to appear before this Forum and not come forward to disprove the allegations made by the complainant. Not only that in Ex.A.5 and A.6, the 2^nd opposite party has clearly admitted the lacking of service regarding the demand of the complainant and thereby failed to comply the same within the reasonable time. Furthermore, the reason for non-clearing the cheque for the balance transfer of fund sent through the cheque No. 036205 dated 5.1.2004 has not at all been explained anywhere.   Since the said facts have been admitted,  this Forum wish to state that the admitted facts need not to be proved.  

15.         In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Forum can easily come to the conclusion without any hesitation that the deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd opposite party has been proved with sufficient proof.  At the same time, it is clear that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the 1^st opposite party.  Thus point No.1 is answered accordingly.

 

 

 

16.   Point No.2:-

          As per the conclusion arrived in point No.1, the complainant is entitled to get reasonable compensation with cost from the 2^nd opposite party only.  Thus point No.2 is also answered accordingly.

        In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. Accordingly, the 2^nd   opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) in total towards compensation for causing damage to the complainant due to the deficiency of service on the part of the 2^nd  opposite party with cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) towards litigation. In respect of 1^st opposite party, the complaint is dismissed.

        The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.

Dictated to the Steno-typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this the 17th  day  of  November  2016.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         12.03.2003           Copy of 1^st opposite party letter to the

                                               Complainant

 

Ex.A2-         08.01.2004            Statement of Account issued by the 1^st opposite

                                                Party

 

Ex.A.3           11.1.2004             Copy of Statement of Account issued by the 2^nd

                                                Opposite party

 

Ex.A.4          10.02.2004           Copy of complainant letter to the 1^st opposite

                                               Party

 

Ex.A.5           01.03.2004           Copy of 2^nd opposite party’s letter to the

                                               Complainant

 

Ex.A.6            01.03.2004       Copy of 2^nd opposite party’s letter to the

                                               Complainant

Ex.A.7             08.03.2004           Statement of Account issued by the 2^nd op

Ex.A.8            1.03.2004           Copy of Statement of Account issued by

                                               the 2^nd opposite party.

 

Ex.A.9            08.04.2004           Copy of Statement of Account issued by the

                                               1^st opposite party. 

 

Ex.A.10.      20.03.2004           Copy of the complainant counsel notice to the

                                               Opposite parties.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:

.. Nil..    

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.