DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 180/2020

Date of Institution: 08.10.2020

Judgment Reserved on: 14.08.2024

Judgment Passed on: 14.08.2024

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Judgment By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant alleging deficiency on the part of OP in not giving reply to his query.

1. Brief facts as stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he had been responsible customer of the OP having credit card for the last four years and had been utilizing credit facility without any penalty or surcharge but on 01.06.2020 the OP without explaining any reason reduced the credit limit on the credit card from Rs.2,33,000/- to Rs.30,000/- of which he received  a message on 02.06.2020, but in absence of any information, he had already availed the facility of Rs.1,17,000/- on credit card and OP even had imposed a penalty of Rs.2,399.65/- upon him and when he complained about this to the OP, he did not receive any reply from the bank for last three months. When he approached the RBI he was directed to contact one Sh. Sushil Gupta on his mobile number and even the said Sh. Sushil Gupta did not show any interest in resolving his issue, whereafter he tried to contact customer care but nobody picked-up his phone initially and even when the same was picked-up, the same was used to be dis-connected after long hold and thereafter he made a complaint before this Commission w.r.t. terms & conditions of the bank by way of complaint & he is challenging the terms & conditions of the bank as to why despite having given certain benefits by the RBI, the OP had reduced the limit. It is further stated that as far as dues are concerned he is ready to make payment of entire dues within 24 hours provided that the bank gives correct and satisfactory reply to him failing which bank has to remit all of his dues and for that he claims compensation of Rs.50,000/- alleging deficiency in service.     
2. The OP was served on 02.05.2022 and was directed to file reply as per law but OP did not appear on 05.05.2022 and even on 05.07.2022 and was proceeded ex-parte vide order of 05.07.2022. He subsequently filed an application for recalling the order dated 05.07.2022 but vide order dated 24.04.2023 the said application of OP was dismissed. Complainant was directed to file evidence which he has filed.
3. The Commission has heard the argument and perused the records. The OP has filed written argument interalia relying on three judgments in which it was interalia held that irrespective of the fact that OP has been proceeded ex-parte and his evidence is not on record, he may argue and join the proceeding at subsequent stage. This contention of Counsel for OP is legally correct and as such written argument filed by the OP are being perused.
4. The contention of OP in his written argument is that as per the complaint of the complainant himself his credit limit was sanctioned for Rs.2,33,000/- which was reduced to Rs.30,000/- and further submits that complainant had been owing a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- to the respondent bank which he had not paid and by way of present complaint the complainant has indulged in ‘question & answer session’ with the respondent bank i.e. if he gets satisfactory answer then only he is willing to pay the dues of the bank. The Commission has perused the record and also heard the argument of complainant at length. The complainant on the other hand has argued that not giving a reply to his query amounts to deficiency in service & he would make the payment of dues against him after he received the reply from OP.
5. The present complaint apparently revolves around the fact that the credit card limit of credit card of OP has been reduced from Rs.2,33,000/- to Rs.30,000/- without any prior information. Admittedly the information has been given to this effect to the complainant on 02.06.2020 i.e. next day and complainant is now challenging such terms & conditions of the OP bank.
6. The Commission is of the opinion that asking some question or asking certain queries from OP bank and then submitting that he would make the balance payment to the OP provided he gets satisfactory reply from the OP1 cannot be deficiency in providing service such as to satisfaction of the complainant is always subjective fact and there is no scale to measure as to how the complainant would satisfy himself from the information so given by the OP bank. Admittedly the complainant has to make certain payment to the OP bank which has not been paid and on account of not adhering to the financial discipline, the credit facility has been reduced from Rs.2,33,000/- to Rs.30,000/- which is the prerogative of the bank and admittedly on account of not adhering to such financial discipline by the complainant such limit has been reduced & information has been given to the complainant & therefore filing the complaint before the Commission that OP should show/give information to the complainant and if is he satisfied with that information, then only he would make the payment, apparently does not fall within the definition of deficiency in service by OP. OP has a right to take back the amount spent by the complainant on the credit card which admittedly the complainant has not paid. It cannot be appreciated under the Consumer Protection Act that the consumer should not return the loan amount and when limit is reduced, the complainant would argue that, he would make payment only if his question are answered that too to his satisfaction. The benevolent provision of Consumer Protection Act cannot be allowed to be mis-interpreted is such manner that a person who is not able to adhere to the financial discipline be allowed to invoke in question/answer session that too, to his satisfaction. Therefore deficiency if any is on the part of complainant himself as he is not adhering to the financial discipline and as such he has failed to prove that there was any deficiency on the part of OP in reducing the limit. Therefore complaint of the complainant is dismissed.         

Copy of the Order be supplied/sent to the Parties free of cost as per rules.

Announced on 14.08.2024.

File be consigned to Record Room.