Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/68/2016

Mr.Jammi Venkataramana - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Customer Care Limited - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.M.S.Sundararajan

22 Oct 2021

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

PRESENT:    HON’BLE THIRU. JUSTICE.  R. SUBBIAH ,                                  PRESIDENT

                TMT. S.M.   LATHA  MAHESWARI,                                                     MEMBER

 

F.A.No.68/2016

(Against the order passed in C.C.No.117/2012, dated 18.02.2016 on the file of the District Commission, Chennai (South))

 

 FRIDAY, THE 22^nd DAY OF OCTOBER 2021.

 

Mr. Jammi Venkataramana,

No.22, Sambasivam Street,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                                 Appellant/Complainant

 

                                     

                      Vs

 

The Manager,

Customer Care Limited.,

CITI Bank, N.A.,

i.  Credit Card Division, 

ii.  Diners Club Card Division

No.45, Tower Victorire,

G.N. Chetty Road,

T. Nagar,

Chennai – 600 017.                                                                 Respondent/Opposite Party

 

 

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant              :   M/s. Sundararajan, Advocates.    

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party       :       

          This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 05.10.21 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following;-

ORDER

HON’BLE THIRU.  JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT.   

 

1.        This appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant herein under section 15 read with section 17(1) (a) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order of the District Commission, Chennai (South) made in C.C.No.117/2012, dated 18.02.2016, dismissing the complaint.

2.        The factual matrix giving rise to the present appeal is as follows;-   In June 2005, the opposite party bank offered the complainant a personal loan facility without security etc., and accordingly, the complainant availed the loan facilities (a) Under loan account No.1 for  Rs.3,00,000/-,  (b)  Loan Account No.2 for Rs.1,76,000/- and  (c)  Loan account No.3, for Rs.20,000/-.  All the above loans were disbursed to the complainant through cheques by the opposite party on the following dates; a) Rs.3,00,000/- by cheque No.219124, dated 28.06.2005.  b) Rs.1,76,000/- by cheque No.21913, dated 20.06.2005, and (c) Rs.20,000/- by cheque No.219127, dated 28.06.2003.  The above said loan amounts were repayable in monthly installments of  (a) Rs.8503/- towards the loan availed under loan account No.1, for Rs.3,00,000/-   (b) Rs.4,988/- towards loan availed under loan account No.2 for Rs.1,76,000/- and ( c)  Rs.567/- towards loan availed under loan Account No.3 for Rs.20,000/-.  The interest on the above three loan amounts was collected at the rate of 16% per annum.  The complainant had regularly remitted the monthly installments of Rs.8503/-, Rs.4988/- and Rs.567/- from July 2005 to June 2009 and discharged the above said first, second and third loans by July 2009.  In the mean time, the complainant by letter dated, 12.05.2008 requested the opposite party to furnish the Statement of Account and accordingly the opposite party sent the statement of account in which it was found that the opposite party had charged 34% interest per annum and 30% per annum on the loan account Nos. 1 & 2 and 3 from the year 2008 only.  Hence, by letter dated, 31.08.2009, the complainant brought to the notice of the excess interest charged on the loan amounts and requested the opposite party to correct the said mistake but the opposite party failed to correct the said mistake committed by them by charging excess rate of interest.  The complainant paid Rs.24,377/-  excessively to the opposite party in loan account Nos.1 & 2, and Rs.10,272/- in loan account No.3.  As stated above, the opposite party should repay the said excess payments to the complainant. The opposite party failed to respond to the demands made by the complainant. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party by collecting excess interest amount from the complainant and as such by June 2009, the total excess payment was Rs.24,377/- in Loan Account Nos.1 & 2 and Rs.10,272/- in loan Account No.3.   Thus, the opposite party has committed deficiency of service by withholding a sum of Rs.24,377/- + Rs.10,272/- in total a sum of Rs.34,649/-.  In spite of protests against the conduct of the opposite party bank, the opposite party had dragged the complainant to the Lok Adalat by notice dated 29.10.2009. Then, the matter was referred to by the opposite party to the presiding Officer of the Lok Adalat, Chennai – 104 where it was decided by the Presiding Officer of the Lok Adalatm that the complainant need not pay any further payment to the opposite party.  In spite of the same, the opposite party continued to demand further amount in the said three loan accounts.  The manner and the mode in which the opposite party handled the above said three loan accounts are in the nature of deficiency in service against the complainant. The opposite party was applying pressure tactics to make the complainant to pay against the illegal debits. The opposite party bank in February 2011 has falsely reported to CIBIL against the complainant.  Hence the complainant issued a legal notice,  dated 14.05.2011 to the opposite party and after receiving the same the opposite party sent a reply letter, dated 30.05.2011 claiming that (a) a sum of Rs.9,786.92 and (b) a sum of Rs.86,184.19 towards the above said first and second loan accounts respectively. This demand made by the opposite party is unlawful and further the act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, the complainant has preferred a consumer complaint before the District Commission claiming a direction to the opposite party to refund a total excess amount of Rs.34,649/- towards the loan account Nos.1, 2 and 3 paid in excess and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and sufferings and also to pay interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment with cost.  

3.        The complaint allegation was resisted by the opposite party by filing a written version contending, inter alia that the complainant had availed credit card facilities from the opposite party bank vide credit cards bearing No. 36559086331009 which was reissued as card No.36559086331017 on 29.01.2004 and the said card No.36559086331017 was further converted as card No.36706349779009 on 19.12.2006 and 4385 8790 1115 3008 (subsequently re-issued as 4385 8790 1115 3024) issued to him on 01.11.1998 and 05.11.1993 respectively.  The issuance and usage of credit cards are governed by the terms and conditions of the Card Member agreement which are binding on all the customers’ including the complainant. The credit card issued to the complainant were accompanied by the welcome kit which obtained, inter alias, the Card Member Agreement governing the usage of the credit card. The transaction between the complainant and the opposite party is one of the contracts whereby the complainant had agreed to avail the facilities of the opposite party subject to the terms and conditions of the card member agreement.   As per the card member agreement, in case of failure by the card member/customer, the complainant herein has to pay for the service availed by him within the prescribed period after which the complainant will be charged interest and penal interest. Once, the said loan is availed, the borrower is under obligation to pay the amount outstanding shown in the monthly statement furnished to him. The charges including interest are strictly based on the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party and in accordance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India. Having availed the credit card facilities, based on the agreement to abide by certain conditions, the complainant is estopped from going back on that. The complainant had availed the following loans known as “ Paylite” on the credit card accounts, details of the said loans are as follows ;  

­­­­­­­­­­­­­______________________________________________________________________

Card Number          Type of Loan      Loan amount   Date of Booking   Tenure    Rate of

                                                                                                                Interest.        

______________________________________________________________________

4385879011153008  Enhanced Pay   3,00,000/-    29.06.2005             48         16

                               LITE EMI

4385879011153008  PAY LITE EMI   1,76,000/-    29.06.2005             48         16

36559086331017      PAY LITE EMI     20,000/-    29.06.2005              48         16 

___________________________________________________________________

As the above loans were offered on the basis of Credit Cards, the EMIs thereof were debited in the monthly statement of respective credit card accounts of the complainant and were treated as Purchase Transaction and the Minimum Amount to be paid.  Further, as the above loans were sanctioned without security, the complainant should have paid the monthly installments without fail and the prompt payment is one of the perquisites for the above scheme.  The above loans are governed by the Terms and conditions of the credit card agreement entered by the complainant at the time of application and issuance of the card as these loans are an additional facility under the credit card availed by the complainant. The opposite party strictly adheres to the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India and interest and penal interest and service charges are charged in accordance with the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and other applicable laws. Normally, the rate of interest consequent upon the default payments, delayed payments or short payments is duly reflected in the statement of accounts. The complainant has paid less than the total amount due against the outstanding dues as reflected in the monthly installments sent across to him. Hence, charges were billed to the accounts of the complainant as per the terms and conditions of the card member agreement, under schedule of charges. Due to default in payment by the complainant as reflected in the regular pattern, the opposite party was constrained to withdraw the credit card facility on the said credit card accounts in February 2008 and subsequently, the loan accounts of the complainant was preclosed as per the terms and conditions of  the card member agreement. The loan preclosed resulted in levy charges in the Statement of February 2008. As per the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement, the interest charges are applicable only if the Total Amount Due is not cleared before the payment due date or if Revolving Credit Facility is availed or if the customer chooses to pay the Minimum Amount Due. When the revolving interest rates are opted, the interest rates are bound to change as per the market conditions and the consequent directions of the Reserve Bank of India.  For availing the Revolving Credit facility, the customers are charged interest charges which are calculated on the average daily balance, including the pervious balance carried forward and on subsequent transactions. The Revolving Credit Facility offers the flexibility of paying either the Total Amount Due or Minimum Amount Due.  If the minimum amount due is not received before the payment due date indicated in the monthly statement of account, late payment charges are levied.  All charges are levied by the opposite party in accordance with the Reserve Bank of India Circular/ Notification/Guidelines in connection with the credit card operation. The opposite party has scrupulously followed the Guidelines of Reserve Bank of India and ensures complete disclosure and transparency in levy of surcharges. The opposite party offers option to the customers that in the event of any dispute in the monthly statement of account the same should be immediately brought to the notice of the Financial Redressal Cell of the Credit Card Department for remedial measures and if need be the disputes can be escalated to the higher authorities of the opposite party.  In the present case, the status of the loan and credit facility availed by the complainant reflected in the CIBIL records is erroneous. Every month credit card statement of Account is sent to the complainant’s address reflecting purchase, EMIs dues and change in interest rates as and when the same is necessitated, the total amount due, last payment made, minimum amount due., etc.,. Hence, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party as the calculations are not arbitrary and based only on all relevant factors. Hence, the opposite party sought for dismissal of the complaint.   

4.           Before the District Commission, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit was filed and Exhibits A1 to A9 were marked whereas on the side of the opposite party proof affidavit was filed reiterating their contentions made in their written version and Exhibits B1 & B2 were marked.      

5.        On hearing the submissions made by both sides and analysing the evidences adduced on both parties, the District Commission dismissed the complaint by holding that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.  Aggrieved over the dismissal of his complaint, the complainant has preferred this appeal before this Commission to set aside the order of the District Commission and to grant the relief as prayed for in the complaint by allowing this appeal.    

6.        Heard both sides’ submissions and perused the materials available on records.  Keeping in mind the submissions made on either side, we have carefully analysed the materials on record.  As we have appreciated the factual aspect of the case at required length, we refrain ourselves from reiterating the same any further in the appeal. However, certain facts which are essential alone are dealt with hereunder for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. 

7.      The very reading of the complaint would go to show that the nature of the transactions between the partiers is purely commercial. The main dispute between the parties is with regard to charging rate of inertest. It is the contenrtion of the complainant that he has paid interest at the rate of 16% per annum.  On seeing the statement of account, he found that rate of interest charged by the complainant was that of 34% and 30% and therefore, he alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence the complainant filed this consumer complaint before the District Commission.   

8.           According to the counsel for the complainant, loan was availed on credit card facilities by agreeing to the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement by the complainant.  While the complainant has not repaid the entire loan amount and in repaying the EMI, the complainant was irregular,  as on date the complainant has to pay  in the card account Nos.4385 8790 1115 3024 (Reissued Card) Rs.86,184.19 and 36706349779 009 for Rs.9796.92. As a service gesture, the opposite party reversed the financial charges amounting to Rs.6804.28 on card ending 9009 and Rs.51,769.26 on card ending 3024 which were not obliged by the complainant.  As stated above, the very reading of the complaint would show that the transaction between the parties is commercial in nature. There are disputed questions of facts involved in this matter with regard to the rate of interest payable on the loan account. When that being so, the Consumer Commission cannot entertain the issue involved in this complaint. The complainant has to prove the case only by adducing elaborate evidence and marking documents subject to cross-examination himself. Therefore, the observation of the District Commission that the popper Forum to agitate this complaint is only a Civil Court holds good.  Hence, on the sole ground alone, the complaint was dismissed by the District Commission which cannot be found fault by us. We are of the opinion that absolutely, there is no need to interfere with the order of the District Commissions and hence the appeal is liable to be dismissed by confirming the order of the District Commission.                              

8.        In the result, the appeal is dismissed by confirming the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (South) made in C.C.No.117/2012, dated 18.02.2016.  There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal.        

 

 

 

S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI,                                                                  R. SUBBIAH,

           MEMBER.                                                                                    PRESIDENT. 

 

Index: Yes/No  

TCM/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/Oct/2021