BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

Sarabjit Pandher S/o S. Gurdev Singh Pandher r/o H. No. 1700 phase-10 SAS Nagar Mohali, Punjab.

…..Complainant

                 V E R S U S

1.    The Hongkong and Shaghai Banking Corporation Limited, Card products Division 52/60 Mahatma Gandhi Road, Post bag 128, Mumbai through its Managing Director.

2.    The Branch Manager the Honkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited SCO No.1 Sector 9, Chandigarh.  

3.    Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited, Hoechst House, 6th Floor, 193 Backbay Reclamation, Nariman Point, Mumbai.

                                  ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:-  SH.P.D.GOEL,                    PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL       MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA MEMBER

Argued by: Sh.Varun Katyal, Counsel for complainant.

          Sh.Mahipal Biswas, Counsel for OPs No.1 & 2.

           Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP No.3.

PER DR.(MRS) MADANJIT KAUR SAHOTA, MEMBER

              Briefly stated, the complainant applied for home loan with the OPs No.1 & 2 in 2003 and the same was sanctioned and disbursed to him on 31.1.2003 against loan account 125-102251-220 for 19 years. As per loan scheme, the complainant was also issued Gold Credit Card of HSBC Bank for a credit limit of Rs.50,000/-. Further, the complainant was telephonically offered a Platinum Card by the OP Bank for a credit limit of Rs.3,00,000/-. The complainant averred that the OP Bank without giving prior intimation closed his Gold Credit Card on account of issuance of new Platinum Card.  However, the said Platinum Card was received by the complainant only on 15^th Jan., 2009, along with terms & conditions, which were not acceptable to him, as for this card a fee of Rs.4500/- was to be paid annually for credit limit of Rs.80,000/-, whereas he was earlier told the credit limit of Rs.3,00,000/-. Thus, the complainant returned the credit card to the OP bank with documents in January, 2009. The OP Bank vide letter dated 15.1.2009 (Ann.C-1) conveyed that facility of Gold Credit Card has been restored with new Card No.4384 5913 9217 1860 having zero opining balance.  The complainant alleged that on March, 2009, the OP Bank raised a bill of about Rs.40,000/ for use of Platinum Credit Card No.4862699999554122, which he did not receive. The representative of the OP Bank visited his residence on 9.5.2009 for recovery, who was told that no such card was ever issued to him, but the OP Bank still raised a demand of Rs.79,095/- by way of bill for the period 11.5.2010 to 10.6.2010 (Ann.C-3).  He also made a representation in this regard on 9.5.2009 (Ann.C-2) alleging the illegality of bill (Ann.C-3). 

              The complainant averred that the OPs No.1 & 2 put his name in the list of defaulter without giving any prior intimation, hence breached the guidelines of RBI. Ultimately the complainant got served legal notice upon the OPs (Ann.C-4), which they ignored except writing letters (Ann.C-5 to C-8), but even then the OP kept on sending false bill for the period 11.10.2010 to 10.11.2010 for Rs.92,968.66 (Ann.C-9). Hence, this complaint.

2]           The OP No.1 & 2 in their reply while admitting the factual matrix of the case pleaded that the complainant was using a gold card, based on the same, he was offered to upgrade his card to platinum. He was also explained about the benefits usage of the card being offered. Since the two cards could not be used simultaneously, the gold card was cancelled and the amount payable against the said card was transferred to the platinum card, which the complainant did not pay. It was also submitted that the platinum card was delivered to the complainant through blue dart courier and the same was received by him on 6.11.2008. It is stated that as per the process the Gold Card was closed and the purchase outstanding of INR 42643.83 transferred to Platinum, which the complainant has not repaid to the Bank.  It is also stated that OP has clearly explained that the Platinum card issued is not a life time free card but annual fee will waived only for first year and the bonus point earned in the platinum card can be adjusted towards the annual fee in the subsequent years. Denying all other allegations made in the complaint the OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

3]           OP No.3 in its reply pleaded that grouse of the complainant does not hold any water as against the OP No.3 and the entire fault, if any, lies upon the OP No.1 & 2, who had shared the Negative Credit Information of the complainant with OP No.3 and thereafter has not updated the said information to the detriment of the complainant, if any. The inclusion of the name of the complainant in the database of the OP No.3 is made strictly as per the Act of 2005 and the Rules made there under and under the said regulation framed by RBI.

       It is further pleaded that the appropriate remedy for the complainant is to get his name removed from the list of defaulters and this process is viable or possible only through the reporting bank i.e. the OP No.1 & 2. No relief can be granted to the complainant by this Forum as against the OP No.3; rather a direction to the OP No.1 & 2 to issue a communiqué to OP No.3 seeking the removal of the name of the complainant as defaulter, by this Forum would ensure that the name of the complainant is suitably removed from the data base of the OP No.3. Thus, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed qua OP No.3.

4]           Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

6]           The averment of the complainant in the present complaint, which gave rise to the dispute between the parties, is that OP No.1 & 2 had wrongly put his name in the list of defaulters without giving any prior intimation or information to him and thereby breached the guidelines of RBI. 

7]           Contrary to the allegations, OPs No.1 & 2, in their written reply, stated that two credit cards could not be used simultaneously, that is why the Gold Card of the complainant was cancelled and the amount payable against that Gold Card to the tune of Rs.INR 42643.84 was transferred to the account of Platinum Card of the complainant.  It is admitted that based on the usage of Gold Credit Card, an offer to upgrade the Card to Platinum Card was given to the complainant along with terms & conditions thereof, but the complainant failed to make the payment for the usage. However, on the request of the complainant, the said Platinum Card was cancelled and Bank had issued a new Gold Card instead.  It is pleaded that during the card upgradation, the complainant was clearly explained that the Platinum Card is not life time free card, but Annual Fee will be waived only for first year and the Bonus point earned in the Platinum Card, can be adjusted towards the Annual Fee in the subsequent years.  It is further pleaded that because of continuing default on the part of complainant to make the payment, the matter/default was shared with CIBIL/OP-3.

8]           Whereas, OP- No.3, in its reply had pleaded that the Negative Credit Information of the complainant, in its record, was shared with them, by the OPs NO.1 & 2.  It is also pleaded that the inclusion of the name of complainant in Database of OP-3 was made strictly as per the Rules & Regulations of the Act of 2005.  Moreover, the removal of his name from the list of defaulters could be processed through OPs NO.1 & 2 only.

9]           Going through the facts & circumstances of the case and perusing the documents carefully & deeply, specifically of the OPs, which; can lead to the conclusion of the case and to clinch the matter in dispute, it is made out, as under:-

10]         Whereas, the OPs in their reply stated that at the time of upgradation, the outstanding of gold card ending with number 4785 was INR 42,643.83 and the same was transferred to platinum credit card ending with number 4122.  However, even the upgraded Platinum Card was cancelled on the request of the complainant, but the outstanding amount of gold card i.e. INR 42,643.83 which was transferred into Platinum Card was never paid by the complainant and remained as outstanding amount.  It is also pleaded that due to non-payment of said outstanding dues, the account of the complainant was termed as a Non-Performing Asset (NPA), hence the same was updated to CIBIL. 

11]         The OPs have placed on record Credit Card Statement of Platinum Card for the period 11 DEC 2008 to 11 JAN 2009.  In this statement, there is an entry of 9^th January, which reads as “09 JAN =  PRINCIPAL DEBIT ADJUSTMENT 42,643.83”.  The outstanding amount in this statement of account as on 11 Jan is shown as 42,643.83.

12]         Along with the above Credit Card Statement, the OPs have placed on record three (03) “PAYMENT SUMMARY’s” of the complainant i.e.:-

(i)    22 NOV 2008 TO 21 DEC 2008;

(ii)   22 DEC 2008 TO 21 JAN 2009;

(iii) 22 JAN 2009 T 22 FEB 2009.

13]         In the first Payment Summary for the period 22 NOV 2008 TO 21 DEC 2008, there is NET OUSTANDING BALANCE as Rs.21,053.69.

14]         In the second  Payment Summary for the period 22 DEC 2008 to 21 JAN 2009, there is an entry of 9^th January, which reads as “09 JAN =  PRINCIPAL CREDIT ADJUSTMENT 42,643.83”.  It proves that the debit entry of Rs.42,643.83 was converted as Credit entry in the account of the complainant, on that very day i.e. 09 Jan, 2009, by the OP Bank. In this statement the NET OUTSTANDING BALANCE as on 21 JAN, is shown as 0.00. 

15]         The third PAYMENT SUMMARY for the period 22 JAN 2008 TO 22 FEB 2009, which is the latest & final one, shows the NET OUTSTANDING BALANCE AS 0.00 as on 22 Feb., 2009.  In this very statement, it has been mentioned that “You have cancelled your account” 

16]         From the above Credit Card Statement as well as Payment Summary’s, it is evidently clear that the disputed amount of Rs.42,643.83, which the OPs alleged to be still outstanding, had already been credited, which is clear from the Payment Summary issued by the OP Bank itself as referred above, Therefore, there remains not even an iota of doubt regarding the fact that the disputed amount of Rs.42.643,63 had already been cleared/credited in favour of the OP Bank. The payment summary’s from 22 Nov, 2008 to 22 Feb., 2009, when the credit card was finally cancelled, shows that there was NIL outstanding balance against the complainant.  When there was nothing due against the complainant, so, his name should not have been sent to CIBIL by the OPs as a defaulter, but still they did so. As per settled law, the notice to the defaulter customer has to be given/issued in order to provide him an opportunity to explain his version/case, but in this case, it has not been done by the OP Bank.  Thus, the denial of such a lawful right/opportunity, to the complainant, clearly tantamounts to deficiency on the part of OP Bank.

17]         Evaluating the above factual position as well as the facts & circumstances of the case, in our opinion, it is proved, beyond any doubt, that there was no outstanding amount against the complainant, as claimed by the OP Bank.  Therefore, the claim of the OP Bank that the complainant was defaulter in paying the outstanding dues, is totally illegal & unjustified.  Factually, it is proved that no amount was due against the complainant as alleged by the OP Bank. Furthermore, the name of the complainant sent by the OP Bank to the CIBIL in their defaulters list, was also uncalled for & illegal.  Therefore, such an act & conduct of the OP Bank constitutes gross deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on their part. Consequently, the complainant had to undergo a lot of physical harassment, mental tension as well as forced to enter into unnecessary litigation on this account.

18]         In view of the foregoing, after taking into consideration the pleadings as well as evidence led by the respective parties, we are of the considered opinion that the deficiency in service, on the part of OP Bank, is writ large. Therefore, the present complaint, having lot of merit, weight and substance, must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed against Opposite Party No.1 & 2. They are directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing him great mental agony and physical harassment, apart from Rs.15,000/- as litigation cost.  Further, the bill/demand raised by the OP Bank, from the complainant, for credit card No.4862699999554122, stands quashed.  They are also directed to follow the necessary communication with CIBIL for clearing/removing complainant’s name from the list of defaulters.   

              This order, in its letter & spirit, be complied with by OPs No.1 & 2, within one month, from the date of receipt of its copy, failing which they would be liable to pay the above awarded amount, alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the present complaint i.e. 04.02.2011, till the amount is actually paid to the complainant, besides paying the litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.

19]         However, the complaint qua OP NO.3 stands dismissed.

              Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.