Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/57/2013

HARIJIT SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND - Opp.Party(s)

S. VINCENT R. RAJ

28 Apr 2022

ORDER

 

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL … MEMBER

 

F.A. No.57 of 2013

(Against the Order, dated 30.05.2012, passed in C.C. No.115 of 2011, on the file of  the DCDRF, Coimbatore)

                                                    

                                                                                                                                        Orders pronounced on:   28.04.2022

 

Harijit Singh,

S/o.Karam Singh,

Amar-Amrit Travels,

Designer Complex, First Floor, 130,

Dr.Nanjappa Road,

Coimbatore 641 018.                                                                                                             … Appellant / Complainant

 

vs.

 

1. The Royal Bank of Scotland

     rep. by Authorised Officer,

31/32. Sakhar Bhavan,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai 400 021.

 

2. Smt.Meera H Sanyal,

Country Executive India,

The Royal Bank of Scotland,

31/32, Sakhar Bhavan,

Nariman Point,

Mumbai 400 021.

 

3. The Manager,

M/s. Bench Mark Service,

9, 1^st Floor, East Periyasamy Road,

R.S. Puram,  Coimbatore 641 002.                                                                                                        … Respondents/OPs

 

     For Appellant                :  M/s.S.Vincent R.Raj

     For Respondents 1 & 2  :  M/s. Umapathi & Madhan

         For Respondent No.3     :  M/s. Umashankar

 

This First Appeal came up for final hearing on 29.03.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the appellant’s counsel and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

O R D E R

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

             This Appeal has been filed as against the Order, dated 30.05.2012, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.115 of 2011, in dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

             2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in the course of this order, as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

             In brief, the case of the complainant, as given in the complaint filed before the District Forum, is as follows:-

             The complainant is the holder of a credit card issued by ABN Amro Bank, now known as Royal Bank of Scotland, which is the 1^st and 2^nd OPs.  About six months prior to March, 2010, the details of the complainant’s account were handed over to the 3^rd OP/Collection Agent, who used to call continuously and threaten & harass him to make payment.  Unable to bear such harassment, the complainant had mailed to the Bank on 05.03.2010 and 06.03.2010, for which, the 1^st and 2^nd OPs replied on 08.03.2010 that necessary steps would be taken into the issue.   In the reply, dated 09.03.2010, the 1^st OP admitted the harassment by the Collection Agent and apologized for the same. Subsequently, in the same month, the complainant had sent a number of emails to the OPs/Bank, seeking explanation from them for handing over his account details to the 3^rd OP at whose hands the harassment continued, but, the Bank, by their replies, only justified the acts of the Collection Agent. 

             While so, the complainant had made payment on 01.03.2010 for the due date of 02.03.2010 and it was also credited to the account of the OPs/bank on 04.03.2010, as per their acknowledgment, dated 10.03.2010.   Despite such payment, the Collection Agent made calls to the complainant on 05.03.2010, 06.03.2010 and 07.03.2010, but, such act of the Collection Agent was only justified by the OPs/Bank. 

             Further, on 30.09.2010, the complainant had paid the due promptly, however, the same was collected later, for which, charges of Rs.650/- apart from interest of Rs.3,683.86 along with Rs.446.38 towards service tax were collected from the complainant as late payment, although it was due to the regular process of the Bank only.  Similarly, for the due that fell on 30.10.2010, the amount was paid on 30.10.2010 itself, however, acknowledgment was not made by the Collection Agent/3rd OP.   While the actual due amount being Rs.80,108.56, the Bank through the Collection Agent, had collected from the complainant a sum of Rs.1,44,698.24/-, which is exorbitant and illegal.  While so, by letter, dated 23.10.2010, the Bank came forward with a new condition, insisting upon the complainant to make payment before 3 days of the due date, which was never followed since he has been a card-holder for the past five years and always paid only on due dates and such payment was also credited by the Bank without levying of any charge.  Since the Bank is cheating the complainant without crediting the amount already paid and their Collection Agents are harassing him at work place, thereby, causing mental agony, he issued a legal notice, dated 10.12.2010, calling upon the Bank to do the needful, but, in vain.  Hence, he filed the complaint before the District Forum seeking to direct the Bank to pay Rs.5 lakh as compensation and to return all the extra fees collected for the alleged cheque payment delays, besides costs.

 

             3. Resisting the complaint, the 1^st OP filed a version, wherein, among other things, it is stated thus:-

             The complainant, at the time of issuance of the credit card, signed the terms and conditions of the agreement which forms the sole basis of the relationship between the customer and the Bank issuing the credit card.  The terms and conditions clearly mention that, in case of any dispute arising out of and/or in connection with the subject credit card, the same will be subject to the jurisdiction of courts in New Delhi.  Having signed the same and accepted the jurisdiction of the courts in New Delhi, he cannot maintain the present proceedings before the District Forum at Coimbatore. 

             The complainant was not regular in payment of dues.  The calls made to him were only to apprise him of the dues/outstanding in respect of the credit card account and the due date so that he could avoid late payment charges being levied on the card account and, by no stretch of imagination, it can be called as harassment or threatening calls. It is true that the 1^st OP received the payment of Rs.73,948/- from the complainant and it was credited to the complainant’s credit card account on 04.03.10 as reflected in the statement, dated 10.03.2010.  While Clause 4 (b) (iii) of the Most Important Terms and Conditions (in short MITC)  provides thus:-

      “ We request you to mail your cheque/draft or drop your cheque/draft at any of the specified drop boxes well in advance, to allow sufficient time for clearance of the payment instrument prior to or on the Payment Due Date.  A fee, as mentioned in the schedule of charges, shall be levied to the Card/Loan Account if your payment instrument is subsequently dishonoured or Minimum Amount Due is not paid by the Payment Due Date.”,

in the present case, as per the statement dated 10.09.2010, the total amount due was Rs.78,144 and the due date was 30.09.2010, but, the complainant had made the payment by way of cheque only on the due date, ie.., on 30.09.2010 and, as per the Bank records, the said cheque was cleared and the payment was credited to the Card Account only on 07.10.2010, hence, late fees and finance charges were levied on the credit card account, in terms of the above mentioned MITC. However, since the complainant had requested for reversal of the said charges, as a service gesture, the Bank had reversed the Late Fee of Rs.650/- on 03.11.2010 and it is reflected in the statement, dated 10.11.2010. 

             As per the statement, dated 10.10.2010, the total amount due was Rs.64,780.24.  Since the complainant made the said payment after due date, the same was applied on the card account on 11.11.2010 and hence, it got reflected in the statement for the period from 11.11.2010 to 10.12.2010 that was generated on 10.12.2010, as the statement for the account was generated on the 10^th of every month.  In view of the fact that payment was not made before the next date of generation of the statement ie., on 10.11.2010, the said amount of Rs.64,780.24 was added in the next cycle and the total payment due, as per the statement, dated 10.11.2010, was Rs.1,44,698.03.  Accordingly, in terms of MITC, late fees and finance charges were levied on the account, however, upon receiving communication from the complainant, as service gesture, the 1^st OP reversed the late fee of Rs.650/- and partial interest of Rs.499.79 on 11.11.2010.  Payment of Rs.1,44,698.03 was credited to the account of the complainant on 23.11.2010 and the excess balance of Rs.26,048.45 was refunded to the complainant by an instrument bearing number 448384 and the same was received by the complainant on 17.12.2010.  Therefore, the allegation that the Bank wrongfully extracted money from the complainant and cheated him is denied.  There being no negligence or deficiency in service, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

             The 2^nd OP adopted the above version filed by the 1^st OP/Bank.

             The 3^rd OP, in the version filed by them, by mainly stating that they are the collection agents appointed by the 1^st OP/Bank, however, the complainant was never assigned to them, and that there is no privity of contract between them and the complainant, sought for dismissal of the complaint.

 

             4.  In order to prove the claim and counter-claim, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and, while the complainant filed 29 documents as ExsA1 to A29, OP Nos.1 and  2 filed 3 documents as Exs.B1 to B3.  The District Forum, after consideration, found that the  complainant alone had been negligent in making payment by way of cheque only on the due dates in spite of instruction No.4 that specifically insists upon the complainant to drop the payment cheque in advance to allow sufficient time for clearance of the instrument either prior to the due date or on the due date; thus, there is no force in the claim of the complainant that the OPs indulged in unfair trade practice/deficiency in service, and ultimately dismissed the complaint, hence, the present appeal by the complainant.

 

             5. Heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the materials available on record.

 

             6. Though very many contentions have been raised, the only short issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the grievance of the complainant viz., in spite of the fact that he had paid the dues payable by him on the due dates, by levying late payment & other charges, the Bank has indulged in unfair trade practice/deficiency in service, is well-founded or not on the face of the MITC, in particular, Clause 4 (b) (iii) thereof.

             7. By citing one of the instances of payment, learned counsel for the complainant would contend that, for the due paid by the complainant on 30.09.2010 under receipt No.171735, the cheque was cleared by the Bank at a later point of time and the sum got credited in the credit-card account only on 07.10.2010, for which, the Bank collected late fee charges of Rs.650/- and also interest for a sum of Rs.3,683.86 with service tax of Rs.446.38.  It is the contention of the learned counsel that the cheque was dropped exactly on the due date viz., 30.09.2010 and that being so, the Bank cannot levy any late fee or interest or other charges for the failure on their part in timely getting the instrument cleared.  According to him, the OPs/Bank cannot count the time taken by them for clearance of the cheque to attribute any belated payment on the part of the complainant, that too, for exorbitantly levying late fee charges, interest, service charge, etc. In terms of clause-4(b) (iii) of the MITC, schedule of charges shall be levied only if the due is not paid by the due date; while so, since the cheque was dropped in the box on the due date itself, there was no reason for the Bank to collect any charge whatsoever.  As such, the act of the Bank in collecting the various charges in the name of service tax, interest, etc. is nothing but a clear instance of unfair trade practice/deficiency in service.  However, this aspect was not even considered by the District Forum and thus, the impugned order suffers from factually erroneous findings and hence, the same is liable to be set aside, he pleaded.

 

             8.     In view of the above submissions, it is but proper to extract below clause 4 (b) (iii) of the MITC in Ex.B1-Card Agreement:-

          “ iii) “ We request you to mail your cheque/draft or drop your cheque/draft at any of the specified drop boxes well in advance, to allow sufficient time for clearance of the payment instrument prior to or on the Payment Due Date.  A fee, as mentioned in the schedule of charges, shall be levied to the Card/Loan Account if your payment instrument is subsequently dishonoured or Minimum Amount Due is not paid by the Payment Due Date.”

 

A reading of the above clause would clearly show that cheques for payment of dues should be dropped well in advance to ensure sufficient time to the Bank for clearance on or before the due date but not subsequent to the due date.   In view of such clear clause covering the transaction of the complainant, he ought to have dropped the cheques well in advance much prior to the due date, enabling the Bank to clear the cheque on or before the due date. But, on a perusal of the materials, we could see that the complainant dropped the cheques either on the exact due date or one day prior thereto, thereby, it took time for clearance, whereupon, the Bank had to levy applicable charges in terms of the above said clause, which cannot be faulted with.   As such, we do not see any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the Bank, as alleged by the complainant.  In fact, the District Forum has elaborately dealt with the aspect of payments date-wise in the impugned order and rightly concluded that it was the complainant who had been negligent in making payment only on the due date in spite of the instructions contained in clause-4 (b)(iii) of the MITC.  We do not see any valid ground or reason to interfere with such well reasoned order.  Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is liable to be dismissed.

 

             9.  In the result, the appeal is dismissed, by confirming the impugned order, dated 30.05.2012, passed by the DCDRF, Coimbatore, in C.C. No.115 of 2011.  No costs.

 

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                            R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                           PRESIDENT.

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/April/2022.