Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/412/2016

Rajamani Thomas Selwa - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Axis Bank Thiruvanmiyur - Opp.Party(s)

S.Jaganathan, J.Kalidas

06 Jun 2022

ORDER

Date of Complaint Filed : 20.10.2016                                                                

 Date of Reservation      : 10.05.2022                                                                    

                                                                                 Date of Order               : 06.06.2022

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

CHENNAI (SOUTH), CHENNAI-3.

 

PRESENT:    TMT. B. JIJAA, M.L.,                                               : PRESIDENT

                      THIRU. T.R. SIVAKUMHAR, B.A., B.L.,                :  MEMBER  I 

                       THIRU. S. NANDAGOPALAN., B.Sc., MBA.,        : MEMBER II

 

CONSUMER COMPLAINT No.412/2016

MONDAY, THE 6^th DAY OF JUNE 2022

Mr. Rajamani Thomas Selwyn,

S/o. Mr.T.Rajamani,

Of Plot No.11, Bharathiyar Street,

Senthamarai Kannan Extn, Neelangarai,

Chennai – 600 041.                                                            …Complainant

 

..Vs...

 

1.The Manager,

   Axis Bank,

   Thiruvanmiyur Branch,

   New No.137, Old No.44/1, East Coast road,

   Muttukadu Road, Srinivasapuram,

   Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai – 600 041.

 

2.The Officer-in-charge

   Axis Bank Ltd.,

   Retail Asset Centre

   No.144 Moore Street, G.T.,

   Chennai – 600 001.                                                  …Opposite Parties

******

Counsel for the Complainant          :M/s. S.Jaganathan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties     :M/s. R. Palani Kumar Ramesh

        On perusal of records and after having heard the oral arguments of the Counsel for Complainant and the Counsel for the Opposite Parties we delivered the following:

 

ORDER

Pronounced by the President Tmt. B. Jijaa, M.L.,

      The Complainant has filed this complaint as against the Opposite Parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and prays to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and mental agony along with cost of this proceedings.  

2.     The facts of the complaint in brief are as follows:-

The Complainant         had Salary Account with Axis Bank, Mylapore Branch during the year 2012 vide Account No.911010042742494 and customer ID : 840411606. He has availed internet Banking and Debit card facilities from the Bank.  The Opposite Parties had offered Credit Card facility vide NO.4718-6000-0082-3122. During September 2021 he lost SB ATM card, hence applied for reissue of ATM debit card, and the same was reissued to him but the Opposite parties did not send the internet Banking PIN to the Complainant for more than 3 months, hence the Complainant could not make credit card payments from his salary account.  Due to the deficiency in service in issuing the PIN despite continuous follows up, with prior intimation to the Opposite Parties, the Complainant stopped payment of credit card bill for the Month of May 2013 and stopped using his credit card.  But without prior intimation the Opposite Parties withdrew a sum of Rs.9,544/- toward credit card due. Instead of providing PIN number, the Opposite Parties claim a sum of Rs.63,893.86, but after the Complaint to Nodal Officer the Opposite Parties offered to receive Rs.14,000/-, though the Complainant was liable to pay Rs.11,500/-. Hence the Complainant issued legal notice dated 16.08.2016 to the Opposite Parties to settle the credit card due by receiving a  sum of Rs.14,000/- and to delist the Complainant’s name from the Black List maintained by CIBIL. After receiving the notice the Opposite Parties did not care to issue any reply. Due to the Opposite Parties negligence and deficiency in service the reputation of Complainant is lowered and he is prevented from borrowing money from any bank or financial institution. Hence the Complaint.

3. Written Version of the  Opposite parties in brief is as follows:

As per the Complaint the cause of action for the Complaint arose in September 2012, therefore the Complaint ought to have filed within 2 years, but the complaint was filed on 14.12.2016, hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. The Complainant had lost original Debit Card and hence applied for duplicate Debit Card. The Opposite Parties issued duplicate Debit Card and the PIN details were sent to the Complainant on 04.10.2012 through Over Night Courier Services vide Bill No.6861885295. The Complainant has not raised any issue for non furnishing PIN number till December 2013. The stand taken by the Complainant is that he was unable to pay the Credit Card dues due to the non furnishing of ATM/Internet Banking PIN is an afterthought and even till March 2013 the Complainant had issued Internet Banking Facility, the Statement of Account filed by the Complainant is proof of the said facts. The Opposite Parties did not commit any deficiency of service and hence the Complaint is to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

4.             The Complainant submitted his Proof Affidavit and Written Argument.  On the side of the Complainant, documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A5were marked. The Opposite Parties has filed Proof Affidavit and Written Argument. No document was marked on the side of the Opposite Parties.

5.      The Points for consideration are:-

1. Whether the Complaint is barred by limitation?
2. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties?
3. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed in the complaint?
4. To what other reliefs, the Complainant is entitled?

6.      Point No.1:-

The  Complainant was maintaining Salary Account with Axis Bank, Mylapore Branch in Account No.911010042742494. He has availed  Credit Card facility vide NO.4718-6000-0082-3122 from the Opposite Parties. In September 2012 he lost SB ATM card, hence applied for duplicate ATM debit card, but the Opposite parties did not send the internet Banking PIN to the Complainant for more than 3 months, hence the Complainant could not make credit card payments from his salary account.  But the Opposite Parties claims that they had issued duplicate Debit Card and the PIN details to the Complainant on 04.10.2012 through Over Night Courier Services vide Bill No.6861885295. However no proof has been produced by the Opposite Parties of having sent the PIN details. The preliminary question to be decided is that whether the complaint is barred by limitation. The cause of action has arisen in September 2012, when the Complainant had lost ATM card and reissued to the Complainant, however with allegation that Internet Banking PIN was not sent to the Complainant. The subsequent events are Stopping payment of Credit Card Bill by the Complainant in May 2013 and non usage of Credit Card during January 2014 by the Complainant. On 19.05.2014, the Opposite Parties had sent a legal notice calling upon the Complainant  to pay the Credit Card due amount. Though cause of action had arisen in September 2012, when the Complainant lost his ATM card, and reissued by the Opposite Parties with an allegation by the Complainant that Internet Banking PIN was not issued by the Opposite Parties. As per Ex.A-4 on 19.05.2014  the Opposite Parties had sent a legal notice stating that failure to clear credit card dues, the Complainant’s Account be declared as NPA and his name will be referred to CIBIL with negative scoring, from which date the Complainant ought to have filed this Complaint within 2 years i.e., in May 2016.  However, this Complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation. Hence this Complaint is barred by limitation.

7.      Point No.2:

The case of the Complainant is that as he had lost ATM debit card, a duplicate card was issued to him in September 2012, but Internet Banking PIN was not furnished to him. Due to  non furnishing of Internet Banking PIN  by the Opposite Parties, he was unable to pay the Credit Card dues is not tenable as other modes of payments are also available.  Moreover, Ex.A-1 would reveal that the Complainant had raised the issue of not furnishing  ATM PIN belatedly. Ex.A-2, the Statement of Account, and Ex.A-3, the Platinum Credit Card Statement  would reveal that the Complainant was using Internet Banking during January 2013 and thereafter. Hence the contention of the Complainant that due to the deficiency in service of the Opposite Parties in not issuing the Internet Banking PIN despite continuous follows ups,  the Complainant stopped payment of credit card bill for the Month of May 2013 and stopped using his credit card cannot be sustained. The demand of the Opposite Parties to clear the outstanding credit card dues and notifying the Complainant’s name to CIBIL for non payment of credit card dues was done in discharge of their duties and will not amount to deficiency in service and therefore we found that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Accordingly point No.2 is answered.

8.         Point Nos. 3 and 4:-

        We have discussed and decided that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and therefore the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief  as claimed in the complaint as against the Opposite Parties.  Accordingly, Point Nos.3 and 4 are answered.

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

Dictated to Steno-Typist, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the Open Commission, on 6^h day of June 2022.

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Complainant:

 

Ex.A1	13.09.2012	E-mail communication series
Ex.A2	-	Statement of Account
Ex.A3	-	Platinum Credit Card Statement
Ex.A4	19.05.2014	Legal demand notice
Ex.A5	16.08.2016	Legal notice

 

List of documents filed on the side of the Opposite Parties:-

 

NIL

 

 

 

S. NANDAGOPALAN               T.R. SIVAKUMHAR                     B.JIJAA

         MEMBER II                       MEMBER I                           PRESIDENT