DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.364/2008

Mr. Narender Singh

H.No. FCA – 8, Garg Colony

Ballabgarh, Faridabad-121004.

                    ….Complainant

Versus

SBI Cards & Payment Service Pvt. Ltd.

State Bank of India

Local Head Office

11, Parliament Street

New Delhi-110001.

        ….Opposite Party

Date of Institution    : 06.06.2008

 Date of Order          :  12.05.2022      

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

  ORDER

   Member:

Facts of the case as pleaded by the Complainant, Sh. Narender Singh are –

1.       The complainant was using the credit facility vide Credit Card No. 4317-5750-3590-2726 issued by SBI Cards and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as OP) and was timely paying the dues alongwith interest etc. 

2.       It is stated that the complainant was offered a loan for an amount of Rs.64,000/- by OP and the said loan amount alongwith interest was to be returned in 48 equal instalments of Rs. 2,080/- each. Complainant availed the loan facility and received the statement of his credit card in Sept 2007 wherein the details of loan transactions were as follows:-

29/08/2007           PRE-COMPUTER INTEREST             Rs. 35,840/-

29/09/2007          ENCASH EMI TRAN                 RS.  2,080/-

29/08/2007          ENCASH DEBIT                        RS.35,840/-

3.       It is stated that the complainant duly paid the instalments from Sept. 2007 to January 2008.  Copy of the statement of account from October to January is annexed  as Annexure-C/2( colly). It is next stated that the complainant in  December decided to make full and final payment  of the said loan and was asked by an executive of OP to make payment of Rs.63,884/- for foreclosure of the above said loan but no bifurcation about this calculation was provided to the complainant. The complainant as per direction of the executive of OP made entire payment of Rs. 63,884/- on 22 Jan 2008, against the loan amount and requested to close the loan account. However, complainant was shocked to see the Statement for the month of Feb. 2008 whereby OP instead of closing the loan account, adjusted Rs.63,884/- in other payments. Complainant approached the customer care of OP where he was informed that in case the complainant wanted  to close the account he will have to deposit Rs 13,983/-.

4.       Complainant acceded to the directions and paid Rs.13,983/- but despite making this payment, OP did not close the loan account of the complainant and also deducted the EMI for the month of March, 2008 .  Complainant was further asked to deposit EMI of Rs 2,080/- and the foreclosure amount of about Rs. 2000/- .  Thereafter, in the month of April, 2008 complainant  was asked to deposit Rs. 25,412.58/-. Complainant alleges that it was illegal to include the foreclosure charges Rs1,956.09/- which was already paid by the complainant when he had deposited Rs.63,884/- for closure of the said Credit Card loan. It is the alleged that the complainant had already made full payment of the loan credit in the month of Jan. 2008, however, OP is still asking for payment from the complainant again and again.

5.       Therefore, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade  practice, complainant  approached this Commission with prayer for direction to OP to withdraw the bill for the month of April, 2008 and May, 2008.  Additionally it is requested that OP be directed to issue correct  bill taking payment of credit card loan as on 22.01.2008. It is also prayed that the OP be directed to issue No Dues Certificate in respect to the said loan and  to pay sum of Rs.50,000/-as damages towards harassment and mental agony and Rs.20,000/-  towards litigation charges.

6.       On perusal it is noticed that vide order dated 17.5.2017 Complainant was allowed to amend the instant complaint. Complaint was amended due to change of circumstances during the pendency of the complaint.  The first change that is pointed out in amended complaint is that the complainant had entered into settlement with the OP to close the card account on payment of Rs.22,000/- in four EMI of Rs. 5,500/- each.  The payments were accordingly made and the same adjusted by OP and the card account of complainant was closed after crediting the settlement amount paid by the complainant.  Therefore the main dispute between the parties stands resolved.

7.       The second change that is noticed is that complainant has alleged that his CIBIL score was spoiled by OP which led to lot of embarrassment and harassment for the complainant.

8.       OP, in its reply to amended complaint stated inter alia that the complainant was using the card facility of OP company for various transactions. On one occasion, on the offer of OP, complainant availed cash/loan facility of Rs.64,000/- which was repayable in 48 EMIs of Rs.2,080/- each. OP states that at the time of payment of Rs.63,884/- complainant failed to inform OP that he desired to foreclose the loan facility availed by him therefore, the said payment was adjusted towards other outstanding dues under the complainant’s credit card.  However, the loan facility was duly closed by OP when a written closure request was received from the complainant along with payment of outstanding dues of Rs.13,983/-.

9.       OP next states that after filing the present complaint in June 2008, the complainant entered into settlement with OP to close the card account on payment of Rs.22,000/- in four EMIs of Rs.5,500/- each. The payment was made by the complainant, same were duly adjusted and the card account of the complainant was closed after crediting the settlement amount paid by him. It is therefore stated that after closure of card account there is no issue of the complainant which needs redressal from this commission. In view of this fact the complaint becomes infructuous and accordingly is liable to be dismissed being resolved.

10.     It is further stated that the OP never harassed the complainant as the bills sent to the complainant contained the outstanding amount after crediting the payments made by him.  Copies of statement of accounts  annexed with the complaint as Annexure R1( Colly) clearly evidence the fact that the bills raised  by OP were true and correct and the payments made by the complainant from time to time have been duly adjusted and recorded in the statement of accounts.  It is also stated by  OP that the loan facility of the complainant was closed after receiving the payment  of Rs.6,661/- And Rs. 7,322/- totalling to Rs 13,983/-. The said payment was duly reflected in the statement dated 02.03.2008.

 11.    It is further stated that the payments made by the complainant including closure of the  Encash facility, the total outstanding payable under the card account of the complainant was Rs.25,412.58/- which in view of the settlement arrived at, was closed on payment Rs 22,000/- in four EMI 5,500/- each. It is thus stated that the account of the complainant is amicably settled as reflected in the statement dated 2.11.2008. Therefore it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed as parties have been settled and resolved the dispute.

12.     Complainant has filed Rejoinder. Evidence by way of affidavit and written arguments are filed on behalf of parties. Arguments made on behalf of the parties are heard.  Material placed on record is perused.

13.     During the course of final arguments counsel for the complainant has admitted that the account of complainant has been closed by OP and there is no dispute per se between the parties however the complainant is pursuing the instant  case for harassment caused by OP .

14.     On perusal of the record placed before us it is noticed that OP raised the bills towards the purchases made by the complaint which were duly paid. The bills sent to the complainant by OP is the outstanding amount after crediting the payments made by him.  Copies of the statement of accounts are annexed with the complaint as Annexure-R1(Colly) which clearly show that the payment made by the complainant from time to time have been duly adjusted and recorded in the Statement of Account.  The said entries in the statement of account are self explanatory and reflect the crediting of the payments made by the complainant.

15.     Complainant’s contention that the loan/encash facility provided by OP was not foreclosed after the complainant had made payment of Rs. 63,884/-to OP .In support of this contention Complainant has appended a letter dated 30.01.2008 without any receiving by OP,therefore the same has no substantiary value.  Complainant has failed to provide any cogent evidence to prove the fact that the complainant had made the said payment to OP for foreclosure of the account . In absence of the same we cannot hold OP to be deficient in  service regarding  the foreclosure of the loan. It is not the case of the complainant that OP has forfeited or played a fraud with him by not crediting Rs.63,884/-.It is seen from the record that the said amount was credited and was adjusted towards the other outstanding dues under the complainant’s credit card. Therefore, OP cannot be held guilty for the same.

16.     The second grievance of the complainant is that due to non closure of the loan account and due to reporting of OP, the complainant’s CIBIL score had been adversely affected.  CIBIL in an independent body and all banks and financial institutions are under statutory obligation to report to CIBIL, the payment pattern of its customer with respect to the financial facility availed which is then reflected  on the CIBIL website. As the complainant’s credit card bill was showing an outstanding therefore the OP was under statutory obligation to report the same to CIBIIL . We are of the opinion that it is not just the OP’s  reporting but the reporting of other  financial institutions as well, which might have contributed towards the adverse CIBIL score of the complainant.  As regards the prayer of the complainant for issuance of credit card we opine that the said power is vested with OP and we will not be interfering in the same.

17.     In view of the discussion above and also of the fact that dispute between the parties have been settled and complainant’s grievance has been redressed we dismiss the complaint with no order to costs .

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.