BEFORE A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.No.368 OF 2010 AGAINST C.C.NO.257  OF 2009 DISTRICT FORUM-III HYDERABAD

Between:

Kolluru Satish S/o Peryya Sastry

Aged about 37 years, Occ: Pvt Employee

R/o MIG 171, Bharathnagar, Hyd.

                                                                Appellant/complainant

                A N D

1.   The Manager, Credit Cards Division,
HDFC Bank, Lakdikapul, Behind Hotel Ashoka

Plot No.60/2, Hyderabad

2.   The Regional Manager, Credit Cards Division

HDFC Bank Ranigunj, Plot No.D-24,

Secunderabad, Hyderabad

                                                        Respondents/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellants                     Sri S.Chalapthi Rao

Counsel for the Respondent                   M/s Vijaya Sankar & Associates

        QUORUM:   SRI R.LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER

                                                AND

SRI THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

MONDAY THE NINETH DAY OF APRIL

                                TWO THOUSAND TWELVE

Oral Order (As per Sri R.Lakshminarasimha Rao, Hon’ble Member)

                                        ***

1.             Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum, the complainant filed the appeal.

2.             The appellant is the credit card holder bearing No.5243 5811 0057 00558 of the respondents.  In the statement of the account of April 2008 as there have been several discrepancies and they were brought to the notice of the respondents through several reminders in the months of April, May, September, October, November and December 2008.  There has been no response from them.  In the month of October, the appellants received a telephone call from the respondents who stated that they would refund the service tax collected excessively for a sum of `6000/- provided credit card holder chooses to obtain Royal Sundaram Insurance Policy.  Since the appellant was not interested, he had instructed for blocking the card but instead his account was debited with a sum of `11,452/- towards the premium for the insurance policy.  The respondents were not sending monthly statement of accounts regularly.  Tthe appellant filed the complaint for a direction to the respondents to pay a sum of `51,542/- towards excessive interest charged along with interest, compensation of `1,00,000/- and costs.

3.             The respondents resisted the case contending that the credit card holder was required to complain within 30 days from the date of receipt of statement if any discrepancies are found therein.  The respondents have been sending notices and statement of accounts requesting him to clear the outstanding bills, while charging interest as per the guidelines indicated under the banking norms.   The appellant failed to pay the amount due. 

4.             The complainant has filed the appeal contending that the respondents charged excessive rate of interest and they did not furnish copies of the statement of account and loan agreement.

        The appellant filed his affidavit and the documents Exs.A1 to A13.  On behalf of the respondents, R.P.Reddy, Manager has filed his affidavit but no documents.

5.             The District forum allowed the complaint directing the respondents to pay `20,000/- towards compensation and costs of `2000/-. 

6.             Feeling dissatisfied with the order the complainant filed appeal contending that the respondents charged excessive interest than the agreed rate of interest and to the effect the respondents have failed to file agreement and that the respondents had not sent the statement of accounts from March 2008 to January 2009  and that the respondents debited a sum of `11,452/- from his account towards the premium for the insurance policy.

7.             The point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated by misappreciation of facts and law?

8.             The facts not disputed are that the appellant is the credit card holder of the second respondent with the credit card bearing number 5243 5811 0057 00558  and the respondents had sent notice and statement of account to the appellant till the month of March,2007 and charged interest on the outstanding due. The appellant addressed letters dated 03.04.2008, 25.05.2008, 10.09.2008, 23.10.2008, 25.112.2008 and 28.01.2009, with a request to furnish the statements of platinum credit card and details of calculation of interest and copy of loan agreement. The contention of the appellant that the respondents promised him that they would waive the service tax to the extent of `6,000/- in case he has opted to obtain insurance policy from Royal Sundaram Insurance Company for which proposal he refused and requested the respondents to block his credit card is not based on any evidence.

9.             In regard to the lack of response from the respondents to the query of the appellant as to the furnishing of copies of statement of account and loan agreement, the District Forum referred to Clause -7 of the Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of the Banks issued by the Reserve Bank of India which mandates imposition of expenses on the bank for its failure to redress the grievance of its customer.  The grievance of the appellant is that the respondents deducted an amount of `11,542/- towards the premium for the insurance policy of Royal Sundaram Finance Company Ltd. And they had not furnished the copies of the statement of account and loan agreement to him. Clause-7 of the Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of Banks reads as under:

e.        The grievance redressal procedure of the bank/NBFC and the time frame fixed for responding to the complaints should be placed on the bank’s website.  The name, designation, address and contact number of important executives as well as the Grievance Redressal Officer of the bank/NBFC may be displayed on the website.  There should be a system of acknowledging customers’ complaints for follow up, such as complaint number/docket number, even if the complaints are received on phone.

f.          If a complainant does not get satisfactory response from the bank/NBFC which is a subsidiary of a bank within a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the date of his lodging the complaint, he will have the option to approach the Office of the concerned Banking Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance/s.  The bank/NBFC which is a subsidiary of a bank shall be liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his time, expenses, financial loss as well as for the harassment and mental anguish suffered by him for the fault of the bank and where the grievance has not been redressed in time.

10.            The respondent has stated that the appellant did not inform it about the change of his address and as such the statement of account was sent to his address furnished to the first respondent bank. The manager(collections) of the first respondent bank has stated that the bank was regularly sending the bills to the address furnished by the appellant at the time of applying for issue of the credit card and if the appellant changes his address, he is required to intimate his new address to the bank and until then the bank would be sending the statement of account to the address furnished by him.

11.           The appellant has not denied that he has been residing at the place of which address he had furnished to the respondent bank. A perusal of the address of the appellant mentioned in the statement of account and the complaint would make it clear that the appellant is not residing at the same address where he used to reside at the time of submitting the application form for the purpose of receiving the credit card. In the light of the statement of the manager of the bank, it cannot be said that the bank had not sent the statement of account to the appellant after the month of March,2007.

12.            The averment of the complaint that there was discrepancy in the rate of interest charged on the outstanding amount to the account of the credit card holder i.e., the appellant is not supported by any evidence. The respondents contend that any discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the statement of account has to be complained of within 30 days from the date of issuing the credit card and the same condition is mentioned in each credit card issued by the bank to its customers.   The appellant has not disputed the condition finding mention in every credit card. It is not his case that he did not receive any credit card. It is thus made clear that the appellant is aware of the condition in the statement of account imposing restriction on the period during which he has to complain in case he intends to dispute the amount demanded as due from him towards his credit card account. For about four years the appellant had not raised any objection as to the discrepancy in the amount mentioned in the statement of account either in regard to the calculation of the interest or in respect of the amount debited towards the premium for the Royal Sundaram Insurance Policy.

13.           The appellant claimed before the District Forum a sum of `2,00,000/- towards damages and for return of the amount of `11,452/- besides claiming the interest charged by the respondents. The District Forum awarded a sum of `20,000/- towards compensation and `2,000/- towards costs. In the appeal the appellant claims an amount of `1,51,000/- minus the amount awarded by the District Forum, Rss.22,000/- equal to `1,29,000/-. The amount disputed is `11,452/- and the rate of interest charged on the outstanding due. The District Forum observed that the appellant failed to prove that the rate of interest charged on the outstanding due to the credit card account of the appellant is either excessive or against the terms of the agreement.

14.           The Hon’ble Supreme Court in “State of Gujarath vs Shantilal  Mangaldas” AIR 1969 SC 634. Held the compensation to mean”…..In ordinary parlance the expression compensation means anything given to make things equivalent; a thing given to or to make amends for loss recompense, remuneration or pay, it need not therefore necessarily in terms of money. The phraseology of the Constitutional provision also indicates that compensation need not necessarily be in terms of money because it expressly provides that the law may specify the principles on which, and the manner in which , compensation  is to be determined and given . If it were to be in terms of money along, the expression ‘paid’ would have been more appropriate”.

15.            The Supreme Court  held that the compensation to be awarded is to be fair and reasonable.  In “Charan Singh vs Healing Touch Hospital and others” 2000SAR(Civil) 935 the Apex Court stressed the need of balancing between the compensation awarded recompensing the consumer l and the  change it brings in the attitude of the service provider. The Court held “While quantifying damages , consumer forums are required to make an attempt to serve ends of justice so that compensation is awarded, in an established case, which not only serves the purpose of recompensing the individual, but which also at the same time aims to bring about a qualitative change in the attitude of the service provider. Indeed calculation of damages depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down for universal application. While awarding compensation, a Consumer Forum has to take into account all relevant factors and assess compensation on the basis of accepted legal principles, on moderation. It is for the Consumer Forum to grant compensation to the extent it finds it reasonable, fair and proper in the facts and circumstances of a given case according to established judicial standards where the claimant is able to establish his charge”. 

16.            The deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is found on the premise of their failure to issue copies of the statement of account to the appellant. Considering the amount involved in the lis and the failure of the respondents to furnish copies of the statement of account, the amount awarded `20,000/- would be more than the amount the appellant is found entitled to.

17.            In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the District Forum. No costs.

                                                                                                                        MEMBER

MEMBER

                                                                             DT.09.04.2012

KMK*