Bangalore Urban 3rd Addl. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum
No.8, 6th Floor, Sahakara Bhavan, Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560 052.
Complaint Case No. CC/11/498
1. Sri B.K.Srinivas
Aged about 47 years,S/o Late Sri H.Krishnamurthy,R/at No.421,R.M.Residence,4th Main,6th Block,2nd Phase,BSK 3rd Stage,Bangalore-560085
………..Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Ms/ HDFC Bank Limited
Card Services Division,At ‘CEEBROS’ Building,No.110,Nelson Manickam Road,Aminjikarai,Chennai-600029
2. Ms/ HDFC Bank Limited
Card Services Division,HDFC-1,Essel Chambers,No.7 and 7/1,Lalbagh Road,Richmond Circle,Bangalore-560027
…………Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE:
HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah PRESIDENT
HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini Member
HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA Member
PRESENT:
ORDER
BEFORE THE III ADDITIONAL BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE – 560 052.
DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF MARCH 2011
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.498/2011
PRESENT:
Sri T. Rajashekharaiah, B.A. L.L.B.,
PRESIDENT
Sri. H.M.Shivalingappa, B.Sc., LL.B.,
MEMBER
Smt. Dr. Subhashini, M.B.B.S.,
MEMBER
COMPLAINANT -
Sri B.K. Srinivas,
Aged about 47 years,
S/o Late Sri H. Krishnamurthy,
R/at No.421, B.M. Residence,
4th Main, 6th Block, 2nd Phase,
BSK 3rd Stage,
BANGALORE – 560 085.
V/S
OPPOSITE PARTIES -
1.
M/S HDFC BANK LIMITED,
Card Services Division,
At ‘CEEBROS’ Building,
No.110, Nelson Manickam Road,
Aminjikarai, CHENNAI – 600 029.
2.
M/S HDFC BANK LIMITED,
Card Services Division,
HDFC-1, ESSEL CHAMBERS,
No.7 & 7/1, Lalbagh Road,
Richmond Circle,
BANGALORE – 560 027.
ORDER ON ADMISSION
1. This Complaint was filed on 11.03.2011 under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Complainant contends that he has taken a credit card from the 1st Opposite Party on 21.09.2005 and there was an offer for one time settlement on 16.09.2006 and the Complainant agreed for same and paid Rs.21,000/- to the Opposite Party for settling the transaction. Since then the Complainant had not used the credit card. Inspite of it, on 16.09.2007, the Opposite Party issued notice to the Complainant demanding Rs.24,438/-. Hence, the Complainant called upon the Opposite Party Customer Care and explained about the earlier settlement and they assured the Complainant that they would look into the matter and have the matter closed at once. Again on 15.09.2010, the Opposite Party had issued a demand notice demanding Rs.58,413=49 and they invited the Complainant to appear before the Conciliator at Chennai. The Complainant replied by notice dt.10.12.2010 and the Opposite Party did not respond to that notice and they again issued another demand letter dt.05.01.2011 demanding Rs.64,351=84. It is alleged that inspite of settling the matter during the year 2006 by paying the entire amount, the Opposite Party is repeatedly demanding higher amount and because of it, he suffered mental harassment and torture and it amounts to deficiency in service. Hence, he has filed this Complaint for awarding compensation of Rs.5 lakhs.
2. The case was posted to hear on the question of admission. The Complainant was present and the matter was heard.
3. In the circumstances, the following point arises for our consideration and decision and they are:
(i) Whether there is a sufficient cause to proceed with the Complaint?
4. POINT NO.1:- In our opinion, there is no reason to proceed with the Complaint for the following reason. The only allegation against the Opposite Party is that inspite of settling the entire amount, the Opposite Party is repeatedly demanding the amount and that will cause harassment. In our opinion, this cannot be said t be a deficiency in service. It may be that according to the Opposite Party, some amount is due and according to the Complainant, he is not liable to pay it. But mere demanding the amount cannot be said to cause any mental harassment or deficiency in service. If he was not liable to pay that amount, he could have refused to pay it by replying the demanding notice or he could have turned deaf ear to that notice and kept quiet. There will be no reason for him to take serious note on that matter. Only if the Opposite Party initiates any proceedings for recovery of such demanded amount, he could have defended it. Hence, in our opinion, the allegation made against the Opposite Party does not constitute sufficient cause of action to file a Complaint and it cannot be said that there is any deficiency in service. Hence, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we proceed to pass the following;
O R D E R
It is held that there is no reason to proceed with the Complaint and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission. Hence, the Complaint is not admitted.
This Order is pronounced on this the 30th day of March 2011.
Dr. SUBHASHINI H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA T. RAJASHEKHARAIAH
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE T. Rajashekharaiah]
PRESIDENT
[HONORABLE Dr. Subhashini]
Member
[HONORABLE H.M.SHIVALINGAPPA]
Member