DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
D. F. CASE NO.- 105(s)/2007
PETITIONER : =Vs.= O.Ps.
Sanat Kr. Mallick State Bank of India
BA-69, Salt Lake, Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd.
P.S. Bidhannagar (N) Rep. by, Executive Officer,
Kolkata – 64. SBI Card, Tower-C, 12th Floor,
Block-2, Building & Infinity Tower,
DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon,
Hariyana-122 002.
P R E S E N T :- Shri B. Niyogi ———- President
:- Shri S. Chatterjee —– Member
:- Smt. M. Roy ———– Member
J U D G E M E N T
Date :- 19/02/2009.
The instant case bases upon a complaint u/s-12, C. P. Act brought by the complainant Sri Sanat Kr. Mallick against the SBI Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service.
Complainant’s case as it appears from the said P.O.C., in brief, is that he has been an unsolicited Credit Card holder of the O.P. He received from Payment Assistance Unit of the O.P. a letter dated 19/01/2007 laying demand for payment of Rs.9,657.61. He under his letter dated 19/01/2007 requested the O.P. to convert the said card A/c into a Personal Loan A/c and to give him an opportunity of clearing the dues respecting the said A/c in 24 easy monthly installments. Alongwith that letter he sent a cheque for an amount of Rs.4,086.51. Despite making of the said request the O.P. went on sending statements respecting the said card A/c laying claim for imaginary and illusory amount. The complainant thereafter submitted a letter dated 21/03/2007 intimating his reluctance to pay any amount claimed as dues in the current statements. Sending of embarrassing and capricious statements respecting the said card A/c from the O.P. despite repeated requests from the complainant for closure of the card A/c and conversion of the same to a personal loan A/c has been a deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
Having held a discussion with one Rohit Sarmah – an official of the O.P. the complainant sent to the O.P. a cheque for an amount of Rs.3,690/- and again requested the O.P. for closure of the card A/c and for conversion of the same to personal loan A/c and granting of an opportunity to liquidate the dues (excepting, of course, the dues claimed in contravention of RBI Regulations in 24 monthly installments).
Without paying heed to that request of the complainant the O.P. went on sending statements claiming unreasonable amounts for the purpose of squeezing money from the complainant. The complainant thereafter through his advocate sent a legal notice dated 26/04/2007 to the O.P. laying demand for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and for mental pain and agony. The O.P. did not make payment of the said compensation. On the contrary, it under its letter dated 04/05/2007 made a demand for Rs.8,020.89 as over limit and minimum amount due. In the backdrop of such circumstances, the complainant brought the complaint seeking compensation of an aggregate amount of Rs.10,00,000/-, Rs.5,00,000/- for deficiency in service and a further amount of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental pain caused to the complainant.
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 2/-
D.F.C.-105(s)/2007
- :: 2 :: -
It appears from the record that the O.P. appeared in the proceeding by presenting a Vokalatnama on 12/10/2007 but ultimately failed to contest the proceeding or to present any W.V. in the case.
Now, the following point comes up for determination :-
Point :- Is the complainant is entitled to the compensation sought for by him ?
Decision with reasons
The averments made in the complaint have been supported by affidavit sworn by the complainant himself. In support of his case the complainant annexed to his complaint copies of a number of documents and also furnished several other documents on 13/01/2008. Such documents include three statements issued from the O.P. respecting the said card A/c standing in the name of the complainant and copies of letters in between the parties. No other evidence was adduced in the case.
In course of hearing Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant drew our attention to para-5.i.a of “Credit Card Operations of Bank – RBI Guidelines (November 21, 05)” (copy of which was filed by the complainant on 29/05/2007) wherein it has been stated that unsolicited cards should not be issued and to para-2.c wherein it has been stated that the bank / NBFC should not levy any charge that was not explicitly indicated to the Credit Card holder at the time of issue of the card. He urged that the issuance of the Credit Card without any solicitation from the end of the complainant and laying of demands for various charges in contravention of the said guidelines of R.B.I. have to be viewed to have been deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The complete guidelines appearing in para-5.i.a. of the RBI guidelines (Nov.21, 05) goes as under :-
“Unsolicited cards should not be issued. In case, an unsolicited card is issued and activated without the consent of the recipient and the latter is billed for the same, the card issuing bank / NBFC shall not only reverse the charges forthwith, but also pay a penalty without demur to the recipient amounting to twice the value of the charges reversed ***”
Here, the copies of the statements dated 03/03/2007, 03/04/2007 and 03/05/2007 furnished by the complainant annexing to his P.O.C. go to indicate that either dues were claimed in respect of purchases by the complainant or as interest on purchases. It has not been averred by the complainant that he did not avail of the usage of the Credit Card. It can therefore very well be presumed that the complainant availed of usage of the Credit Card in question. Having kept in view that here the complainant availed of usage of the Credit Card, we think, he should be estopped from raising claim against the O.P. for issuance of the card without any solicitation from his end, had not there been such solicitation, if at all.
As to the complainant’s allegation of O.P.’s demanding capricious charges we find from the copies of the said three statements of the card A/c dated 03/03/2007, 03/04/2007 and 03/05/2007 that apart from purchase amounts charges were claimed under the following heads :-
Dictated and corrected
Contd. …. 3/-
D.F.C.-105(s)/2007
- :: 3 :: -
Fee charged due to exceeding credit limit
Fee – Payment not received by due date
Govt. Service tax on loan amount
Flexi pay amount
Interest charges purchases
Cheque pick up fee
Fin. charges on unpaid Flexi pay amount
Though the Ld. Counsel appearing for the complainant drew our attention to para-2.c of the said RBI guidelines to contend that the O.P. could not levy any charge not explicitly indicated to the complainant at the time of issue of the Credit Card, none of the aforesaid charges could specifically be pointed out before us to urge that such head or heads of charge was or were not brought to the knowledge of the complainant earlier. From a glance of the different heads of charge reproduced above it appears to us that these charges were the ordinary charges claimed for availing of facility of Credit Card and of Flexi-pay Plan of payment. Such being the situation, we are not convinced to hold that the charges under the different heads were claimed by the O.P. in a capricious or unreasonable manner so that the levying the charges can be regarded to have been improper.
In the complaint it has also been alleged that despite making of repeated requests for closing of the Credit Card A/c and for conversion of the said A/c to a personal loan A/c and granting of permission to liquidate the dues in easy monthly installments. We think, conversion of the Credit Card A/c to a personal loan A/c of a Credit Card holder cannot be claimed as of right. O.P.’s not granting the conversion, therefore, in our view cannot be regarded to be a deficiency in service.
In the absence of any positive inference as to the deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. the complainant cannot be said to be entitled to the compensation sought for by him.
The point is thus decided holding that the complainant is not entitled to the relief prayed for by him.
The complaint there fore fails.
Accordingly, it is
Ordered
That the complaint u/s-12, C. P. Act brought by the complainant Sri Sanat Kumar Mallick on 29/05/2007 stands rejected.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the complainant free of cost forthwith. A copy be made over to the O.P., of course, in case the O.P. approaches the Forum for the purpose.
Dictated and corrected
Sd/-
(B. Niyogi)
President
We concur
Sd/- Sd/-
(M. Roy) (S. Chatterjee)
Member Member