Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/14/2016

V.Padmavati, W/o. Prabhakara Singaraju - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Regional Manager, State Bank of India Regional Office - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ajey Kumar

18 Feb 2017

ORDER

Filing Date: 20.01.2016

Order Date:18.02.2017

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

 

 

SATURDAY THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND SEVENTEEN

 

 

 

C.C.No.14/2016

 

 

Between

 

 

V.Padmavati,

W/o. Prabhakara Singaraju,

Hindu, aged 52 years,

D.No.202, Queens Park Apartments,

R.S.Gardens,

Tirupati.                                                                                             … Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

And

 

 

1.         The Regional Manager,

            State Bank of India Regional Office,

            Renigunta Road,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,

            Rep. by Managing Director,

            DLF Infinity Towers,

            Tower-C, 12^th Floor, Block-2,  Building-3,

            DLF Cyber City,

            Gurgaon – 122 002,

            Haryana State.

 

3.         Credit Information Bureau (India) Limited,

            Rep. by Managing Director / Authorised Signatory,

            Reg. office at Hoachst House, 6^th Floor, No.193,

            Balackbay Reclamation,

            Nariman Point,

            Mumbai – 400 021.                                                              …  Opposite parties.

 

 

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 02.02.17 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.Ajey Kumar, counsel for complainant, and Sri.D.Jayachandra, counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2, and Sri.A.Purushotham, counsel for opposite party No.3, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section–12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties 1 to 3 for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for deficiency in service and for causing damage to the reputation of the complainant, 2) to direct the opposite parties to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant, 3) to direct the opposite party No.3 to remove the name of the complainant in the list of CIBIL defaulters and 4) to pay the costs of the complaint. 

            2.  The brief averments of the complaint are:-  that the complainant is a customer of S.B.I. Main Branch, Tirupati, with the S.B.Account No.0004006676012409572, which is under the control of opposite party No.1. Opposite party No.2 is a Credit Card Division of opposite party No.1. That the complainant also got Credit Card bearing No.4006676017423834 issued by opposite party No.2. That on 27.07.2008 opposite party No.2 approached the complainant and proposed a settlement in respect of credit card dues, stating that the complainant has to pay a sum of Rs.57,000/- in 3 installments, for which complainant also agreed. Accordingly, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- in cash vide receipt No.11882352 dt:27.07.2008. As asked by the staff of opposite party No.2, complainant gave 2 post dated cheques bearing Nos.292501 and 292510 for Rs.21,000/- each to be paid in the month of August 2008 and September 2008. The settlement letter dt:28.07.2008 is given by opposite party No.2.

            3.  Subsequently, on 26.08.2008 complainant paid in cash a sum of Rs.21,000/- vide receipt No.120994209 and taken back one cheque bearing No.292501. On 24.09.2008 complainant paid the balance amount of Rs.21,000/- in cash vide receipt No.12322360 and taken back 2^nd cheque bearing No.292510 also. Thus, she has fulfilled the terms of agreement dt:28.07.2008. The complainant received a letter on 16.06.2014 stating that she is due for a sum of Rs.1,18,799-40 and demanded payment immediately. On that complainant contacted opposite parties 1 and  2, but in vain. One Mr.Ram Mohan, staff of opposite party No.2, called on the complainant and demanded payment of Rs.1,18,799-40, when the complainant explained the payment made, he said that he will look into the matter and close the account, after finalizing the same with the higher authorities, later he did not turn-up. Though the complainant paid the entire dues and not in arrears of any dues since 2008, adding her name in the CIBIL at the information of the opposite party No.2, is nothing but gross negligence and deficiency in service, for which the opposite parties liable to pay compensation. Hence the complaint.

            4.  The opposite parties 1 to 3 have filed their written versions independently. In the written version filed by opposite party No.1, it is contended that complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has not followed the terms and conditions of the credit card agreement. The complainant has not fulfilled the ingredients of Section-2(c) of the C.P.Act, as such complaint is liable to be dismissed. That the complainant is bound by the jurisdiction set forth in the agreement executed between herself and SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. As per the said agreement there is an arbitration clause, in the event of any dispute, the complainant has to approach the arbitrator and settle the matter before the arbitrator only, as such this Forum has no jurisdiction. It further contended that the complainant is a customer of S.B.I. Main Branch and S.B.I. Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd(SBICPSL), which is a separate legal entity and its actions are in no way subsidiary to opposite party No.1. The alleged legal notice dt:08.10.2013 is never served on opposite party No.1. All the allegations are behind the back of opposite party No.1. This complaint is filed for wrongful gain. There is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of this opposite party and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.1.

            5.  Opposite party No.2 in its written version contended that the complainant has not followed the terms of the agreement executed between herself and SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. In the event of any dispute in this regard, the complainant has to approach the arbitrator and resolve the dispute there itself. Thus this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The respondent further contended that it has already zeroised the credit card account by issuing No Due Certificate to the complainant. So, there is no cause of action to file the complaint against opposite party No.2 and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint against opposite party No.2 with costs.

            6.  Opposite party No.3 in its written version, which runs in 17 pages states the object of opposite party No.3 and that it does not carry any business and it has no branch at Tirupati, and it is not carrying any business for gain and it will preserve the record in respect of credit information given by the bankers. As per Section-31 of CICRA, no Court or Authority shall have or be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction except Supreme Court or High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution. Section-31 protects the acts done by opposite party No.3 in good faith. It will maintain the record as per the information given by the informing institution / banker.  

            7.  It further contended that upon receiving the present complaint, opposite party No.3 once again verified its records and raised the complainant’s grievances with opposite party No.2, to confirm the current status with respect to complainant’s credit card bearing No. 4006676017423834.  By its email dt:28.04.2016, opposite party No.2 advised opposite party No.3 to rectify its record and reflect the status as “Post (WO) Settled”. and to update the current balance and amount overdue as zero. Accordingly, opposite party No.3 processed the changes and reflect in the credit information report of the complainant, and the credit information report of the complainant now reflects the changes as stated above. Thus no cause of action arose against the opposite party No.3 and the complaint needs to be dismissed against opposite party No.3 with costs.

            8.  In support of the case of the complainant, she has filed her evidence affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A14. For the opposite parties 1 to 3, evidence affidavits are filed as R.W.1 to R.W.3 and got marked Exs.B1 to B3. Both the parties have filed their respective written arguments.

            9.  Now the points for consideration are:-

            (i).  Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties       

        1 to 3?                       

            (ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

            (iii)  To what relief?

            10.  Point No.(i):- To answer this point, the burden lies on the complainant to prove that she has paid the settlement amount of Rs.57,000/- as stated in the complaint and that there is negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 were not denied the contents of the complaint to the effect that complainant had made payments of Rs.15,000/- on 27.07.2008 vide receipt No.11882358 dt:27.07.2008 and another payment of Rs.21,000/- under receipt No.120994209. Lastly another sum of Rs.21,000/- on 24.09.2008 in cash vide receipt No.12322360 and taken back 2 anti dated cheques given to opposite party No.2, which are bearing Nos.292501 and 292510. For the reasons best known to the opposite parties 1 and 2, they have nowhere referred to the settlement agreement and by settling the credit card account of the complainant for payment of Rs.57,000/-, and also they were not referred to the payments now stated supra, so that it is deemed that they were admitted by the opposite parties 1 and 2. When the last payment was made by the complainant under receipt No. 12322360 and taken back the remaining cheque No.292510 also on 24.09.2008, the account was not closed till the complaint was filed in the year 2016. The opposite party No.1 did not mention the payment of Rs.57,000/- by the complainant anywhere in its written version or in the evidence affidavit filed by the opposite party No.1 on 28.06.2016, but it was mentioned in their written arguments filed on 16.09.2016 at para.3 that the opposite party No.2 has already zeroised the credit card account and issued “No Due Certificate” to the complainant as early as on 21.03.2016. Though the amounts were paid in the year 2008, what made the opposite parties 1 and 2 for not closing the account i.e. for keeping the account pending for about 7½ years after payment of the amounts? that itself shows that they are not interested to close the account but to extract amounts from the customers. Though the opposite party No.2 did not dispute the settlement arrived at between the complainant and opposite party No.2 and also the payments of settlement amount of Rs.57,000/- by the complainant, it did not evince interest to close the credit card account of the complainant within the reasonable time or immediately after payment is made. At para.6 of the written version of the opposite party No.2, it is mentioned that opposite party No.2 has already zeroised the credit card account by issuing “No Due Certificate” to the complainant, but it failed to disclose when the “No Due Certificate” was issued to the complainant. Since the opposite parties 1 and 2 have agreed that the credit card account of the complainant was closed and “No Due Certificate” was issued to the complainant, and in view of the information furnished by opposite parties 1 and 2 to opposite party No.3, the status of the complainant was changed in the CIBIL. In view of all these admissions and non-closure of the credit card account of the complainant for about 7½ years after making entire payment, we can find fault with the opposite parties 1 and 2. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and accordingly this point is answered.

            11.  Point No.(ii):-  Since the complainant has established that opposite parties 1 and 2, though received the entire credit card amount due as per the settlement agreement in September 2008 itself vide receipts under Exs.A2, A3 and A4 and that the opposite parties failed to close the credit card account, and she also since established that opposite party No.2 has issued a notice under Ex.A5 demanding the complainant to pay Rs.1,18,799-40 itself shows that there is negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2. So far as opposite party No.3 is concerned, it acts according to the information furnished by the informing agents or bankers, whose credit information will be preserved with opposite party No.3, according to the request of the informing companies or the bankers. So, we cannot find fault with opposite party No.3 in this regard. As opposite party No.2 informed the opposite party No.3 that the complainant is a defaulter in credit card account, the same was preserved in the credit information reports. After ascertaining the present status of the complainant accounts, it has made necessary changes with regard to the status of the complainant before CIBIL on the information furnished by the opposite parties 1 and 2. Therefore, we cannot say that opposite parties 1 and 2 are separate and they have separate legal entity and that it can’t be said that opposite party No.1 is not concerned with opposite party No.2. Under the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the complainant has made out a case to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for. Accordingly this point is answered.

            12. Point No.(iii):-  in view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and that complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for and complaint therefore is to be allowed accordingly.

            In the result, complaint is allowed in part directing the opposite parties 1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties 1 and 2 and for causing damage to the reputation of the complainant. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand only) towards costs of the complaint. Opposite parties 1 and 2 further directed to comply with the orders within six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at 9% p.a. from the date of complaint, till realization. Complaint against opposite party No.3 is dismissed.    

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 18^th day of February, 2017.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                          

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Smt. V. Padmavati (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Maganti Pavan Kumar (Chief Affidavit filed).

RW-2: Punit Babbar (Evidence Affidavit filed).

RW-3: Satish Pillai    (Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Letter issued by the opposite parties in Original. Dt: 28.07.2008.
	Payment receipt for Rs.15,000/-. Receipt No. 11882352 in Original. Dt: 27.07.2008.
	Payment receipt for Rs.21,000/-. Receipt No. 12094209 in Original. Dt: 26.08.2008.
	Final settlement payment receipt for Rs.21,000/-. Receipt No.12322360 in Original. Dt: 24.09.2008.
	Demand letter issued by the opposite parties demanding the complainant to pay Rs.1, 18,799.40 P.s. in original. Dt: 16.06.2014.
	Office copy of legal notice issued to the opposite parties by the complainant along with postal receipts 3 in number and Ack. Due 2 in number. Dt: 24.06.2015.
	Letter issued by opposite party No.2.  Dt: 02.06.2015.
	Reply Notice for the Notice Dt: 24.06.2015. by the Opposite party No.3. Dt: 14.08.2015.
	Reply issued by opposite party No.2. Dt: 28.08.2015.
	Letter issued by the opposite party No.2. Dt: 21.03.2016.
	Office copy of legal notice issued to the Opposite parties by the complainant along with postal receipts, Ack’s.  Dt: 08.10.2013.
	Office copy of Legal Notice along with postal receipts. Dt: 08.05.2015.
	Letter issued by the opposite parties demanding the complainant to pay   Rs.1, 18,799.40 P.s. Dt: 16.09.2015.
	Bunch of demand notices made by opposite party No.2. Dt: 16.10.2008, 16.01.2009, 16.07.2009, 16.07.2009, 16.12.2009, 16.01.2010, 16.08.2010, 16.09.2013.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	True copy of NOC (No Objection Certificate). Dt: 21.03.2016.
	No Due Certificate issued to the Complainant. Dt: 21.03.2016.
	SBI Card Holder Agreement.

 

          

                                                                                                                                    Sd/-   

                                                                                                                                President

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

           Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

Copies to:-     1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite parties.