DEBASIS BHATTACHARYA:- PRESIDING MEMBER

 The instant case filed under section 35(1)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 emanates from the grievances of the complainant in the matter of deduction of certain charges viz. ‘minimum charges’ ‘finance charges’ and ‘over limit charges’ by the OP Bank against usage of a credit card issued by them to the Complainant who held an account with the same bank.

To depict the case epigrammatically, the complainant, an account holder of the Dhaniakhali Branch of HDFC Bank was also a holder of a credit card bearing no.4893-7724-1745-1057 issued by the same bank.

Reportedly the bank account was ‘connected with Educational loan and Credit Card loan’.

So far as the content of the complaint petition is concerned, the credit limit of the credit card was Rs 15000/- and if after purchase the said sum is paid back within 40 (forty) days, the OP bank was not supposed to charge any interest.

In serial No. 3 of the Complaint petition, the petitioner claims to have made purchase of Rs.1535/-. Allegedly the bank deducted Rs.200/- as minimum charge in spite of the fact that the balance in the account was Rs.2968/- and continued deducting the same amount in respect of each successive month.

In serial No.6 of the Complaint petition, the Complainant claims that interest free credit period could range from 20 to 50 days ‘subject to scheme applicable on the specific credit card’. It is further claimed that ‘in case the credit master has a HDFC Bank account he can opt for standing instruction facility where funds can be automatically transferred from the card member’s HDFC Bank account to the card member’s card account on due date’.

In the next part of the complaint petition the petitioner states that his CIBIL score was diminished resulting in stoppage of educational and personal loans. He also expresses grievances over damage to his ‘hard earned reputation’ and ‘social prestige’.

The acts of the OP Bank reportedly caused mental trauma, physical distress and financial loss.

Treating this as failure to provide proper service and finding the OP Bank as guilty of unfair trade practice the Complainant approaches to this Commission seeking direction upon the opposite party to pay Rs.14,000/- only, to pay further Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation and Rs. 30,000/- as litigation cost.

Copies of communications sent to the bank, monthly credit card statements, terms and conditions of the credit card and the communication made by the authorized advocate of the Bank to the Complainant have been annexed to the complaint petition.

Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are almost replica of the complaint petition.

The sole opposite party contested the case by filing elaborate rebuttals in their written version, evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument denying therein the allegations leveled against them.

  The complainant, is apparently a consumer in terms of section 2(7)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and the sole OP is having their office address within the district of Hooghly. The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-. Thus this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

Before going into the details of the written versions and the evidence on affidavit of the sole OP the question raised by the OP Bank as to the jurisdiction of the Commission in the matter of adjudication of the purported dispute deserves mention.

In the case of Arun Bhatiya vs HDFC Bank and Ors., Hon’ble Apex Court has reaffirmed that a person who avails any banking service falls within the scope of the definition of ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and can take recourse to legal remedies provided in the Act.

Thus the proposition of the OP Bank that the ‘Complainant herein is not a consumer under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended till date) but a borrower having financial relation with the OP Bank’ does not hold good.

.       However the OP Bank in their representations viz. written version, affidavit in chief and brief notes of argument points out that the credit card and the credit facility therein was extensively used by the Complainant but the Complainant on the other hand failed and /or neglected to pay the dues on time as per terms and conditions of the card member agreement thereby accruing outstanding dues on month to month basis. By producing the monthly credit card statements, the OP Bank substantiates that at the end of April 2021 an amount of Rs.24,710/- became due and payable by the Complainant to the Bank.

It is further brought to the notice that the Complainant while applying for the debit card opted for direct debit option of the minimum amount due from his savings account. However it is alleged that the credit card was used so extensively that in multiple occasions during the tenure of the credit card, there accrued outstanding more than the prescribed credit limit.

 The OP bank highlights that even after being considerably warned, the Complainant preferred to remain a defaulter in the matter of paying back the dues and thus the OP Bank was compelled to render the card charged off and unusable with effect from 30.04.2021and to send a legal notice.

So far as the charging of interest is concerned, the OP Bank refers to point no.3 of the ‘Most important rules and regulations’ with respect to accrual of interest. The OP Bank categorically states in their representations that all transactions done by the Complainant during the tenure of usage of the credit card, the payments mandate thereafter and the charges imposed by the Bank as per the card member agreement are reflected in the monthly statements annexed.

Apart from the above, the OP Bank denies that they themselves started any auto-pay mode. Rather it is the Complainant who opted for direct debit option from his savings account and the OP Bank, upon instructions of the Complainant had debited minimum amount due from the savings account of the Complainant and thereafter the rest of the due amount has been bearing finance charge and other charges including over limit fee whenever the total outstanding in the card was beyond prescribed credit limit.

To corroborate the arguments, the OP Bank has furnished copies of credit card brochure cum application form, credit card statements for the material period, credit card usage guide and credit card member agreement.

Decision with reason

Materials on records are perused. Firstly, so far as the Complainant’s demand incorporated in the complaint petition is concerned it is inscrutable that on what basis the complainant prays for imposing direction upon the OP to pay Rs.14,000/-

However, it is apparent on perusal of the transaction history involving the credit card that the Complainant utilized the credit card to his heart’s content and showed utter indifference towards paying back to the bank the appropriate due amount within the stipulated time frame. This also appears that the Complainant deliberately suppressed the entire transaction history in his complaint petition.

It is apparent from the online application form that the Complainant accepted the direct debit facility and authorized the OP Bank to debit his bank account towards credit card payments.

It transpires that the Complainant neither before applying for the credit card nor before utilizing the credit card felt the necessity of being conscious of the most important terms and conditions.

It is categorically stated in the relevant terms and conditions that ‘Finance charges are payable at the monthly percentage rate on all transactions from the date of transactions in the event of the card member choosing not to pay his balance in full and on all cash advances taken by the card member, till they are paid back. Finance charges, if payable are debited to the card member’s account till the outstanding on the card is paid in full’.

This is also mentioned in the Most Important Terms and Conditions that the provision of interest free credit period which is supposed to range from 20 to 50 days, is not applicable if the previous month’s balance has not been cleared in full or if the card member has availed of cash from ATM.   

However, even at the time of drafting the Complaint petition the Complainant did not bother to look into the basic inherent terms and conditions.

Now, this Commission on consideration of all the aspects of the case is of the view that it does not transpire that there was some ulterior motive or mala fide intention of the bank to squeeze money from the complainant in some unscrupulous manner and it cannot be concluded that there was deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OP Bank. Besides, there cannot be any substantial mental agony as a fall out of the aforementioned which deserves to be compensated by monetary consideration.

Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

that the complaint case no.134/2021 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

However there is no order as to costs.

 Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgements/sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

The final order will be available in the respective website i.e. www.confonet.nic.in