HDFC BANK LTD vs Monojit Bhattacharya

COUNSEL for parties present. Shri Monojit Bhattarcharya, the complainant received a credit -card from M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd. (OP -1), with credit limit of Rs.1,16,000/ -. The bank suo -moto enhanced the credit limit to Rs.1,79,000/ - and no consent of the complainant was sought. The case of the complainant is that he did not receive the new credit -card. The old credit -card was blocked w.e.f. 15.06.2007 and its further usage was stopped.

THE oral submission of the complainant as propounded by his counsel is that he never received the said card, whereas the complainant mentioned in his complaint as under: - "8. It is further stated that since the card was not asked for by the complainant/petitioner, he refused to accept the said card and returned the same to the opposite parties and the same was duly received back by the opposite parties.In this connection it may be stated herein that the complainant was never intimated by the opposite parties that due to issuance of the aforesaid new credit card, the operation of the earlier credit card will be stopped by them and hence, the petitioner/complainant was under the impression all along that the old card of him was in operation as before and there was no problem in using the same by the complainant/petitioner."

THE allegation of the complainant is that he experienced humiliation while attempting to utilize the first credit -card. The OP had demanded outstanding amount in the sum of Rs.1,28,774.67/ - against some bills from the complainant. In this context, my attention was invited towards the statements of account placed on record. It clearly goes to show that the opening balance was Rs.70,074.77/ - and this statement is dated 17.05.2007. However, the total dues were shown as Rs.73,228.89/ - which also mentions payments/credits of Rs.4,000/ -, purchase/debits as Rs.5068.52/ - and finance charges as Rs.2085.60/ - There is another statement dated 17.06.2007, which shows total dues in the sum of Rs.74,012.06/ -. The OP bank has also placed on record the statement dated 17.08.2007, which shows total dues in the sum of Rs.74,042.89/ -, the statement dated 17.09.2007 reveals total due amount of Rs.79,004.52/ -, the statement dated 17.10.2007 reveals total due amount of Rs.84,041.99/ -, the statement dated 17.11.2007 reveals total due amount of Rs.89,310.65/ -, the statement dated 17.12.2007 reveals total due amount of Rs.1,19,707.54/ -, which also reveals purchase/debits in the sum of Rs.27,202.59/ -, the statement dated 17.01.2008 reveals total due amount in the sum of Rs.1,24,283.07/ - and the statement dated 17.02.2008 reveals total due amount in the sum of Rs.1,28,774.67/ -. The counsel for the petitioner/OP explains that the bank charges interest @ 28% p.a. in respect of credit -card.

THE District Forum dismissed the complaint. The State Commission passed the following order: - "Consequently, the Appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and order is set aside, the claim of outstanding bills to the tune of Rs.1,28,774.67/ - is declared null and void and the complaint, as a consequence, stands allowed. Considering the capricious, arbitrary, unfair and negligent conduct of the Respondents/OPs and the resultant physical, mental and emotional suffering experienced by the Appellant/complainant it is considered just, proper and fair to award an amount of Rs.15,00,000/ - as exemplary compensation payable by the Respondents/OPs jointly and/or severally, out of which Rs.14,00,000/ - shall be paid to the Appellant/Complainant and Rs.1,00,000/ - shall be deposited with the State Consumer Welfare Fund, West Bengal, through the Registrar of this Commission.Besides, the Respondents/OPs shall also pay to the Appellant/complainant Rs. 10,000/ - as litigation cost.All these payments shall be made within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount will be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date next to the due date of payment till realization of the full amount."

I have heard the counsel for the parties. The counsel for the complainant/respondent has invited my attention towards the guidelines of the of Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and relevant portion of the same is reproduced as follows: - a. Unsolicited cards should not be issued. In case, an unsolicited card is issued and activated without the written consent of the recipient and the latter is billed for the same, the card issuing bank 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.

b. xxxx

c. There have been instances where unsolicited cards issued have been misused before reaching the person in whose name these have been issued. It is clarified that any loss arising out of misuse of such unsolicited cards will be the responsibility of the card issuing bank/NBFC only and the person in whose name the card has been issued cannot be held responsible for the same.

d. The consent for the cards issued or the other products offered along with the card has to be explicit and should not be implied. In other words, the written consent of the applicant would be required before issuing a credit card.

e. Unsolicited loans or other credit facilities should not be offered to the credit card customers. In case, an unsolicited credit facility is extended without the consent of the recipient and the latter objects to the same, the credit sanctioning bank/NBFC shall not only withdraw the credit limit, but also be liable to pay such penalty as may be considered appropriate.

f. The card issuing bank/NBFC should not unilaterally upgrade credit cards and enhance credit limits. Prior consent of the borrower should invariably be taken whenever there are any change/s in terms and conditions."

CONSEQUENTLY , it appears that suo -moto action taken by the bank is condemnable. It smacks of arrogance, highhandedness and despotism. The have violated the guidelines set -up by the RBI, with impurity. This must not be the only single case. They must be doing this with each and every client/customer. Mr. Saurav Bhatia, Legal Manager of HDFC Bank, is present. The counsel for petitioner submits that there was oral request, but no written request, as required by the RBI, saw the light of the day. This tantamounts to unfair trade and practice. The purpose of law is to prevent the strong always having their way.

ON the other hand, except this deficiency, we are unable to find out any deficiency on the part of the bank. It appears that the complainant did not want to pay the outstanding amount and he tried his best to pull the wool in the eyes of law. The counsel for complainant himself admits that opening balance was amounting to Rs.70,074.77/ -. There is no evidence that the opening balance was ever paid to the bank. But and ben position set -up by the complainant clearly goes to show his malafide intentions. Sometime, he says he did not receive the second card and on the other hand, he admits that he refused to accept the second card. It appears that the State Commission has not evaluated the evidence properly. It is the duty of the Commission to make decision with perspicacity.

THE order passed by the State Commission is set aside. The bank is given liberty to get the recovery of the outstanding demand, as per law. Further, due to the deficiency, mentioned above, on the part of the bank, they are directed to a pay sum of Rs.25,000/ - to the complainant, which they can deduct from the outstanding dues against him and further deposit the costs in the sum of Rs.25,000/ - with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within 30 days, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till its realization. They are further warned to adhere to the guidelines of RBI strictly. The petitioner is directed to withdraw the amount with interest, deposited with this Commission, after the expiry of 90 days.

THE revision petition is accordingly, disposed of.