DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 30th day of September 2009.

Present : Smt. H. Seena, President

Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

Smt Banumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.65/2008

K.B. Baburajan

Residing at 26/714 Anugraha

Gandhi Nagar, Chakkanthara

Pallippuram (P.O)

Palakkad – 678 006 - Complainant

(Adv.P.R. Hariharan)

V/s

The Manager

Customer Care

CITI Bank, Customer Service Unit

P.O. Box No.4830

Annasalai P.O

Chennai – 600 002 - Opposite party

(Adv A.R.V. Sankar)

O R D E R

Order by Smt. Preetha.G. Nair, Member

The Complainant is the holder of Citi Card bearing No.4568229301886009. The Opposite party approached the complainant and induced him to avail credit card services provided by them, promising the complainant among other things trouble free serviice. The complainant became the holder of the Citi card in the year 1997. The services provided by the opposite party initially was trouble free . Subsequently service provided by the opposite party started dimnishing. During the month of March 2007, complainant made purchases worth Rs.2394/- using the credit card. Towards payment, complainant issued cheque No.628742 dated 17/04/2007 drawn on State Bank of India for Rs.2394/- in favour of the opposite party. The complainant received a letter from opposite party dated 02/05/07 intimating him that the cheque issued by him in favour of the opposite party has been sent for collection. Also in the letter dated 02/05/07 the opposite party had requested the complainant to send a Demand Draft for Rs.2394/- as the cheque issued by complainant has not been cleared. Complainant approached his bankers the

- 2 -

State Bank of India and took a Demand Draft for Rs. 2394/- and directed the Bank to sent it to the opposite party vide courier on 08/05/07 and the same has been received by the opposite party. Complainant sent a letter dated 01/06/2007 to the opposite party intimating that the Demand Draft has been sent along with the copy of the Courier receipt and also informing the opposite party that the cheque issued for Rs.2394/- was cleared on 14/05/2007. In effect complainant had made a double payment. The opposite party vide letter dated 21/09/07 wanted proof from the complainant's banker that the instrument has been cleared by Citi Bank. The complainant on receiving such request, send a statement of his account for the period 01/05/2007 to 31/05/2007 showing the details of transaction taken place to the opposite party. In short, evidence was given by the complainant to the Opposite party showing that double payment. Inspite of giving such clear and cogent proof, the Opposite party failed to credit the excess payment made by the complainant. Several letters were written by the complainant to the opposite party. Inspite of all the letters the opposite party failed to account for the excess payment made. The complainant being disgusted with the opposite party service, informed them to cancel the card and paid the entire balance due as on date after apportioning the excess payment made by him. Getting no response from the opposite party and having no other alternative the complainant caused a lawyer notice to be sent to the opposite party on 07/02/2008 seeking clarification of the account and also informing about the double payment made. The opposite party has replied to the complainant on 24/04/2008 i.e, after 2 months and 17 days, wherein the opposite party has agreed that the Demand Draft has been cleared. The opposite party has been continously harrassing the complainant, he had cleared the entire dues to the opposite party. The constant demands made by the opposite party, by way of monthly bills, SMS phone calls etc has caused severe mental anguish to the complainant .

Hence complainant claims an amount of Rs.25,000/- being the exemplary cost and declare that the complainant need not pay the sum of Rs.2393.25 as demanded in the reply dated 24/04/2008.

Opposite party field version stating the following contentions. The say of the complainant that opposite party induced the complainant to avail credit card services is

- 3 -

denied by the opposite party. The complainant has become the holder of Citi card as per his will and pleasure. The opposite party stated that opposite party has only introduced the specialities and chartesteristic of the citi card among the customers as well as the public. The opposite party admits that the complainant had availed Citi card facility bearing No.4568229301886009 from 1997 onwards abiding the terms and conditions. The allegation that the service provided by the opposite party started diminsihing is not true to the fact. The opposite party admitted that complainant has issued a cheque bearing No.628742 dated 17/04/2007 for Rs.2394/- drawn on State Bank of India , Palakkad for crediting the same in his credit card account maintained with the opposite party. The cheque was sent to the complainant's bank requesting them to issue a Demand Draft in lieu of the cheque, since the Opposite party is not having clearing arrangement in Palakkad. A letter dated 02/05/2007 was sent to the complainant also informing him about this cheque being sent to his bank. The complainant has misunderstood this letter and instead of reminding the complainant's bank to send the proceeds of the cheque, arranged for a fresh Demand Draft from his account and instructed his Bank to send that Demand Draft to the opposite party. This Demand Draft bearing No.80705 was sent to the Opposite with proper reference number and this amount was credit to the complainants card account. Acutally the complainant's bank should have sent two Demand Drafts as they have debited his account twice.

The opposite party was not able to locate the details of the other Demand draft that was sent by the complainant's Bank since complainant's Bank had not given the correct reference number of the opposite party. Subsequently when the opposite party was informed of the dispute to the complainant's Bank Manager and got the details of the other Demand Draft sent by the complainant's Bank. This amount was credited to the complainants credit card account on 27.06.2008. This entry will be seen in the statement of account of the complainant for the month of July 2008. The opposite party stated that the demands made by them by way of monthly bills, SMS, phone calls etc are all recovery methods permitted and acted in confirmity with Reserve Bank Guidelines.

There is no deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite party. In the

- 4 -

above circumstances the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost to the opposite party.

Complainant filed proof affidavit along with documents. Exhibit A1 to A18 marked on the side of the complainant. Opposite party filed proof affidavit with document. Exhibit B1 marked on the side of the opposite party. Matter was heard.

Issues to be considered are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party?

2. If so, what is the relief and cost?

Issues I & II

The opposite party admitted that the complainant is the holder of City card bearing No.4568229301886009 provided by the opposite party. As per Exhibt A1 the opposite party sent a letter dated 02/05/2007 requesting the complainant to contact the Bank for despatch of the Demand Draft for Rs.2394/-. Thereafter complainant approached the State Bank of India and took a Demand Draft for Rs.2394/- and directed the Bank to sent it to the opposite party on 08/05/2007.

According to Exhibit A2, opposite party has stated that the payment made by the cheque No.628742 for Rs.2394/- has been received by the Opposite party and this credit reflects in the statement for the month of April 2007. As per Exhibit A7, the opposite party issued a letter dated 21/09/2007 wanted proof from the complainant's banker that the instrument has been cleared by Citi Bank. The complainant send the statement of his account for the period 01/05/2007 to 31/05/2007 showing the details of transaction. Inspite of giving such clear and cogent proof, the opposite party failed to credit the excess payment made by the complainant . The complainant caused a lawyer notice dated 05/02/2008 to the opposite party. Opposite party send a reply notice dated 24/04/2008 wherein it is agreed that the Demand Draft has been cleared. According to Exhibit A16 series the opposite party levied interest charges, late payment fee, service tax and over due amount etc on each payment. From the evidence on record it is clear that the complainant had made a double payment of Rs.2394/- and opposite party failed to credit

- 5 -

the excess payment received. The opposite party has not taken any steps to rectify the said mistake. In the above circumstances we hold the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence complaint allowed.

We direct the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the deficiency in service and Rs.2000/- as cost to the complainant . Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realization.

Pronounced in the open court on the 30^th day of September 2009

PRESIDENT (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

MEMBER (SD)

APPENDIX

Witness examined on the side of Complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of Opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

1. Ext. A1 – Letter dated 02/05/07 of Citibank

2. Ext.A2 - Letter dated 08/09/2007 of City bank

3. Ext A3 - Statement of Account dated 31/05/07

4. Ext. A4 – POD copy of Franch Express Net Work Pvt Ltd dated 08/05/07

5. Ext. A5 – Copy of letter of State Bank of Inida dated 1^st July 2007

6. Ext. A6 - Letter dated 27^th Sept 2007 of State Bank of India

7. Ext. A7 - Letter dated 21^st Sept 2007 of Citibank

8. Ext. A8 – Letter dated 25^th Oct, 2007 of Citibank

9. Ext. A9 - Letter dated 13^th Dec, 2007 of Citibank

10. Ext. A10- Copy of letter dated 01/06/07 from K.B. Baburajan

11. Ext. A11 – Copy of letter from K.B. Baburajan

12 . Ext. A12 – Copy of letter dated 03/09/07 from K B Baburajan

13. Ext. A13 – Copy of letter dated 17/09/07 from K B Baburajan

14. Ext. A14 - Copy of letter dated 28/09/07 from K B Baburajan

15. Ext. A15 - Copy of letter dated 02/11/07 from K B Baburajan

16. Ext. A16 – Letter from Advocate dated 05/02/2008

    - 6 -

     

17. Ext. A17 – Letter dated 24^th April 2008 of Citibank

18. Ext. A18 series – Bills dated 25/07/07 upto 27/08/08 of Citi Bank

Exhibits marked on the side of the Opposite Party

1. Ext. B1 - Certificate under Section 2 A of the Banker's Books Evidence Act, 1891)

Forums Exhibits

Nil

Cost (allowed)

Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) allowed as cost of proceedings

Forwarded/By Order

Senior Superintendent