F.A.No. 1571 OF 2007 AGAINST C.C.No.55 OF 2006
 DISTRICT FORUM-II VISAKHAPATNAM.

Between:

P.Srinivasa Rao S/o late Babu Rao
Hindu, aged 37 years,
R/o Dr.No.33-14-262, Main Road
Allipuram, Visakhapatnam
                                                                   Appellant/complainant

A N D

1.    Officer-in-Charge
Credit Card Division
The Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Ltd.,
Cards Production Division,
Post Bag No.29128, Warli, Mumbai-30

2.    Manager,
Credit Card Division,
The Hong Kong and Shanghai
Banking Corporation Ltd.,
Waltair Uplands, Visakhapatnam

                                                              Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the appellant                         Ms  V.Chaitanya Latha
Counsel for the respondent  No.1           Served
Counsel for the respondent No.2            Sri M.Srinivas Reddy

          QUORUM:      SRI SYED ABDULLAH, PRESIDING MEMBER
                                                        &

                              SRI R.LAKSHMINARSIMHA RAO, MEMBER

                        TUESDAY THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE                        

                                         TWO THOUSAND NINE

          Oral Order ( As per Sri R.Lakshminarsimha Rao, Member)

***

1.      The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant. The respondents issued Credit Card bearing no.4476 9212 0867 1408 with limit INR 15000 and validity till September, 2006 to the appellant in the month of September, 2004. Further, the averments of the complaint disclose that the appellant on being informed that "add on card" is issued without collecting service charges as any time, obtained such Card in the name of his wife Laxmi. The appellant had made few transactions through the Credit Card. He deposited an amount of Rs.500/- in cash drop box and remitted an amount of Rs.850/- with the respondent no.2 bank. The amount of Rs.850/- only was credited to his account whereas the amount of Rs.500/- deposited in the cash drop box was not done so. The respondents had sent incorrect statements containing service charges on "add on card" which did not corroborate with actual transactions and the dates thereof. The agents and the field staff of the respondents harassed the appellant. The appellant requested the respondent no.2 to close his account and on such occasion the respondent no.2 issued an incorrect statement with transactions from October 2003 even though they had issued the Credit Card to the complaint only in the month of September 2004.

2.      The respondent disclosed against the norms the particulars of transactions to their agents for the purpose of collection of charges. On 23.8.2005 the appellant had got issued Legal Notice through his advocate to the respondents. The respondent no.1 had sent a mail and the respondent no.2 got issued reply notice requesting the appellant to be specific in stating his grievance and informing him of the three transactions using his Credit Card for the purchase made from M/s.Kameshwari Jewellers and also requesting him to arrange for payment of the amount due. The respondent no.2 had not settled the dispute. The issuance of the statement with incorrect transaction caused mental agony to the appellant. Hence the appellant sought direction to the respondents to issue proper statement of account and pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards damages and costs.

3.      The respondent no.2 resisted the claim. It was contended that reply notice to the legal notice Dt: 23.8.2005 advising the appellant to remit the amount outstanding on account of purchases made at Kameshwari Jewelleries on 3 occasions and interest and other charges accrued thereon. The appellant has not paid the amount due with an intention to avoid the payment and cause loss to the respondents. The appellant had never expressed his willingness to deposit the amount. The appellant was allotted with a specific account no. 209-825827-606 against his card no. 4476 9212 0867 1408. On request of the customer, in addition to periodical statements an adhoc statement of account obtained through E-Mail from the Central Processing Office was sent after the same was converted to MS Office Word format through copy plus paste method. The details of two separate customers of whom one is the appellant were pasted inadvertently while delivering his part to the appellant. The matter was subsequently clarified and the appellant was requested to ignore the charges against the account no.206-035644-606. The respondents never subsequently demanded the amount due in respect of the account of the other customer of the respondent no.2 bank. The mistake was an unintended error. The appellant was issued other regular statements periodically. Hence it was stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of respondent no.2.                   

4.      The points for consideration are:

(1)     Whether the order passed by the District Forum suffers from any infirmity?

(2)     Is the appellant entitled to the relief as prayed for?

(3)     To what relief?

5.     POINT NO.1: The District Forum passed the impugned order holding that the appellant had not filed periodical bills before it and approached it with unclean hands and that he failed pay the amounts due to the respondents. The appellant had stated that he deposited an amount of Rs.500/- on 20.11.2004 in cash drop box of respondent no.2, in the denomination of Rs.1 x 500= 500/-. The amount was not credited to his account.  The respondent no.2 has stated that on receipt of complaint, the appellant was requested to watch the Vedio Camera record. He admitted that he had not deposited on 20.11.2004 any amount as alleged to have been deposited by him. The appellant had not denied either his invitation to go through the Vedio record or his admission that he had not deposited on 20.11.2004 any amount in the drop box maintained by the respondent no.2. The appellant had not produced any evidence in support of his contention. The fact of deposit of Rs.500/- in cash drop box of the respondent no.2 by the appellant proved to be false.

6.      It is the case of the appellant that the respondents issued statement of account with improper transactions and incorrect dates. It is true that the statement in question was issued with the particulars of the transactions made by the appellant and also of the transactions made from 28.9.2003 with account no.206-035644-606 of the other account holder of the respondent no.2 Bank. The appellant had stated    "originally the Card No. issued to me No.4476 9212 0867 1408 and Account NO. is 209-825827-606 issued in the month of September 2004. But, in the statement it is shown as Account No. is 206-035644-606 and transactions are shown from 28.9.2003, as per the statement given by the opposite parties transactions are shown from 24.9.2003 with A/c.No.206-035644-606 whereas Card No. issued to me on September 2004, this statement clearly shows the gross negligence and deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties". The respondent no.2 has contended that in addition to periodical statements, an adhoc statement of account obtained through E-Mail from the Central Processing Office of the respondents was sent to the appellant. The E-Mail was converted to MS Office Word Format through copy plus paste method and due to oversight the details of two separate customers were in advertently pasted while delivering the part of the appellant. Subsequently, the appellant was given a clarification and he was requested to ignore the portion of the transactions not pertaining to him. The respondent no.2 submits that they never demanded the amount due of the other customer is account. The appellant had not filed periodical statements sent by the respondents. The appellant had not explained any reason for not filing the document.

7.      The appellant had submitted that the respondents had charged him of the service tax for add on Card issued in the name of his wife and against their assurance. The respondent no.2 denied any such promise said to have been made by them. There is no documentary evidence on record to the effect that the respondent no.2 had promised that the "add on card" would be free of charges. The appellant had not chosen to protest against the collection of service charge on the "add on card". All these circumstances establish the fact that the respondents issued "add on card" on condition that service charge would be levied thereon. The appellant had approached the District Court in view of the demand made through E-Mail which contains the particulars of transactions of a different account in addition to those of the account of the appellant. The District Forum though passed a cryptic order, came to a correct conclusion that the appellant had not made out a primafacy case.

8.     POINT NO.2: It is discussed under point no.1 that the appellant had not established his case. A mistake in E-Mail message though a mistake, it had not caused any tension to the appellant as subsequently there was no demand for the amount charged under a different account pertaining to the other customer of respondent no.2. The appellant should show the trouble he had undergone and the loss he suffered due to the act of the respondents in sending the E-Mail message to him. In absence of any such adverse effect, the appellant cannot claim that he suffered due to the mistake crept in E-Mail message particularly in the light of the fact that there was no demand for such amount from the respondent as well as  the non-payment of admitted amount by the appellant. The point is answered against the appellant.

9.     POINT NO.3: In the result,  the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum, Vishakhapatnam in CC No.55 of 2006. No costs.                                                                           Sd/-

                                                                             PRESIDING MEMBER

                                                                                      Sd/-

                                                                                    MEMBER

                                                                             Dated: 02.06.2009