Date of Filing: 11/07/2011

        Date of Order: 14/09/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated: 14^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 1263 OF 2011

U. Madhav Kamath,

Aged About 60 years,

S/o. Srinivas, Syndicate Bank Colony,

Magadi Main Road,

Bangalore-560 079.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.S.Rajashekar)                                          Complainant.

-V/s-

(1) The Manager Card Services,

The Royal Bank of Scotland,

P.O. Box No.418, Hansalaya,

15, Barakamba Road, GPO,

New Delhi-110 001.

(2) The Manager,

The Royal Bank of Scotland,

Prestige Towers,

GF.99-10-Residency Road,

Bangalore.

(Rep. by Advocate Sri.Meena Venugopal)                               Opposite parties.

BY SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

ORDER

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant made Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, seeking direction to the opposite parties to close the loan account of the complainant and to reactivate all the credit card of the complainant and seeking direction to the opposite party No.1 to pay Rs.50,000/- as damages with interest and costs of this litigation, are necessary:-

The complainant has availed the credit card of the opposite party in the year 2006 bearing No.5425051310810717.  In December-2006 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- at the rate of 16% from the opposite party which has to be repaid on monthly installments of Rs.7,032/-. In the year 2007 opposite party has offered a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- and fixed the EMI of Rs.7,437/- which the complainant did not accept.  The complainant was paying the EMI by dropping the cheques regularly at the drop box of the opposite party along with the credit card payment on 23^rd of the very month.  In March-2008 the complainant found from the Bank statements that the cheque which has been dropped has not been accounted to.  The complainant contacted the opposite party by phone and email and the opposite party informed the complainant that the officials had misplaced the cheque, requested the complainant to issue another cheque and thereafter cheque has been handed-over to the collection agent of opposite party.  Even then the opposite parties were charging towards late payment.  The complainant requested the opposite party not to penalize.  An e-mail on 06.01.2009 is also given to the opposite party.  On 20.02.2009 the complainant intimated the opposite party that he will close the entire loan account and as per the advise to pay as per account statement from 04.01.2009 to 03.02.2009.  The amount of outstanding was Rs.1,35,980.13 paise.  Accordingly the complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1,35,981/- on 20.02.2009 and offered to close the account in full settlement.  The opposite party encashed the cheque.  On 10.03.2009 the complainant sent an e-mail and a letter on 26.05.2010, another letter on 30.05.2010 to close the loan account.  In September-2010 the opposite party has blocked the credit card arbitrarily and the complainant received the letter dated: 20.10.2010 from the opposite party demanding Rs.19,379.73 paise as arrears.  The complainant replied to it on 14.11.2010 and on 13.12.2010 the opposite party Bank sent the letter affirming the earlier claim made by them.  On 17.06.2011 the opposite party issued a notice stating that the amount paid by the complainant of Rs.1,35,981/- was adjusted to the billed EMI and has stated that the loan account was levied with the bank charges.  The complainant replied appropriately.  Even then the opposite parties are claiming the amount.  Hence the complaint.

2.        In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

            The complainant is a credit card holder is admitted.  He has obtained a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- agreeing to pay interest at the rate of 1.67% per month spanning 36 months as repayment with an EMI of Rs.7,437/-.  The credit card account was entitled for the “Late Fee” delayed payment, penal interest, as per the agreement.  As per Clause-6(b) 19.2 under Section 2 as a goodwill gesture in the statement dated: 03.01.2011.  The opposite party has waived Rs.700/- towards late fee, Rs.512.50 paise towards financial charges.  The opposite party had dispatched an instrument bearing No.737594 for an amount of Rs.1,95,528.08 paise deducting the process fee along with associated service tax with respect to the loan stating what are rates of interest, etc.,.  The complainant has issued an instrument bearing No.598419 for an amount of Rs.1,35,981/- only and it was credited to the credit card account on 21.02.2009.  The credit proceeds of the same were depicted in the statement dated: 03.03.2009.  Even after paying the said amount the complainant is due Rs.19,379.73 paise.  The details are:-

This the complainant has not paid hence the loan account could not be cleared and credit card cannot be de-activated.  The complainant has filed this complaint only to evade the payment of Banking charges.  The complainant is still due Rs.19.379.73 paise.

3.        To substantiate their respective cases, the opposite party has filed his affidavit and document.  The complainant did not turn up.  Hence heard the opposite parties counsel and perused the records.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What order?

5.        Our findings on the above points are:-

            Point (A) & (B):As per the final order

For the following:-

REASONS

POINT (A) to (B):-

6.        Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the documents filed and the affidavit of the opposite party it is an admitted fact that the complainant was having a credit card of the opposite party since 2006.  It is also an admitted fact that the complainant had taken a loan of Rs.2,00,000/- from the opposite party agreeing to repay it with interest on certain conditions and the EMI was Rs.7,032/- and the loan was disbursed to him on 30.12.2006.  The complainant for some time was dropping the EMI cheques in the drop box.  Later he was giving the cheques to the agent of the opposite party.  There were certain dues, as the complainant did not pay the EMIs regularly.  In this regard the complainant wrote a letter to the opposite party on 20.02.2009 enclosing the cheque for Rs.1,35,981/- stating that this is the full and final settlement.  The opposite party received the amount encashed it.  The complainant had issued e-mail, the opposite party had sent statement of accounts and demanding money.  The opposite party has also issued notice to the complainant to pay the amount.  The opposite party on 20.10.2010 and on 13.12.2010 have issued a letter to the complainant stating that the complainant is due certain amount towards late fee charges and certain amount towards finance charges claiming only late fee charges and financial charges.

7.        The letter of the complainant dated: 20.02.2009 reads thus:-

That means to say the complainant had sent the cheque as full and final settlement of the entire claim and stated there is nothing due.  The opposite party has encashed the cheque.  That means the opposite party has accepted the letter and the cheque without raising any objections.  Hence the entire loan is satisfied.  Even the complainant has written number of e-mails in this regard.  The opposite party has accepted the cheque without prejudice or under protest.  They have not cared to reply the letter.  That means the claim of the complainant that the loan account is fully satisfied cannot be brushed aside.

8.        The opposite party claims finance charges and late fee charges how? How they have charged the late fee? How they have charged the finance charges?  On what & from when?  There is no answer.  There is no detail of these finance charges or late fee charges.  When the entire amount has been received without murmur, it means the loan account is fully satisfied.  Hence calling upon the complainant to pay amount is nothing but an unfair trade practice/deficiency in service.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

ORDER

1.        The complaint is Allowed-in-part.

2.        The loan of the complainant in Account No.7777 7777 7322 2624 is fully satisfied and nothing is due.  The opposite party is directed to issue NOC with respect to the said loan. 

3.        The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.2,000/- as costs of this litigation.

4.        The opposite party is directed to send the amount as ordered at Serial No.3 above and send the N.O.C. as ordered at serial No.2 above to the complainant through DD by registered post acknowledgment due and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 45 days from the date of this order.

5.       Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.

6.       Send a copy of this order to both the parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 14^th  Day of September 2011)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER                                         PRESIDENT