Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

257/2012

Mrs. R.jayalakshmi - Complainant(s)

Versus

The manager CustomerServices, SBI Cards, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.S.Ramakrishnan

07 Sep 2016

ORDER

 

                                                              Complaint presented on  :  28.11.2012

                                                                     Order pronounced on  07.09.2016

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,         :      PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,            :     MEMBER II

 

WEDNESDAY THE  07^th   DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.257/2012

 

Mrs.R.Jayalakshmi,

W/o.Sri.S.Ravirajulu,

U-Block, Plot No.4244,

New No.11,Old.No.63,

Opp.to.JGVV.School,

7^th Street,Anna Nagar,

Chennai – 600 040.

                                                                                 ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

1.The Manager, Customer Services,

SBI Cards, No.72, Rajaji Salai,

J.C.House, 3^rd Floor,

Parrys, Chennai – 600 001.

 

2.Mr.Amit Kalra,

Senior Manager,

Customer Services & Principal Nodal Officer,

SBI Cards, DLF Infinity Towers,

Tower C, 12^th Floor,

Block 2, Building 3, DLF Cyber City,

Gurgaon – 122 002. Haryana.

 

 

...Opposite Parties

Date of complaint                                   : 05.12.2012

Counsel for Complainant                       : M/s. K.S.Ramakrishnan

Counsel for  Opposite parties                   : M/s. Karthik,Mukundan

 

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1. THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant’s husband Sri.S.Ravirajulu availed a Credit Card facility with the bank of the Opposite Parties. The card number is 4006661500183558 was valid up to 06/2006. There was life coverage for the card holder.  Her husband Sri.Ravirajulu passed away on 27.11.2004 at the age of 42 years leaving behind his mother Mrs.Baby, his sons A.R.Vignesh and A.R.Jayakrishna as his legal heirs. The Opposite Parties had sent a letter dated 20.05.2005 calling upon Sri.Ravirajulu, to appear for conciliation and also to explore the possibilities to pay and settle a sum of Rs.34,019,64/- towards the dues outstanding. She approached the bank of the Opposite Parties and after negotiation, the first Opposite Party’s official offered a onetime settlement figure of Rs.17,000/-. Accordingly the Complainant had remitted a sum of Rs.17,000/- on 02.06.2005 for which the office of the 1^st Opposite Party had issued a temporary receipt No.3311294(Book No.0662261) and also issued a letter on the very same day i.e 02.06.2005 confirming the settlement. Therefore the episode was closed since there was no amount payable by the Complainant’s husband to the Opposite Parties. The Complainant had received Credit Card statement dated 25^th September 2011 addressed to her deceased husband calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,40,96.28/-. It is really shocking and surprising to note that the Complainant settled the amount on behalf of her husband way back in June 2005; the Opposite Parties are so reckless to demand the above said amount without any basis and locus standi. The acts of the Opposite Parties are highly illegal to claim a sum of Rs.1,0,96.28/- from a person whose account had already been settled and also who is no more. At the time of settlement of dues with the Opposite Parties, she had requested the Opposite Parties to process for the insurance benefits that is payable to the Complainant on the aftermath of the death of her husband. She had sent a legal notice dated 19.09.2006 calling upon the bank of the Opposite Parties to provide the insurance benefits. Whereas the Opposite Parties bank neither responded by processing the claim, nor sent any reply. It is nothing but unfair trade practice and against the fair practices code. Inspite of collecting the insurance charges under the credit card, the Opposite Parties had failed and neglected to address the grievance is unfair trade practice. The Complainant filed this Complaint for a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the insurance benefits with 12% interest and also compensation for mental agony to close and issue a credit card cancellation letter with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTEN VERSION  OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES IN BRIEF:

          The Opposite Parties states that the Complainant’s husband Mr.S.Ravirajulu had availed a credit card facility with the Opposite Party being card No.4006661500183558. There was no life insurance coverage activated on the said card as alleged by the Complainant. It is understood that the Complainant’s husband passed away on 27.01.2004. At that point in time there was no outstanding as against the said card. Thereafter a ‘One Time Settlement’ was arrived at between the Complainant and the Opposite Party, whereby the Opposite Party agreed to receive a sum of Rs.17,000/- full and final settlement. The said amount was received and the account was closed. Further she was also intimated that there was no insurance coverage activated on the said account.  Mere inadvertent issue of a credit card statement dated 25.09.2011 would not cause any serious prejudice to the Complainant and this was only due  to inadvertent computer error in which account statements are computer generated for several lakhs of customers. There is no negligence or recklessness on the part of the Opposite Parties as alleged. In any case at the earliest opportunity, the situation has been redressed and the Complainant has been notified that no amount is due and payable. There was no insurance benefit or coverage in respect of the said credit card. The insurance claim of which is an independent cause of action distinct and separate from the alleged grievance relating to the credit card statement. The Complainant has not filed any document evidencing such insurance coverage. The Complainant has not suffered with loss or mental agony and therefore prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?

          2.Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4. POINT NO:1

The Complainant husband Sri.S.Ravirajulu availed a Credit Card facility with the Opposite Parties and the same was valid till 2006. The said Sri.S.Ravirajulu died on 27.11.2004 leaving the Complainant as his wife and their children. The Opposite Parties sent a letter calling upon the Sri.S.Ravirajulu   to appear for conciliation and to settle a sum of Rs.34,019.64 towards dues. The Complainant appeared and  on behalf of the husband and ‘One Time  Settlement’ figure arrived at Rs.17,000/- and the Opposite Party also sent Ex.A4 letter for the said amount. Accepting such amount for settlement the Complainant paid such amount and settled the dues and for the same the Opposite Parties issued Ex.A5 temporary receipt for such payment. Therefore the Complainant settled the credit card dues on behalf of her husband Sri.S.Ravirajulu   under Ex.A4 receipt.

          5. The Complainant sent Ex.A6 notice dated 19.09.2006 to the Opposite Parties to provide insurance benefit at the time of availing the credit card facility by her husband. The Complainant also pleaded in the Complaint that there was life coverage for the card holder i.e her husband. The Complainant further pleaded in the Complaint that inspite of collecting the insurance charges under the credit card, the Opposite Parties had failed and neglected to pay the insurance benefits to her.

          6. The Complainant contended that the Opposite Parties failed to settle the insurance benefits to her she had filed this Complaint for  getting the same and also for compensation. However, the Opposite Parties would reply that there was no insurance benefits or coverage in respect of the said credit card and therefore the Complainant is not entitled any insurance benefits.

          7. Ex.A3 is the credit card availed or issued to the Complainant husband Sri.S.Ravirajulu   by the Opposite Parties. However there is no evidence in Ex.A3 SBI Card that the Complainant husband was a life coverage holder. Further absolutely no document filed by the Complainant to establish that   her husband is a life coverage card holder and he is entitled for insurance benefits. The Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked by the Complainant no way helpful to the Complainant to get insurance benefits. The Complainant has not filed any proof to show that the insurance amount for the policy was deducted from his account. Further he has not filed any proof in which name of insurance company he had paid the amount. The insurance company was also not added as a party. Therefore we hold that the Complainant had not proved that her husband Ex.A3 credit card is covered under the life coverage and therefore the Complainant is not entitled for any insurance benefits.

          8. Ex.A7 dated 25.09.2011 is the statement of credit card of the Complainant deceased husband that he is due to pay a sum of Rs.1,40,96.28/- in respect of his credit card. The Complainant during the arguments contended that even after settling the credit card amount under Ex.A4 and Ex.A5 demanding Complainant to pay such a huge amount is illegal and thereby the Opposite Parties committed Deficiency in Service.

          9. The Opposite Parties pleaded in the written version itself that such a credit card statement dated 29.09.2011 was issued inadvertently and the same would not cause any serious prejudice to the Complainant and as the same was an inadvertent computer error.  Further the Opposite Parties themselves after sending Ex.A7 dues statement to the Complainant husband, they did not press the Complainant to pay the amount as per such statement. Therefore in respect Ex.A7 the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency. Further as we held above that the Complainant has not proved that he is a policy holder and the insurance company also was not made as a party and to prove his claim he had not filed any documents and therefore we hold that the Opposite Parties have not committed any Deficiency in Service.

10. POINT NO:2

          Since the Opposite Parties have not committed any deficiency in service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief in this Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 07^th   day of September 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 14.12.2004                   Issued by the Corporation of Chennai

Ex.A2 dated 17.12.2004                   Revenue Dept to the Complainant

Ex.A3 dated NIL                     Opposite Parties to the deceased

Ex.A4 dated 02.06.2005                   Opposite Parties to the deceased

Ex.A5 dated 02.06.2005                   Opposite Parties to the deceased

Ex.A6  dated 19.09.2006                  Complainant advocate to 1^st Opposite Party & the

                                                  insurance ombudsman

Ex.A7 dated 25.09.2011                   Opposite Parties to the deceased

Ex.A8 dated 13.12.2011                   Complainant to the Opposite Parties

Ex.A9 dated 14.12.2011                   1^st Opposite Party to Complainant

Ex.A10 dated 03.01.2012                 Dept of posts to Complainant Advocate

Ex.A11  dated 01.04.2012      2^nd Opposite Party to the deceased

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTIES:

                                      …….NIL…….                                                              

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT