CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA vs MOHINDER SINGH

THIS instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by Central Bank of India against the order dated August 27, 1998 passed by the District Forum, Jalandhar whereby directed the appellant Bank not to charge the disputed amount of the debit voucher to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - from the complainant or to debit the same to his Saving Bank Account H.S.S. No. 10711. The appellant Bank has further been directed to pay Rs. 5,000/ - to the complainant for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience caused to the complainant alongwith Rs. 1,000/ - as costs.

THE main question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the credit card issued to the complainant carries the coverage of automatic insurance against the lost of the card or its misuse to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - on payment of Rs. 50/ - and other personal accident benefits. A few facts giving rise to this issue deserve to be narrated. The complainant was Central Credit Card holder, which was issued by the opposite parties, which was lost on 31.1.992 and the information in this regard was sent to the opposite parties in writing on 1.2.1992 and the said information was again sent to Bombay Headquarter through FAX on 1992 which was duly acknowledged by the Head Office Authority of the opposite party No. The respondent appears to have launched a scheme for increasing Central Credit Card circulation to enhance business. The scheme/incentives were published in the Central Card Diary (Ex. C -2) inter alia stating the additional facilities available to Central Card holders as under : ''Additional facilities are available to Central Card Holders : (1) Group Accident Insurance Coverage upto Rs. 1 lakh per card holder with a nominal charge of Rs. 50/ - per annum to the card holder as against Rs. 125/ - payable under the Group Policy. (2) Insurance against lost/stolen cards to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - per card holder.'' According to the complainant the following facilities were also available for the credit card holders : ''Value Added to the Central Card : - Reputed Traders/Manufacturers offer their Mail Order Business to our card holder. - Mediclaim Facility available to Central Card holder and his/her family under a Group Policy at slashed down premium. - Group Personal Accident Insurance Coverage of Rs. 1 lakh to Central Card holder for all cards issued or renewed after May 1, 1991. - Special Counters at all Rail and Indian Airlines Booking Counters. - Central Card is accepted by Air India and British Airways as well. - Insurance on lost or stolen Cards to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - from the date of reporting of loss to us.''

AS per assertions of the complainant, as per rules, when the information regarding loss of credit card has been given to the opposite parties it was their duty to inform the member establishments not to honour the lost credit card. Opposite parties had insured the said credit card in the sum of Rs. 50,000/ - against loss, theft, misuse or mis -appropriation etc. and all the losses incurred by the respondents due to this were to be reimbursed by the Insurance Company to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ -. The complainant alleged that the credit card was misused or misutilised by some one forging his signatures between the period 3.2.1992 to 17.2.1992 at Bombay and Pune and debit vouchers were raised and sent by the opposite parties to the complainant. The complainant averred that in lieu of the lost credit card, New Credit was issued by the opposite parties and claimed Rs. 51,822.60 from him against the mis -utilisation of the credit card which was reported as lost. The complainant as stated, never used the original credit card at any place mentioned in the debit vouchers during the period from 1.2.1992 to 23.2.1992. The complainant asserted that the demand raised against him was illegal and amounted to rendering deficiency in service. The opposite parties did not file any formal reply to the complaint before the District Forum.

BOTH the parties led their evidence on affidavits and documents before the District Forum which resulted in passing the impugned order. In appeal the opposite parties filed a version. It was contended that the respondent obtained a Central Card from appellant No. 1. The same was lost by him on 31.1.1992 and the intimation about the loss thereof was received by the appellant on 3.2.1992. According to the terms and conditions of the said card the respondent was to remain liable for 15 days if the Central Card was misused. This period runs upto 18.2.1992 whereas the District Forum took it upto 16.2.1992. The District Forum was wrong in accepting the last date as 18.2.1992 instead of 16.2.1992.

THE appellant asserted that Bank was under no obligation to purchase insurance policy for the complainant. Appellant asserted that no such policy was ever purchased. Rs. 150 were debited to the complainants account on 18.5.1991 for Shivalik Hotel Bill (Annexure P1).

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The contention of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the findings of the District Forum that the Bank should claim reimbursement from the Insurance Company and not from the complainant is bad in law, as it is not the case of the complainant that an insurance policy was purchased in his case The Bank was under no obligation to purchase insurance policy for the complainant -appellant, nor any such amount of premium was debited to his account or accepted by way of cash. The learned Counsel for the opposite parties heavily relied upon the judgment in F.A.O. No. 128 of 1968 decided on 31.3.1997 by the Division Bench of Honble Punjab and Haryana High Court whereby it was held that the Bank is under no obligation to purchase insurance policy for the benefit of the account holder/loanee. It was stated that in that case the loanee had executed hypothecation deed for obtaining loan for truck. Accident took place. Insurance cover had not been taken though previous to the date of accident such an insurance cover had been taken by the Bank and not for the relevant period. On these facts it was held that Bank was under no obligation to purchase insurance policy. This case is distinguishable as in the instant case the Central Credit Cards were sold under a scheme launched for increasing central credit card circulation to enhance busines, the insurance coverage was one of the incentives floated vide Ex. C -2. Thus the Bank was under obligation to purchase insurance for the complainant/appellant. Affidavit of Mr. R.K. Puri, Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Civil Lines, Jalandhar shows that the facility of insurance was not available to the card holder under the old billing system, i.e. during the period when credit cards were issued under the old system. But this assertion in the affidavit has not been corroborated with any literature or authenticated order by the Competent Authorities. From all these, it is quite clear that there is nothing on record to show that Ex. C -2, a printed material used by the Bank for advertisement was not applicable in the case of complainant/appellant. We do not find any merit in the pleadings of the opposite party that the printed material (C -2) was not applicable. The appellant/opposite party has failed to lead any evidence contrary to a printed material used by the Bank for advertisement placed on record Ex. C -2. Learned Counsel for the respondent pleaded that according to the terms of agreement for the issuance of the credit card to the complainant, facility was given of automatic insurance against the lost of the card on its misuse to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - on payment of Rs. 50/ -, in the event of the credit card being lost or stolen, the card holder shall notify to the Bank immediately or its loss or then by telephone, telegram or telex and also confirm the same by registered letter. The responsibility of the card holder will cease only fifteen days after the receipt of such letter from the card holder by the Central Card Department of the Bank. In the instant case, intimation of loss was given to the opposite parties on 1.2.1992, but it has been admitted by the opposite parties that the intimation of loss was received on 3.2.1992 and also a fax message to the Bombay about the loss of credit card.

SO far as voucher for Rs. 150/ - (Ex. P1) is concerned, the learned Counsel for the complainant/respondent pleaded that this voucher belongs to Credit Card No. 5414450003999501 and not to Credit Card No. 5414450003999519. This voucher of Hotel Shivalik View dated 3.2.1991 has nothing to do with the complainant. The debit entry passed to his account on 18.5.1991 was for renewal of the card and not the above said voucher of Hotel Shivalik View. The learned Counsel for the appellant/opposite party failed to reconcile/explain the discrepancy pointed out by the complainant/respondent.

FOR the reasons recorded above and taking into consideration the above facts and the circumstances of the case, we dismiss the appeal and uphold the reasoned order of the District Forum, Jalandhar with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. -