Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/370/2014

Ranvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, HDFC Bank Cards Division - Opp.Party(s)

Gaurav Deep Goel, Adv.

06 Jan 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	370 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	22.07.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	06.01.2017

 

 

 

 

Ranvir Singh s/o Sh.Ram Singh, R/o H.No.2325-B, Sector 19-C, Chandigarh.   

             …..Complainant

Versus

1]  The Manager, HDFC Bank Cards Division, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai 600 041

2]  The Manager, HDFC Bank, SCF 5, Rani Talab, Jind-126102

3]  HDFC Bank, Ceebros Building, 110, NM Road, Aminjikarai, Chennai 29

4]  Citi Enterprises through its Manager, SCO No.39, Sector Floor, Sector 40, Chandigarh.

5]  HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Limited, through its Director Ramon House, HT Parekh Marg, 169, Backbay Reclaimation, Mumbai   

….. Opposite Parties  

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN                 PRESIDENT

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

                                SH.RAVINDER SINGH             MEMBER 

        

 

For complainant(s)      : Sh.G.D.Goel, Advocate  

 

For Opposite Party(s)   : Sh.Sandeep Suri & Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocates    

                          for OPs No.1, 2 and 3.

 

  Opposite Party-4 exparte.

  Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for OP NO.5.

 

 

PER PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

 

 

          As per the case, the complainant was issued a credit card by OP Bank/OPs NO.1 to 3 in the year 2010 bearing No.4050 2850 0044 9742. It is averred that the complainant used to make small transactions with the card and was used to repay the amount well within time. It is also averred that he withdrew an amount of Rs.13,000/- through said card and used to pay back the money in installments as per the messages received from the bank.  However, as alleged, when the complainant started receiving threatening calls from the agents for deposit of money, he deposited the money under protest, but was not supplied any bank statement or details as to how much money he has deposited and how much money has been settled by the bank and in what manner.  Thereafter, the complainant was issued letter dated 15.6.2013 regarding settlement of credit card dues and also received threatening calls, so the complainant was forced to pay the entire dues as per the payment schedule under protest.  However, the Opposite Party Bank did not issue ‘No Dues Certificates’ despite request.  Furthermore, the OP Bank also sold him general insurance through OP NO.4 without his consent and charged premium of more than Rs.6000/- annually (Ann.C-7 & C-8). It is pleaded that the OP Bank also got the complainant blacklisted at CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited), thus barring him from getting any financial assistance from any bank, which came to the knowledge of the complainant only when he applied for a loan.  Ultimately, the complainant had to take commercial loan of Rs.1.68 lacs on a much higher rate of interest.  The complainant also sent a legal notice to the OPs, but to no avail. Hence, this complaint has been filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

 

2]       The OPs NO.1 to 3 filed reply and while admitting the factual matrix of the case, have stated that the complainant after using the credit card did not adhere to the repayment schedule and committed default in repayment of the amount.  It is stated that the complainant was defaulter in making payment. It is also stated that vide one-time settlement offer dated 15.6.2013 against an amount of Rs.67,005/-, the offer of Rs.50,500/- was made to the complainant, which he deposited in 8 installments and accordingly, the bank waived off the remaining amount in terms of the settlement arrived at and issued ‘No Due Certificate’, subsequent to the settlement. It is pleaded that the complainant had enjoyed the benefit of the said insurance policy and the payment has also been made to OP NO.5, so no question of refund can be considered.  It is also pleaded that in case any amount has wrongly been taken by OP No.5, then the same is required to be refunded by OP No.5 only and not by the answering OPs.  It is pleaded further that subsequent to the settlement arrived between the parties, the necessary information has also been provided to the credit rating agencies in respect of the settlement of account.  It is denied that the complainant has been got blacklisted by the answering Opposite Parties.  Pleading no deficiency in service and denying rest of the allegations, it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

         Opposite Party NO.4 after initially putting in appearance through Sh.Dinesh Midha, Prop. as well as through Sh.Puneet Tuli, Advocate, failed to turn up nor filed reply & evidence, hence it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 22.4.2015.

         The Opposite Party No.5 has filed short reply and admitted the issuance of policy in favour of the complainant.  It is stated that the policy was issued on the consent of the complainant, who supplied his details about date of birth and credit card number in confirmation of his consent for the issuance of the policy, which remained valid from 12.7.2011 till 30.7.2013.  Moreover, the company did not receive any cancellation request during the policy period from the side of the complainant.

 

3]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the entire record as well as written arguments.  

 

5]       To sum up, the matter in dispute, is in regards to the credit card issued to the complainant by the OP Bank in the year 2010 bearing No.4050 2850 0044 9742. It is the grouse of the complainant that he has not been supplied with the Credit Card Balance Account Statement for which he remained unaware all the times about the amount due against him though he was regularly paying amount against the usage of the card in question. It is further the grouse of the complainant that his efforts to get the information regarding his dues even under an RTI Application was not succeeded. Further raised the grouse that he was not issued ‘NDC’ (No Due Certificate) even after clearing all the dues as raised vide letter dated 15.6.2013 (Ann.C-2) and to his utter surprise his name reflected in CIBIL (Credit Information Bureau India Limited) records, which barred his further prospective to get any financial assistance from any bank. It is claimed that due to the unjustified act of the OP Bank, the complainant was forced to arrange for a loan from a commercial bank on much higher rate of interest, which he paid well in time.  A grouse has also been raised by the complainant that he had been issued insurance policy even without having applied for the same.

 

6]       Contrary to the grievances as raised in the above para, the OP Bank claimed that the complainant had extensively used the credit card issued in his favour and did not adhere to the repayment schedule and committed default in repayment of the amount and as such become defaulter. Accordingly, the information was supplied to the CIBIL.  Further claimed that after receiving the scheduled payment from the complainant, as per one time settlement offer, the status has accordingly been informed to the authorities i.e. CIBIL and now the status of the complainant is reflected as ‘Settled’ in the records of CIBIL. Claimed further that the complainant after settling the matter vide one time settlement, cannot raise any objection afterwards and also claimed that they had already issued ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant. 

 

7]       It is the claim of the OP Bank that the complainant entered into one time settlement qua the dues reflected in his account statement, but the perusal of the letter dated 15.6.2013 reveals that it was an offer of one time settlement made by the bank wherein they also mentioned the repayment schedule and the complainant, as per his allegation, was forced to repay the amount and accordingly the amount was repaid under alleged undue influence. As after the repayment, the complainant vide application dated 04.2.2014 under an RTI Act tried to enquire about the dues in actual outstanding against him and the record of payments made by him, during the usage period of the card in question.  The record reveals that the complainant was never ever supplied with the said information.  Though the complainant asked for the information regarding his dues after making the payment under the one time settlement offer, but on the contrary the OP Bank was duty bound to supply the information sought for.  The OP Bank despite appearing before the Forum has also not placed on record the ‘Specific Account Statement’ to clearly show that what amount the complainant utilized/exhausted against the credit limit and what was repaid by him, which is an act of deficiency in service on the part of the OP Bank. 

 

8]       As regards the issue of status of the complainant reflecting in the records of ‘CIBIL’ the OP Bank has claimed that as the complainant failed to repay the amount in time and committed default in the repayment of the amount thus, the information was accordingly supplied to CIBIL and thereafter also supplied the information regarding the settlement of the matter, which resulted in reflecting the complainant’s status as ‘Settled’ in the CIBIL records.  Admittedly, the ‘Settled’ status of the complainant in the records of the CIBIL affected badly and barred his further prospective to get any financial assistance from any bank.

 

9]       In our considered opinion, the Opposite Party has ignored the instructions of RBI bearing NO.RBI/2008-2009/100, BOD.FSD.BC.23/24.01.011/2008-09, July 23, 2008, placed on record by the complainant in regards to the reporting the name of the defaulter to CIBIL/Credit Information Companies, which states as under:-

VI CIBIL Issues

17. Reporting to CIBIL/Credit Information Companies

It is desirable that the banks are made to follow a uniform method of reporting to CIBIL/Master Card International Negative List

In terms of paragraph 6.2 (c) of the Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of banks (Circular No.DBOD.FSD.BC.6/24.01.011/2008-2009 dated July 1, 2008), before reporting default status of a Credit Card holder to CIBIL or any other Credit Information Company authorised by RBI, banks should ensure that they adhere to a procedure duly approved by their Board including issuing of sufficient notice to such cardholder about the intention to report him/her as defaulter to the Credit Information Company.  The procedure should also cover the notice period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter. These procedures should be transparently made known as part of the MITCs.  The above instruction are reiterated.

 

10]      In the present case, the OP Bank nowhere issued any notice to the complainant while sending information to the CIBIL declaring him as a defaulter and complainant never was given opportunity to clear his account before sending his name in the defaulter list, which apparently is non-adherence of the RBI instructions, as reproduced above.  Such in-action of the OP Bank resulted in causing harassment to the complainant for the reason that despite repayment of all the dues against the one time settlement offer, his status got reflected as ‘Settled’ in the records of CIBIL, which further barred his further prospective to get any financial assistance from any bank.  The status of the complainant as ‘Settled’ in the record of CIBIL, happened due to in-action of the OP Bank, so they are responsible to get the status of the complainant cleared from CIBIL records. 

 

11]      The dispute in regards to the issuance of the ‘NDC’ the OP Bank has failed to produce on record any copy of ‘No Due Certificate’ allegedly been issued to the complainant and since the complainant has prayed for the same in his complaint, supported by a duly sworn affidavit, so it is believed that the OP Bank has not issued ‘No Due Certificate’ to the complainant, which in our opinion the OP Bank is liable to issue.   

 

12]      However, the plea of the complainant with regard to wrongly charging of the premium amount paid towards the insurance cover, we are of the opinion that since the complainant has enjoyed the cover for the said period, so he is not entitled for refund of that premium amount.

 

13]      In the light of above observations, the OP Bank i.e. OPs NO.1 to 3 are held to be deficient in rendering proper services to the complainant and liable to be burdened with costs for causing harassment to the complainant as well as thrusting this litigation. Accordingly, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs No.1 to 3 jointly & severally and dismissed qua OPs No.4 & 5. The Opposite Parties NO.1 to 3 are jointly & severally directed as under:-

a)  To get the name of the complainant cleared from the records of [CIBIL Credit Information Bureau India Limited] forthwith;

b)  To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service

c)  To pay an amount of Rs.7,000/- towards litigation expenses.

 

         The above said order shall be complied with by OPs NO.1 to 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall be liable to pay the awarded compensation amount along with interest @12% p.a. from the date of filing this complaint till it is paid, apart from complying with directions as at sub-para (a) & (c) above.

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

06^th January, 2017                                                                           Sd/-

(RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (PRITI MALHOTRA)

MEMBER

 

Sd/-

(RAVINDER SINGH)

MEMBER