R.M.Sekar filed a consumer case on 14 Feb 2018 against The Manager Card Service,The Royal Bank of Scotland & others in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is 359/2010 and the judgment uploaded on 28 Jun 2018.
Date of Filing : 26.08.2010
Date of Order : 14.02.2018
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNA (SOUTH)
2ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3
PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L, : PRESIDENT
TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B. : MEMBER-I
DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II
CC. NO.359 /2016
WEDNESDAY THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018
Mr. R.M.Sekar,
Flat A 56, Keerthi Apartments,
Chowdry Nagar,
Valasaravakkam,
Chennai 600 087. .. Complainant
..Vs..
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
(Formerly Known as ABN AMRO Bank N.V),
Hansalaya,
15-Barakhamba Road,
New Delhi 110 001.
(Formerly Known as ABN AMRO Bank N.V),
KRM towers,
No.1, Harringtan Road,
Chetpet, Chennai 600 031.
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
(Formerly Known as ABN AMRO Bank N.V),
9th Floor, Tower C, Cyber Greens,
DLF Cyber City, Sector 25A,
Gurgaon 122 002.
Manager Operations- Credit Card,
The Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
(Formerly Known as ABN AMRO Bank N.V),
Credit Card division,
P.O. Box No.418,
GPO New Delhi 110 001. .. Opposite parties.
Counsel for complainant : M/s. T.N.Buvaneswaran
Counsel for opposite parties : M/s. Umapathi & Madhan
ORDER
THIRU. M. MONY, 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.5,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:
The complainant submit that he is a credit card holder bearing No.5239504004489449 and utilize the same legally and promptly in repayment. Further the complainant state that he agreed to repay the monthly minimum due of Rs.13,483/- and paid till January 2010. Further the complainant state that on 11.2.2010 at about 3.34 pm. to 3.51 pm the opposite party representative Mr. Charan called the complainant through mobile phone and threaten to kill the complainant for default in payment. Further the complainant submit that the opposite party claimed unconditional apology through mobile phone on 13.2.2010 at about 1.37 pm. Further the complainant also states that he has made a complaint to RBI to take suitable action Mr. Charan. Similarly on 13.3.2010 the complainant sent a complaint to the bank Ombudsman, R.B.I with regard to the grievance related to the thread and need of recovery agents. But the opposite party has not taken any appropriate action. As such the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.
2. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite parties is as follows:
The opposite parties deny each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein. The opposite parties state that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and the same is liable to dismissed in liminie. The total outstanding of his credit card No.5239504004489749 is Rs.2,26,841.70. The opposite party further state that the opposite party bank was in recipe of the complainant’s complaint with Banking Ombudsman dated February 25, 2010 and May 12,2010 and the opposite party bank had sent the responses to the complainant bearing reference number 00237288676 dated 13.3.2010 and reference No.00241881175 dated 2 June 201 respectively;. It is further submitted by the opposite parties that the opposite parties did not commit any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as alleged. The opposite party bank has been in compliance with all applicable rules regulations and laws laid down by the various regulatory and statutory authorities. No cause of action ever arose at all for filing the complaint against the opposite parties within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.13 marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite parties filed and Ex.B1 to Ex.B2 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. The points for consideration is :
Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for ?
Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Perused the records (viz) complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that he is a credit card holder bearing No.5239504004489449 and utilize the same legally and promptly in repayment. But on a careful perusal of statement of account shows that there is huge amount of Rs.2,26,841/- is in balance. Further the contention of the complainant is that he agreed to repay the monthly minimum due of Rs.13,483/- and paid till January 2010. But on a careful perusal of Ex.B2 series it is seen that on 20.1.2010 a sum of Rs.4800/- alone paid and there is a balance of Rs.68455.48 proves that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment. Further the contention of the complainant is that on 11.2.2010 at about 3.34 pm. to 3.51 pm the opposite party representative Mr. Charan called the complainant through mobile phone and threaten to kill the complainant for default in payment. But the complainant has not produced any document to prove such thread and has not preferred to lodge any complaint before suitable authority except the letter addressed to the opposite party including the RBI. Further the contention of the complainant is that the opposite party claimed unconditional apology through mobile phone on 13.2.2010 at about 1.37 pm. But on a careful perusal of Ex.A2 it is seen that the complainant has not paid the entire balance due on the credit card much less the complainant has not prepared to pay the minimum amount towards the credit card. Further the complainant contended that he has made a complaint to RBI to take suitable action Mr. Charan as per Ex.A3. Similarly on 13.3.2010 the complainant sent a complaint to the bank Ombudsman, R.B.I with regard to the grievance related to the thread and need of recovery agents. But the opposite party has not preferred to take any appropriate action under criminal procedure code except filing this complaint before this forum totally related to the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. It is very clear from the records that the complainant is balance huge amount of Rs. 2,26,841/-. The after agreeing the terms and conditions vide Ex.B1 availed the credit card also not denied.
6. The contention of the opposite party is that the complaint filed by the complainant is unsustainable in law and fact and it should be dismissed in liminie. Admittedly the complainant is a credit card holder bearing No. 5239504004489449. The complainant suppressed the material fact and mis-represented the vial factor and filed this false complaint. The contention raised in the complaint itself is very clear that the Consumer Protection Act is not applicable for such grievance. The total outstanding amount as on 14.3.2011 is Rs.2,26,841.70 which was totally suppressed by the complainant mis-represented that he is very prompt in payment of monthly installments. Further the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment. He has to pay minimum amount of Rs.13,483/-. But he paid a sum of Rs.4800/- only on 20.1.2010 against the balance amount of Rs.68455.48. Further the contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of thread by Mr.Charan is not proved either before R.B.I. authorities or before Ombudsman the complainant also has not preferred to file any criminal complaint with regard to such allegation of criminal action. This complaint is filed by the complainant with a wrongful motive with evade monthly installments. There is neither deficiency of service nor unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this forum is of the considered view that the complainant is not entitled to any reliefs sought for in this case and the points are answered accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No cost.
Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 14th day of February 2018.
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.A1- 11.2.2010 - Copy of email to bank.
Ex.A2- 13.2.2020 - Copy of email from bank.
Ex.A3- 17.2.2020 - Copy of complaint to the RBI.
Ex.A4- 25.2.2010 - Copy of letter from the RBI.
Ex.A5- 13.3.2010 - Copy of letter from the RBI.
Ex.A6- 13.3.2010 - Copy of letter address to the RBI from bank.
Ex.A7- 28.4.2020 - Copy of second complaint to the RBI.
Ex.A8- 28.4.2010 - Copy of Ack.
Ex.A9- 2.6.2010 - Copy of letter from bank to complainant.
Ex.A10- 25.6.2010- Copy of legal notice.
Ex.A11- 20.7.2010-Copy of reply from the bank to complainant.
Ex.A12- 15.2.2010- Copy of Press release.
Ex.A13- - Copy of RBI Reference.
OPPOSITE PARTIES SIDE DOCUMENTS:
Ex.B1- - Copy of Transcript Sheet.
Ex.B2 - - Copy of Statement.
MEMBER –I MEMBER-II PRESIDENT.
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.