Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 32 (ORI)

Manager, Sbi Cards & Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. , v. Ajoy Kishore Mohanty

2021-01-24

D.P.CHOUDHURY

body2021
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for both sides in FA No. 4 of 2017 and FA No. 583 of 2016 on VC. 2. Both the appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Cuttack in CC No. 139 of 2014. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals. 3. These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. C.D.Appeal No. 04 of 2017 has been filed by OP Nos.2 to 5 whereas C.D.Appeal No. 583 of 2016 has been filed by the complainant. 4. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that complainant was issued a SBI Credit card by OP Nos. 2 to 5 during the year 2007. Complainant alleged inter alia that he has used it for two years and paid all the amount as per the bills asked by OP Nos. 2 to 5. Since the inflated bills came, the complainant asked to stop transaction and intended to surrender the credit card. Then on 26.5.2007 complainant got a letter from the OPs to pay Rs.60,000/- as one time settlement towards dues outstanding before closing of the credit card facility. Complaint paid Rs.60,000/- on different dates between 29.5.2007 to 30.7.2007. In spite of clearing of the outstanding dues, the complainant got a notice on 12.5.2012 issued on behalf of OP Nos. 2 to 5 asking him to pay Rs.2,42,453.01 to which complainant replied that he has paid all the bills. Thereafter, complainant alleged that he has been harassed by legal notice and SMS sent by OP Nos. 2 to 5 for payment of Rs.2,42,453.01 which is not at all due against him. It is also stated in the complaint that OP Nos. 2 to 5 have not issued No Dues Certificate in spite of settlement of the account. So the complaint was filed by the complainant showing unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos. 2 to 5. 5. OP No.1 filed written version stating that OP Nos. 2 to 5 are not part of the Bank. The Credit Card related to these OPs but not OP No.1. So he submitted to exempt OP No.1 from the liability. 6. OP Nos. 2 to 5. 5. OP No.1 filed written version stating that OP Nos. 2 to 5 are not part of the Bank. The Credit Card related to these OPs but not OP No.1. So he submitted to exempt OP No.1 from the liability. 6. OP Nos. 2 to 5 filed written version stating that the complainant has already settled the account by payment of Rs.60,000/- in 2007 but the account was not zeroised. After OP Nos. 2 to 5 came to know through the complaint case, they have investigated into the matter and found that due to mistake of customer centric approach first notice was issued. So the mistake as pointed out is neither intentional one nor deliberate. They prayed to exempt them from liability. 7. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:- 'xxx xxx xxx The OPs ( 2 to 5) will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment. The OPs ( 2 to 5) will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The prayer of the complainant to pay compensation and other expenses worth Rs.3,50,300/- are not sustainable in the present case. The above payments shall be made within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Court under C.P.Act, 1986.' 8. Learned counsel for the appellants in FA No. 583 of 2016 submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not allowing compensation inadequately as per the claim of the appellant/complainant made in the complaint for Rs.3,50,300/-. According to him, the learned District Forum ought to have gone through the documents filed by the complainant showing the harassment for two years up to 2014 by sending repeated messages to him to pay the amount which was admitted by OP Nos. 2 to 5 to be the Customer Centric messages. He submitted that the learned District Forum should have paid adequate compensation as per the documents already filed by the complainant. He submitted that there is no yardstick for computing the mental agony and harassment. He submitted that the complainant is a retired Government servant and having been harassed by such unfair trade practice of OP Nos. 2 to 5, he has lost his mental agony. He submitted that there is no yardstick for computing the mental agony and harassment. He submitted that the complainant is a retired Government servant and having been harassed by such unfair trade practice of OP Nos. 2 to 5, he has lost his mental agony. So, he submitted to allow the claim made in the complaint petition. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants in FA No. 4 of 2017 submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version properly on its proper perspectives. According to him, OP Nos. 2 to 5 have no any intention for harassing the complainant because of computerized mistake the messages sent and at no point of time, there was any error on the part of OP Nos. 2 to 5. He further submitted that the complainant has paid the entire dues on one time settlement and the mistake being not intentional the learned District Forum should have dismissed the complaint without imposing any compensation or cost. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal. 10. Considered the submission of learned counsel for respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order. 11. It is admitted fact that complainant was issued credit card by OP Nos. 2 to 5. It is not in dispute that the complainant has used credit card by payment of all bills. It is admitted fact that he has paid Rs.60,000/- between 29.5.2007 to 30.7.2007 as one time settlement towards the dues outstanding against the said credit card bills as claimed by OP Nos. 2 to 5. 12. It is not in dispute that OP Nos. 2 to 5 demanded Rs.2,42,453.01 again on 12.5.2012 after five years of closing of the account in 2007. It is not forthcoming from the written version why the' No Dues Certificate' has not been issued in spite of admitting the fact that the account has been closed. Besides, without verification of proper account, OP Nos. 2 to 5 issued the notice on 12.5.2012 to the complainant to pay Rs.2,42,453.01. It is admitted by OP Nos. 2 to 5 that it is a computerized problem but for the mistake on the part of the machine the party cannot claim any protection from his liability. 13. It appears from Annexure - 3, 5 and 6 that OP Nos. It is admitted by OP Nos. 2 to 5 that it is a computerized problem but for the mistake on the part of the machine the party cannot claim any protection from his liability. 13. It appears from Annexure - 3, 5 and 6 that OP Nos. 2 to 5 have sent lawyer's notice to pay the said amount of Rs.2,42,453.01. Very interestingly, it is found from Annexure - 7 series that in 2013 & 2014 a good numbers of SMS were sent claiming above amount as outstanding against the complainant. So those letters and messages continued for two years cannot be taken as mere computer mistake or customary centric approach of OP Nos. 2 to 5. It must be remembered that computer and customer care are being used by the human being by feeding data. Thus, OP Nos. 2 to 5 with deliberate intention to extract money by such dubious manner issued letters and messages. So OP Nos. 2 to 5 cannot be wriggled out from the liability. Thus, the conduct of OP Nos. 2 to 5 is deceptive practice in rendering service to the complainant and as such, it is unfair trade practice as defined u/s 2(1) (r) (6) of the Act. Therefore, the finding of learned District Forum is affirmed in this regard. So far appellant/complainant in FA No. 583 of 2016 is concerned, the complaint has been allowed with direction to OP Nos. 2 to 5 to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards litigation cost to the complainant. The learned District Forum has refused to pay Rs.3,50,000/- as claimed by the complainant without any sort of justification pointed out by it. 13. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Commission is of the opinion that OP Nos. 2 to 5 have committed deficiency in service by not issuing NOC and also committed unfair trade practice. After demand of illegal amount continued for years together as found in this case, the mental agony and harassment to a retired Government servant (Senior Citizen) cannot be computed by any yardstick. So compensation of Rs.50,000/- is not adequate to compensate the harassment and mental agony meted out to the complainant, it must be just and proper. So the operative portion of impugned order requires modification. 14. So compensation of Rs.50,000/- is not adequate to compensate the harassment and mental agony meted out to the complainant, it must be just and proper. So the operative portion of impugned order requires modification. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant in FA No. 4 of 2017 urged that the learned District Forum should not have imposed compensation or cost without any reason to the complainant. He submits that u/s 14 of the Act, learned District Forum may pass order directing OP Nos. 2 to 5 to remove deficiency of service or not to repeat unfair trade practice. In the event of finding that the OP Nos. 2 to 5 are involved with deficiency of service or unfair trade practice, without such order u/s 14(e) & (f) of the Act respectively, the imposition of compensation or cost is unfair and illegal. In fact, in the impugned order learned District Forum have found about the involvement of OP Nos. 2 to 5 with deficiency of service and unfair trade practice but u/s 14 of the Act learned District Forum have not passed any order directing OP Nos. 2 to 5 to remove the deficiency of service or not to repeat unfair trade practice but imposed compensation and cost. Of course Section 14 of the Act directs learned District Forum to pass one or more order as prescribed between 14(a) to (i). But in the facts and circumstances of this case while exercising power u/s 14(1) of the Act, passing of orders u/s 14 (1) (e) & (f) are imperative. Being appellate authority this Commission can remove such defect in the impugned order. 15. A credit card is a type of payment card in which charges are made against a line of credit instead of account holder's cash deposits. Of course failure to pay off the credit card amount on time could result in payment of interest charges and the late fees, the credit card can also help users build a positive credit visionary. Avowed object of credit card system is to facilitate card holder use same for better purchase of the goods and no liquid cash is necessary for payment. Avowed object of credit card system is to facilitate card holder use same for better purchase of the goods and no liquid cash is necessary for payment. But if the Companies who are in charge of the management of such credit card facility betray the card holders in the manner as happened in this case, should be dealt with iron hand by heavy payment of compensation and cost while directing to remove the deficiency in service and not to repeat unfair trade practice. Now a days most of the credit card franchise of renowned national and private Bank are showing their independentness but at the beginning, they go on the nagging the people to purchase credit card and finally harass them as happened in this case. Therefore, for larger interest of consumers, it is suggested to credit card companies to be more careful in future. It is further advised that concerned Bank should take up the issue of credit card like debit card by themselves instead of doing business through the unscrupulous companies so that the goodwill of business of the Bank would be maintained well. 16. From the forgoing discussion, this Commission is of the opinion that the impugned order needs modification in the light of the provision u/s 14 (1) of the Act. Hence, the operative portion of the impugned order is modified by directing OP Nos. 2 to 5 to remove the deficiency of service by issuing NOC and further directed OP Nos. 2 to 5 not to repeat unfair trade practice. Also this Commission considering facts and circumstances as discussed above direct OP Nos. 2 to 5 to pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- instead of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant. Rest of the impugned order would remain unaltered. The modified order be carried out within 45 days from today failing which the same would carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till the date of payment. Thus, FA No. 4 of 2017 being sans of merit stands dismissed whereas FA No. 583 of 2016 is partly allowed. No cost. DFR be sent back forthwith. Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.