BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052           

C.C.No.2034/2011

DATED THIS THE 2^nd SEPTEMBER 2013

PRESENT

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

SRI.H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA, MEMBER

Complainant: -   

                                                Sri.S.Chandan,

                                                S/o. Late D.V.Srinivas,

                                                Aged about 38 years,

                                                Residing at No.405,

                                                6^th Cross, Saraswathi Nagar,

                                                Nagarbhavi Road,

                                                Vijayanagar, Bangalore-40                                           

V/s

Opposite parties           

1.     The Manager, ABN AMRO BANK N.V., Credit Card collection Department, Ground Floor, Prestige Towers, Residency Road, Bangalore-01

2.     The Manager, ABN AMRO BANK N.V., Sakhar Bhavan, Nariman Point, Mumbai-21

3.     The Manager, ABN AMRO BANK, Hansalaya Building, 15, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-01

4.     The Manager, ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND, Credit Card Collection Department, Ground Floor, Prestige Towers, Residency Road, Bangalore-01

ORDER

SRI.J.N.HAVANUR, PRESIDENT

        This is a complaint filed by the complainant against the OPs under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, praying to pass an order, directing the OPs write to CIBIL to remove the name of the complainant as defaulter and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000=00 as damages alongwith interest at 18% per annum and cost of the complaint and such other relief, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The brief facts of the complaint can be stated as under.

The complainant was issued a credit card bearing no.0005415382308539949 on his request by the 1^st OP; the 2^nd and 3^rd OPs are the Zonal and Head office of the 1^st OP. The complainant came to know that, 1^st to 3^rd OPs are taken over by the 4^th OP. On 7-11-2006, the complainant made purchases and accordingly the total amount due on the said credit card as on 7-11-2006 was Rs.13,591.96. So receiving the statement of account for a period from 8-10-2006 to 7-11-2006, the complainant made payment to the 1^st OP through aforesaid credit card account towards discharge of the said amount due by him on his credit card and the same is recorded in the statement of account for the period from 7-11-2006 to 7-12-2006. Subsequently the complainant has not used the card. Even after payment of the amounts due on his credit card, the 1^st OP has sent statement of account for the period from 8-5-2007 to 7-6-2007 stating that complainant has not paid Rs.13,591.96 and calculating interest on the amount, the OPs made claim of Rs.18,744.70. Inspite of payment of entire amount due, the OPs no.1 to 3 got issued two legal notices to the complainant dated 20-10-2007 and 24-10-2009 calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.18,834.79 and other charges on the said credit card. After repeated correspondence made by the complainant and explaining the payment made by the complainant, finally on 12-12-2009 an authorized officer of the OPs bank had through email brought it to the knowledge of the complainant that the bank had claimed non receipt of the cheque as the cheque which was drawn on the SBM was wrongfully debited in the SBI by its clearing house and accepted the payment made by the complainant and further also confirmed that there are no due by the complainant. The complainant’s concern M/s. Srinivas Traders is sanctioned with over draft facility for his business upto to limit of Rs.10,00,000=00 by the SBM, JC Road branch, Bangalore. In the month of January 2011, the complainant requested the SBM, JC Road Branch, Bangalore to release over draft facility granted to him and after some time the SBM, JC Road branch, Bangalore refused to release the amount on the ground that the complainant’s name is black listed with CIBIL for failure to discharge his credit card dues. The act of the OPs in informing CIBIL wrongly that the complainant is a defaulter is totally illegal and unfair and shows their gross negligence in their duties towards the customers and the complainant. Immediately the complainant has informed with documents to SBM, and the SBM has agreed to look into the matter and after five months after convinced that the complainant is not at fault, the SBM agreed to release over draft facility in the month of May 2011. Since, SBM has delayed by five months in releasing over draft facility to the complainant thereby the complainant suffered huge loss in his business and was made to raise private loans on higher interest and business reputation and credibility is totally harmed and defamed in the business field and in banking sector and hence the OPs are liable to pay damages of Rs.1,00,000=00. The complainant got issued legal notice dated 24-6-2011, the OPs have received notice and failed to comply with the demand and on the contrary got issued reply notice, mentioning the complainant’s name as defaulter with CIBIL falsely and thereby harming the reputation of the complainant which amounts to deficiency in service of the OPs and hence the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to the complainant. Hence the present complaint is filed. 

  3. After service of the notice, the OPs no.1 to 4 have appeared through their counsel and filed version contending interalia as under:

The OPs bank is having international repute and is engaged in business of providing financial services alongwith rendering financial assistance to the intending customers since long and is carrying on business in accordance with the guidelines issued by the RBI. The complaint of the complainant is not maintainable either in law or on facts and same is liable to be dismissed in limine. All the allegations and averments made against the OPs by the complainant in the complaint are denied. It is true that, the complainant is s customer of the OP bank and the OP bank has issued credit card bearing no.5425382308539949 to the complainant and the complainant has made purchase on 7-11-2006 from the credit card for a sum of Rs.13,591.96, and the OP bank has sent statement for the period from 8-5-2007 to 7-6-2007 stating that the complainant has not paid Rs.13,591.96. The instrument bearing no.818270 was presented by OP bank and the credit for the same was provided in statement dated 7-12-2006, but the drawee bank has claimed the funds back through form-A, hence the credit for an amount of Rs.13,592.96 towards the credit card account had been debited back by the OP bank, hence the total amount due as per the statement dated 7-1-2007 remained as Rs.13,613.96. The OP bank had asked the complainant that in case the amount had been debited from his account, requested him to provide a debit advice from his bank confirming the details of the Cheque number, Cheque date and amount, Name of the beneficiary in whose favor of the funds have been credited, Date of clearance and bank where the cheque has been credited. But till today the complainant has not furnished above details and has not paid the outstanding amount due towards credit card. The credit card amount was entitled for the late fee due to non payment of the minimum amount due within the stipulated time frame as explicitly indicated in the respective credit card statement. The credit card account of complainant has also been levied with finance charges due to non payment of the total amount due as clearly mentioned in the credit card statement. The said OP bank as a service gesture had reversed the complete late fees and finance charges debited to the credit card account. Subsequent to the reversal of the charges of Rs.5744.77, the current outstanding on the credit card amount is Rs.12493.31. The OP has no knowledge about the averments made in the complaint and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The MITC booklet was forwarded to the complainant alongwith the credit card welcome kit. The OP bank has no knowledge about the averments made in the complaint in para no.11 to 13 and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same and so also the OP has no knowledge about the averments made in the paragraph no.16 and 17 of the complaint.  The instrument bearing no.818270 issued by the complainant was presented by the OP bank and the credit for the same was provided in statement dated 7-12-2006. But it was found that, the cheque has drawn on SBM, but it has been debited to SBI. The SBI had claimed the funds back through form-A, hence the credit for an amount of Rs.13,592.00 towards the credit card account had been debited back by the OP bank The OP bank has requested the complainant to furnish the details regarding debit of his account and details of beneficiary account. But till today the complainant has not furnished details. It clearly shows that, the compliant has not paid the due amount and the complainant has come up with these false allegations to evade payment of amount which he is legally due to the OP bank. So there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank as alleged by the complainant. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with cost.

4. So from the averments of the complaint of the complainant and objection of the OPs, the following points arise for our consideration.

1.                           Whether the complainant proves that, the OPs have mentioned his name as defaulter with CIBIL falsely and thereby harming his reputation which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and so they are liable to pay damages and also other relief as prayed in the complaint?

2.                           If point no.1 is answered in the affirmative, what relief, the complainant is entitled to?

3.                           What order?

5. Our findings on the above points are;

          Point no.1:  In the Negative

Point no.2:  In view of the negative findings on the

point no.1, the complainant is not entitled 

to any relief as prayed in the complaint

          Point no.3:  For the following order

REASONS

          6. So as to prove the case, the complainant has filed his affidavit by way of evidence and produced documents which are marked as Ex-C1 to Ex-C11 (f) and produced six documents and two more documents with list dated 5-1-2013.  On the other hand, one Rajesh Kumar, who being the authorized signatory of the OP bank has filed his affidavit and produced two documents. We have heard the arguments of both parties and we have gone through the oral and documentary evidence of both sides in between lines.

7. One S.Chandan, who being the complainant has stated in his affidavit that, the 1^st OP issued a credit card in his name bearing no.0005415382308539949, and the 2^nd and 3^rd OPs are the Zonal and Head office of the 1^st OP. He came to know that, 1^st to 3^rd OPs are taken over by the 4^th OP. On 7-11-2006 he made purchases and accordingly the total due on the said credit card as on 7-11-2006 was Rs.13,591.96 and upon receiving the statement of account for a period from 8-10-2006 to 7-11-2006, he made payments to the 1^st OP through credit card account towards discharge of the said amount due and the same is recorded in the statement of account from 7-11-2006 to 7-12-2006. Subsequently he has not used the card, evenafter payment of the amounts due on his credit card, the 1^st OP has sent statement of account for the period from 8-5-2007 to 7-6-2007 stating that complainant has not paid Rs.13,591.96 and calculating interest also amounting to Rs.18,744.79. Inspite of payment of entire amount due, the OPs no.1 to 3 got issued two legal notices to him calling upon to pay Rs.18,834.79 and other charges on the said credit card. After repeated correspondence made by him, finally on 12-12-2009 an authorized officer of the OPs bank had sent email stating that, the bank had claimed non receipt of the cheque as the cheque which was drawn on the SBM was wrongfully debited in the SBI by its clearing house and accepted the payment made by him and confirmed that there is no due by him. He and his partner of M/s. Srinivas Traders is sanctioned with over draft facility for his business upto to limit of Rs.10,00,000=00 by SBM, JC Road branch, Bangalore. In the month of January 2011, he requested SBM, JC Road Branch, Bangalore to release over draft facility granted to him and after some time the SBM, JC Road branch, Bangalore refused to release the amount on the ground that his  name is black listed with CIBIL for failure to discharge his credit card dues. The act of the OPs in informing CIBIL wrongly that his name is a defaulter is totally illegal and unfair and shows their gross negligence in their duties. Since, SBM has delayed by five months in releasing over draft facility to him, he suffered huge loss in his business and was made to raise private loans on higher interest and his business reputation and credibility is totally harmed and defamed in the business field and in banking sector and so the OPs are liable to pay damages to him and they required to write of CIBIL to remove his name from the list. The OPs have not complied the notice by giving any reply.  Mentioning his name as defaulter with CIBIL falsely and harming the reputation amounts to deficiency in service of the OPs. So, the OPs are jointly and severally liable to pay damages to him. Hence, he has filed the present complaint, so the complaint be allowed and pass an order as prayed for.

8. At this stage, let us have a cursory glance at the relevant documents of complainant one by one. Document no.1 of the complainant list is the copy of statement of account of the OP bank showing payment of Rs.6,850=00 made by the complainant on 30-10-2006 for a period from 8-10-2006 to 7-11-2007, and the total amount due was Rs.13,591.96. Document no.2 of the said list is the copy of statement of account of the complainant issued by the OP bank showing that, the total amount due was Rs.3,968.36 for a period from 8-11-2006 to 7-12-2006 and payment due date was 27-12-2006. Document no.3 is the copy of statement of account of the complainant issued by the OP bank for a period from 8-5-2007 to 7-6-2007 showing total amount due was Rs.18,744.79. Document no.4 is the copy of notice of OP bank dated 20-10-2007 issued to the complainant calling upon him to pay Rs.18,834.79 towards credit card failing which the OP bank will initiate legal proceedings to recover the amount. Document no.5 is the copy of notice issued by the OP’s lawyer to the complainant dated 24-10-2009 calling him to pay Rs.18,834.79 alongwith interest at 3.5% per month from 14-10-2009 failing which the OP shall initiate arbitration proceedings against the complainant for recovery of the amount alongwith interest, cost and other charges. Document no.6 is the copy of email letter issued by one Mohammed Sharieff requesting to reverse the credit as the bank has claimed non receipt of the cheque. Document no.7 is the copy of legal notice of the complainant issued to the OP calling upon them to write to CIBIL to remove his name from the list and to pay damages of Rs.1.00 lakhs alongwith notice charges. Document no.7(a) is sheet containing postal receipts. Document no.8 is the copy of reply of the OP issued to the complainant calling upon him to pay balance due of Rs.12,498.31 and in the reply the OP further stated that they do not admit any liability towards any claim, compensation or refund of any nature whatsoever. Document no.9 is the copy of letter of CIBIL dated 31-5-2011 showing the name of complainant in the CIBIL list. The complainant has produced six statement of account issued by the OP in the name of complainant showing the detail amount due to the OP bank by complainant and out of six statements in the list, statement dated 7-6-2007 shows the complainant was due a sum of Rs.18,744.79 to the OP bank as on 7-6-2007.

On perusal of the complaint and evidence of the complainant, it is transpired that, the complainant has stated consistently that, on receiving of the statement of account for a period from 8-10-2006 to 7-11-2006, he made payment to the 1^st OP through aforesaid credit card account towards discharge of the said card and subsequently he has not used the card and the bank has accepted the payment made by him and also informed that there is no due by him. But the documents of the complainant disclosed that, the complainant has paid only Rs.6,850=00 on 30-10-2006 and there was still due a sum of Rs.13,591.96 to OP bank. The documents of the complainant produced do not show clearly that, the complainant has paid entire due amount to the OP bank and there is no due by him as stated in the evidence of complainant. The oral evidence of the complainant that, he has made payment to the 1^st OP and there is nothing due by him is not corroborated by any convincing documentary evidence. On the other hand, the relevant documents of complainant go to demonstrate that, the complainant was due to OP bank towards his credit card and has committed default in payment of arrears to the OP bank alongwith interest, so his name has been listed in CIBIL. This is all about the oral and documentary evidence of the complainant.

Let us have a look at the material evidence of the OP. One Rajesh Kumar who being the authorized signatory of the OP bank has stated in his affidavit that, the complainant is a customer of the OP bank and the OP has issued credit card to the complainant, and the complainant has made purchase on 7-11-2007 from the credit card for a sum of Rs.13,591.96, but the complainant has not paid the outstanding amount due towards credit card, and the OP bank has requested the complainant to furnish the details regarding debit of his account and details of beneficiary account to whom the amounts were credited, but till today, the complainant has not furnished the details and it clearly shows that, the complainant has not paid the total due amount and has come up with these false allegations to evade payment of arrears, and there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OP bank, so the complaint be dismissed with cost.

The OPs have produced two documents, and out of those documents, the 2^nd document namely duplicate freedom card issued by the OP bank in the name of complainant shows that, still the complainant is due a total sum of Rs.13,591.96 to the OP bank.

Having considering the totality of evidence of the complainant and OP as mentioned above, it is made unambiguously clear that, the complainant is due to OP bank as on the date of filing of the complaint, and no documentary evidence is produced by the complainant to show before the forum that, he has paid the entire amount to the OP bank towards his credit card and there is no due by him to the OP bank. But unfortunately, the relevant documents of complainant go to show that as on 7-6-2007 the complainant was due in a sum of Rs.18,834.79 to the OP bank, the complainant has not made any sincere efforts to pay the said outstanding details to the OP bank, inspite of issuing reminders by the OP bank. In view of committing default in paying due by complainant, the OPs have informed the name of complainant to CIBIL and listed his name as a defaulter according to banking rules and regulations. In fact, the act of the OP in informing the name of complainant to CIBIL in view of committing default in paying the due amount to the OP bank by complainant does not amount to deficiency of service and it is in accordance with the banking rules and regulations. So taking the material evidence of the OP and compare the same with the oral and documentary of the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that, the material evidence of the OP is more believable trustworthy and acted upon than the material evidence of the complainant and as such we are of the view that, the complainant who comes to the forum seeking relief has utterly failed to prove this point with clear cogent and consistent material evidence that, the OPs mentioned his name as a defaulter with CIBIL falsely and thereby harmed his reputation which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, and so they are liable to pay the damages and other charges as prayed in the complaint, and accordingly, we answer this point in a negative.

In view of our negative finding on the point no.1, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed in the complaint. So, we answer this point in a negative. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, we proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

          The complaint of the complainant is hereby dismissed. No cost.

          Supply free copy of this order to both parties.  

          (Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Open forum on this the 2^nd day of September 2013).

MEMBER                                 PRESIDENT