BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 18th of March 2011
PRESENT
SMT. ASHA SHETTY : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.101/2010
(Admitted on 20.03.2010)
Mr. Bolar Hemanth Kumar
So M. Narayan Shriyan,
Aged 42 years,
2nd Floor, Trade Centre Building,
Bunts Hostel Road,
Mangalore 575 001. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Advocate for the Complainant: Mr. A. Nagaraj. N)
VERSUS
1. The Manager,
Card Service,
ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
(Now) Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
P.O. Box.418, G.P.O.,
NEW DELHI 110 001.
2. Nodal Officer,
Credit Card,
ABN AMRO Bank N.V.
(Now) Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
Hansalaya, 15, Barkhamba Road,
NEW DELHI – 110 001.
3. The ABN AMRO Bank,
Credit Card Division,
(Now) Royal Bank of Scotland N.V.
Light House Hill Road,
Mangalore, D.K.
Represented by its Manager. ……. OPPOSITE PARTIES
(Advocate for the Opposite Parties No.1 to 3 : Sri. K.S.N. Rajesh)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY PRESIDENT SMT. ASHA SHETTY:
1. This complaint is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming certain reliefs.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The complainant is a consumer of the Credit Card Services bearing Credit Card No.5425051701664707 issued by the Opposite Parties. The above said credit card has been issued by the Opposite Party No.3.
The complainant submits that he received a call from Credit Card Division in the month of July 2009 and stated that the complainant has to pay once and get 5% discount wherever he purchases. The complainant has requested to send the details to his address, but the Opposite Parties have failed to do so, have sent a card but the same was not accepted by the complainant and returned to the sender on the same day. It is stated that after few days, the complainant received the bill for EBL Supreme Plus Offer Navi Mumbai and the Opposite Parties have debited Rs.5,000/- from the aforesaid credit card. The complainant immediately contacted to the customer care of the Opposite Party No.3 and explained about the incident and requested to cancel the EBL Supreme Plus Offer Navi Mumbai and the complainant received the cancellation No.202691095 dtd.02.07.2009 over the telephone from the customer care. It is stated that even after receiving the above cancellation number, the Opposite Parties have been sending notices after notices. Thereafter, the complainant has returned several letters to the Opposite Parties but the Opposite Parties neither given any consent nor accepted the credit card. But on the other hand, they are illegally demanding the amount by sending statement to the complainant.
It is stated that the complainant has not availed the above services despite of that he is receiving demand notice from the Opposite Parties, which is not correct and amounts to deficiency. Hence, the above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction from this Forum to quash the bill for an amount of Rs.4,998=98 demanded by the Opposite Parties through their notice dtd.17.01.2010 in respect of the Credit Card No.ABN AMRO Gold Credit Card No. 5425051701664707 with EBL Supreme Plus offer and to issue clearance certificate / no due certificate along with compensation. The complainant also prays for the direction from this Forum against the Opposite Parties to cancel the ABN AMRO Gold Credit Card No. 5425051701664707.
2. The Opposite Parties appeared through their counsel filed version and stated that the Opposite Parties carrying on business in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India from time to time. It is submitted that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts and submitted that this FORA has no jurisdiction as per the terms and conditions of the card member agreement. The jurisdiction for any dispute arising out of or in connection with the subject matter will be only in New Delhi.
The complainant issued with a Credit Card bearing No. 5425051701664707 and has availed the said credit card by duly signed and filled application form after understood and accepted all the terms and conditions of the card.
It is stated that the complainant has opted for ‘EBL Supreme Plus Credit Card Offer’ pertaining to the Heritage Holidays, the request for the ‘EBL Supreme Plus Credit Card Offer’ has been processed basing on the complainant’s verbal consent and debited Rs.5,000/- on 04.06.2009. The Opposite Parties stated that the complainant has outstanding on the credit card amount is at Rs.4,999=98 and there is no deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties and whatever claimed in the credit card is bound to be paid by the complainant and prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Sri Bolar Hemanth Kumar (CW1) has filed affidavit reiterating what has been stated in the complaint and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C24 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Sri V.V. Prabhakar (RW1), adult, the Manager, Royal Bank of Scotland N.V., Lighthouse hill road, Mangalore, Opposite Party No.3 filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex R1 to R4 were marked for the Opposite Parties as listed in the annexure. The Opposite Parties produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the notes/oral arguments submitted by the learned counsels and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Point No.(i) & (ii): Affirmative
Point No.(iii) : As per the final order.
Reasons
5. Point No. (i) to (iii): The facts, which are not in dispute is that the complainant is the holder of ABN AMRO Gold Credit Card No.5425051701664707 issued by the Opposite Parties as per Ex.R3 and Ex.R4 i.e., as per the Credit Card Number Agreement and Statement of the above Credit Card.
Now the grievances of the complainant are that he is the holder of the above said credit card. In the month of July 2009, he received a call from Credit Card Division stated that the complainant has to pay once and get 5% discount whenever he purchases. The complainant has requested to send the details about the offer, but the Opposite Parties have not sent the details rather they have sent a card but the same was not accepted by the complainant and returned to the sender on the same day. After few days, he received a bill for EBL Supreme Plus Offer Navi Mumbai and debited Rs.5,000/- from the aforesaid credit card. Immediately he rushed to the Opposite Party No.3 and requested to cancel the EBL Supreme Plus Offer and received the cancellation No.202691095 dtd.02.07.2009 over the telephone but the Opposite Parties have not given credit of Rs.5,000/- till this date. On the other hand, they keep on sending the notices after notices. Hence, this complaint.
The Opposite Parties inter alia contended that the complainant accepted the EBL Supreme Plus Credit Card Offer and gave verbal consent. Hence, they have debited Rs.5,000/- on 4th June 2009 and contended that there is no deficiency.
The complainant has filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Exs.C1 to C24. Opposite Party No.3 has also filed oral evidence by way of affidavit and produced Exs.R1 to R4.
On scrutiny of the oral as well as the documentary evidence available on record, we find that the complainant is a holder of ABL AMRO Gold Credit Card bearing No.5425051701664707 as per Ex.R3 i.e., as per credit card statement issued by the Opposite Parties dtd.17.06.2009. The above said statement as well as the Ex.C16 to C24 i.e., the photocopy of the summary statement of the credit card reveals that the Opposite Parties have debited Rs.5,000/- towards EBL Supreme Plus Credit Card Offer. The Ex.C1 to C15 i.e., several communications between the complainant and the Opposite Parties No.1 and 2 reveal that the complainant sought for cancellation of the EBL Supreme Plus Credit Card Offer by sending the representations, could be seen in the above communications. When that being the case, the Opposite Parties should have reversed or credited Rs.5,000/- back to the above said credit card account instead of sending notices after notices. Because the complainant admittedly gave a representation to the Opposite Parties stating that he is not interested to avail that offer and also he had not made use of the above debited amount of Rs.5,000/-. Such being the case, the Opposite Parties have got no legal right to demand from the complainant. We also observed that the Opposite Parties have failed to substantiate their stand by stating that the complainant consented for the offer and made use of the amount of Rs.5,000/-. As we know the crediting and debiting in credit cards is an electronic process and it can be debited or credited automatically. When the complainant gave a representation in writing, it is the bounden duty of the Opposite Parties to cancel the above offer. But in the instant case, we have noticed that the Opposite Parties despite of receiving the representations with regard to the cancellation of the above offer, the Opposite Parties have not taken any measure to credit the above said amount. The attitude of the Opposite Parties shows that they are compelling the customers to avail the offer by adopting this type of procedure. The Opposite Parties have no locus standi to debit the above amount when the cancellation sought by the complainant. The Ex.C1 to C15 i.e., the communications produced before this FORA proved beyond doubt that the complainant sought for cancellation of the above offer despite of that the Opposite Parties have not taken any steps to credit the amount till this date amounts to deficiency of service and we further hold that the bill / statement issued by the Opposite Parties in respect of the above mentioned amount is not correct and the same is hereby quashed.
In view of the foregoing reasons, we hold that the Opposite Parties by issuing statement after statement by demanding Rs.5,000/- despite of seeking cancellation from the complainant amounts to deficiency as stated supra. By considering the case on hand, we direct the Opposite Parties to pay reasonable compensation of Rs.5,000/- for the harassment and inconvenience and also we direct the Opposite Parties to quash the demand of Rs.4,998=98 made by the Opposite Parties with regard to EBL Supreme Plus Offer and at the same time credit Rs.5,000/- to the credit card amount of the complainant and also pay Rs.1,000/- as costs of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is allowed. Opposite Parties are jointly and severally hereby directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the harassment and inconvenience the complainant has gone through and also directed to quash the demand of Rs.4,998=98 made by them in respect of EBL Supreme Plus Offer. The Opposite Parties are also hereby directed to give credit of Rs.5,000/- to the credit card account of the complainant and also directed to pay the cost of the litigation expenses. Payment shall be made within 30 days from the date of this order.
On failure to pay the aforementioned amount within the stipulated time as mentioned above the Opposite Party is hereby directed to pay interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of failure till the date of payment.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and therefore the file be consigned to record.
(Page No.1 to 9 dictated to the Stenographer typed by him, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 18th day of March 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Mr. Bolar Hemanth Kumar – Complainant
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1 – 20-07-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.1
Ex C2 – 08-08-2009 - Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.1
Ex C3 – 20-08-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.1
Ex C4 – 15-09-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.1
Ex C5 – 08-09-2009 – Reply Letter by Opposite Party.
Ex C6 – 24-10-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.2
Ex C7 – 11-11-2009 – Reply Letter by Opposite Party
Ex C8 – 25-11-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party. No.1
Ex C9 – 25-11-2009 - Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party’s Noida Branch.
Ex C10 – 26-10-2009 – Email Reply by Opposite Party.
Ex C11 – 30-11-2009 – Email Reply by Opposite Party.
Ex C12 – 24-10-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C13 – 01-12-2009 – Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party No.1.
Ex C14 – 01-12-2009 - Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party No.1 (Mr. Rahul Bhatia).
Ex C15 – 01-12-2009 - Letter written by the complainant to
Opposite Party’s Noida Branch.
Ex C16 – 17-03-2008 – Summary Statement
Ex C17 – 17-06-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C18 – 17-07-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C19 – 17-08-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C20 – 17-09-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C21 – 17-10-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C22 – 17-11-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C23 – 17-12-2009 - Summary Statement
Ex C24 – 17-01-2010 - Summary Statement
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Parties:
RW1 – Mr. V.V. Prabhakar, The Manager – Opposite Party No.3
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
Ex R1 – 18-02-2010 – G.P.A. issued in favour of Mr. V.V. Prabhakar
Ex R2 – 19-03-2010 – Notification of Reserve Bank of India
Ex R3 – 17-06-2009 – Statement of account of the complainant
Ex R4 – 28-11-2008 – Card Member Agreement.
Dated:18/03/2011 PRESIDENT
