DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 17^th day of May, 2024

Present      :   Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

                   :   Smt. Vidya A., Member             

                  :   Sri. Krishnankutty N.K., Member                                Date of Filing: 21/01/2023   

              CC/25/2023

Rajan C.,

S/o. Janardhanan Chettiar,

Chathikuzhiyil House,

Thripalamunda (PO), Parassery,

Kongad, Palakkad – 678 631                                                  -           Complainant

(By Adv. M/s M.P. Ravi & M.J. Vince)

                                                                                      Vs

1. The Branch Manager,

State Bank of India,

Peringodu Branch,

Via Kongad, Palakkad – 678 631

2. The Manager,

SBI Credit Cards Ltd.,

2^nd Floor, CSI Shopping Complex,

Adjacent to CSI Church,

Broadway, Ernakulam – 682 031                                              -          Opposite parties

(OP1 by Adv. A.V. Arun

  O.P.2 is Ex-parte)        

O R D E R

By Sri. Vinay Menon V., President

1. Briefly stated, complainant’s pleading portraits forceful issuance of credit card by the agent of 2^nd O.P. and illegal demand for amounts. Complainant alleges that even though he had not put the credit card to use, the OPs had been charging various amounts debited to his account maintained by 1^st OP bank. Complainant came to know of these debits when he received a notice from DLSA, Ernakulam. The complainant had not used the credit card in any manner and the demand thereof is illegal.  This complaint is filed seeking return of the amounts debited from his account to a tune of Rs.11,801.5/ by way of interest and for compensation and other incidental reliefs.
2. OP1 filed version stating that they are only a 3^rd party and was not aware of the transaction between the complainant and 2^nd OP, who is an entirely different corporate person.  
3. Even though OP2 received notice they did not enter appearance or file their version and were set exparte after long continuous absence.
4. The following issues were framed for adjudication:

1. Whether the debits to the account of the complainant is unauthorized as alleged by the complainant?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Any other reliefs?

5.        (i)        Evidence of complainant comprised of proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A5.   Even though the 1^st OP filed an application as IA 671/2023 to cross examine the complainant, the said application was dismissed as the OP1 had pleaded that they did not have any say or knowledge in the disputed transactions made between the complainant and a 3^rd party.

(ii)     OP1 filed proof affidavit.  They did not mark any documents.

            Issue No. 1

6.         Complainant’s case is that he had availed an SB credit card during 2020 after having been induced by the canvassing agents of O.P.2 and out of compulsion from 1^st OP.  Even though he had not put the credit card to use till date, a total of Rs.11,801.50 was debited to his account covering an expanse of dates. Said debiting is unauthorized and grossly illegal. He received a notice from DLSA, Ernakulam, wherein it was alleged that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs.29,434/- being repayment of a loan.

7.         OP1 has washed their hand off any liability or responsibility in the transaction between complainant and OP2.   Even as per pleadings of the complainant, in paragraph 2 of the memorandum of complaint, it was the canvas agent appointed by the 2^nd OP who had forced him to accept the credit card. Even though there is mention of compulsion from 1st OP the complainant has failed to prove that the 1st OP had forced the complainant to avail a credit card.

8.         Therefore, burden to prove that the complainant had used the credit cards and had incurred a debt of Rs.29,433.76 falls upon the 2^nd OP. But they had failed to contest this case even though they had notice of the proceedings. Hence whatever presumptions adverse to the 2^nd OP can be availed and the complainant need to prove only a prima facie case.

9.         Documentary evidence on the part of the complainant comprised of Ext.A1 to A5. They are Notice issued by the complainant to OPs herein, photostat copy of passbook showing debit of interest, demand notice issued by OP2, photocopy of the SBI card and finally, notice issued by DLSA, Ernakulam.  The said documents prove that there is a subsisting creditor-debtor relationship between the complainant and 2^nd OP and that a demand was made for repayment of the debt. But the legality of the said relationship cannot be ascertained from the documents produced and marked by the complainant.

 Burden of proof lay on the 2^nd OP to prove the legality of this relationship by adducing cogent evidence. Having failed to do so, we are left with no alternate but to resort to a presumption of illegality on the part of 2^nd OP in initiating recovery process against the complainant.

10.       We hold that the debits to the account of the complainant is unauthorized as alleged by the complainant.

             Issue No. 2

11.       In view of the discussion above, O.P.1 is absolved of any liabilities.

12.       We hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of 2^nd OP.    

            Issue No. 3

13.       The complainant has sought for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case where the amount sought for refund is only around Rs.12,000/- we hold that claim for compensation of Rs.2 lakh is exorbitant.  Hence the claim for Rs. 2,00,000/- is disallowed.

Issue No. 4

14.       Resultantly, this complaint is disposed off with the following directives:

     1.     No liability is cast on the 1^st OP.

2.     The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.11,802/- from the 2^nd OP.

     3.     The complainant is entitled to an interest of 10% on this amount from the date of filing

 of this complaint i.e. 21/1/2023 till the date of repayment.

     4.     Complainant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.15,000/-.

     5.     Complainant is entitled to a cost of Rs.5,000/-

     6.     The 2^nd OP shall comply with orders 1 to 4 within 45 days of receipt of a copy of this

order, failing which the complainant will be entitled to a solatium of Rs.250/- per month or part thereof from the date of this order till the date of final payment.

                         Pronounced in open court on this the 17^th  day of May, 2024.        

                             Sd/-                                                                                                                             

                                                                                                                                                  Vinay Menon V

                                                                                   President

                                                                                         Sd/-

                          Vidya.A

                                              Member         

                               Sd/-

                Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                                                                   Member        

   APPENDIX

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant

Ext.A1 -   Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 11/11/2022

Ext.A2 –  Copy of pass book of A/c No. 33555026353

Ext.A3 -   Copy of lawyer’s notice dated 13/10/2022   

Ext.A4 -   Copy of  SBI card.

Ext.A5 –  Copy of notice in PLP No.22357/2022.

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite party: Nil

Court Exhibit:  Nil

Third party documents:  Nil

 Witness examined on the side of the complainant: Nil

Witness examined on the side of the opposite party:   Nil   

Court Witness: Nil

NB : Parties are directed to take back all extra set of  documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.