HDFC Bank Ltd. vs Praveen Solanki

THIS revision petition has been filed against order dated 12.1.2011, passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short State Commission). Vide impugned order, appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6.4.2010 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, New Delhi, (for short District Forum) was dismissed.

THE brief facts of the case are that, respondent/ complainant is a credit card holder of petitioner - OP bank vide account No.4346-7710-0997-4792. After receiving the credit card from the OP, the complainant lodged his complaint with OP Bank for not supplying guideline book or instruction book with the credit card. THE customer care executive of the Bank gave assurance to the complainant that the same will be sent to the complainant by mail within one week but the complainant did not receive the same. After the issuance of the credit card, the complainant had never received his statement before the due date and the complainant reported the matter to the customer care executive several times but no solution was made by the OP- Bank. Whenever the complainant reported the matter to the OP he was told by the customer care executive that they had sent the statement at the mailing address of the complainant and the same will be received within the next eight working days but the complainant had never received the said statements before the due date. Complainant received the statement of his credit card in the month of November in which the closing balance was shown as Rs.82,510.82. The complainant was completely shocked after receiving the statement and made a call to the customer care executive and reported that the complainant is paying regularly and the amount which is shown as closing balance is much higher. The customer care executive told the complainant that the Bank will find out the matter as sometimes it happens due to mistake. The complainant also requested to the customer care executive to provide the account statements of his credit card. The customer care executive gave assurance to the complainant that the complaint is forwarded to the higher officials and they will sort out the matter on priority basis, within next eight days.

From October, 2008 collection agents/musclemens of the OP Bank started visiting the residence of the complainant and started to give threat. Unable to bear the harassment and humiliation the complainant decided to make full and final payment towards his credit card account and requested to provide the statement of credit card. After inquiry, the complainant came to know that the OP Bank has charged 3.25% interest per month from the complainant beside other charges but the OP, Bank has not provided the statement of account till date to the complainant. Nor providing of the copy of the statement is violation of the banking fare practice code. Complainant sought direction for petitioner-OP to waive off the interest and other charges along with compensation on account of mental agony and harassment.

NOTICE was issued to OP who appeared and contested the case. In reply, OP stated that the complainant was very irregular in making payments towards his credit card accounts and despite repeated reminders the complainant failed to clear the dues. The complainant never made any complaint with the customer care executive. The monthly statement of the complainant was duly sent to him well before the due date. The taking of credit card facility is not denied. OP pleaded that the statement of account had been sent regularly to the complainants address and in time. Further, the account of complainant stands settled in full and final on payment of Rs.50,000/- against the total outstanding. This favour was extended to the complainant as a customer Friendly Gesture.

IT is contended by counsel for the petitioner that as per order of the District Forum, counsel for the petitioner has admitted that nothing is due from the complainant and only no due certificate from petitioner is required. These contentions were never made by counsel for the petitioner before the District Forum. Another contention is that State Commission wrongly dismissed the appeal of the petitioner on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal. In fact, there was no delay in filing the appeal since the copy of the order of District Forum was received on 21.7.2010 and as such, the appeal is, within time. The relevant portion of order passed by District Forum reads as under :- There is no need to discuss or go deep into the merits of the case in much as much the counsel of both the parties admitted in the course of arguments that nothing is due from complainant and only no due certificate from the OP is required. Counsel for the OP agreed that complainant will be given no dues certificate for which OP will have no objection. The complainant also wants his name to deleted from the defaulters list which was got listed by the OP. There is no gain saying the fact that when complainant is not a defaulter why he should be tagged as a defaulter to deny him the facility of loan in the future as the defaulter list will casts its shadow on him before any loan is sanctioned by any institution. The OP should have itself got deleted the name of the complainant and should have given no objection certificate before filing this complaint. But now complainant has filed the complaint and incurred expenses, OP is now willing to do the needful as demanded by the complainant. The act of OP amounts to deficiency in service. The order of the Forum further states that ; 1. OP Will give no due certificate to the complainant and will get the name deleted from the defaulters list. 2. On account of deficiency of service, mental agony and harassment OP will pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant. 3. OP will pay Rs.5000/- towards cost of litigation.

ACCORDING this order, it is manifestly clear that counsel for both the parties (including counsel for the present petitioner) admitted in the course of arguments that nothing is due from the complainant and only no due certificate from petitioner is required.

NOW, in the petition filed before this Commission, surprisingly, petitioner has taken an altogether new plea that no such admission was made by counsel for the petitioner before District Forum. These arguments of ld. counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water, as District Forum has passed the order as early as for 6.4.2010. If such an error as alleged by the petitioner has crept in the order of the District Forum, then petitioner should have immediately filed an application for rectification of the above observations and should have brought to the notice of the District Forum that counsel for the petitioner did not make any admission before District Forum.

Petitioner has not mentioned the name of the counsel who had appeared before the District Forum at the time of arguments nor his affidavit has been filed to contradict the findings of District Forum. For the first time before this Commission, petitioner has taken up this plea.

AS far as impugned order is concerned, relevant portion of which reads as under :- 2. The case by the District Consumer Forum was decided on 6.4.2010. The record shows that the copy of the judgment was sent the same day. Appeal was filed on 30.7.2010. There is around 114 days delay in filing the appeal. There is no application for condonation of delay, and it is not mentioned in the memo of appeal whether the receipt of the copy of the judgment was sent by the District Forum by the registered post or not ? 3. It has been argued by the counsel for the appellant that there is no need of a formal application for condonation of delay, and court can condone the delay even otherwise on the facts of the case. That may be true, but there is no legitimate ground for condonation of delay even on facts. Appeal dismissed as time barred.

As apparent from the record, admittedly, along with the appeal filed before State Commission, no application for condonation of delay was filed.

THE case of the petitioner is that certified copy of the order of District Forum was received on 21.7.2010. Surprisingly, petitioner has not stated in the grounds of present petition as to by what mode petitioner has received the copy of order dated 6.4.2010 passed by District Forum. Section 15 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the appeal to be filed against the order of District Forum. The relevant portion of which reads as under: Appeal Any person aggrieved by an order made by the District Forum may prefer an appeal against such order to the State Commission within a period of thirty days from the date of the order, in such form and manner as may be prescribed : Provided that the State Commission may entertain an appeal after the expiry of the said period of thirty days if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing it within that period.

As per this provision, it is clear that State Commission can entertain the appeal, if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the same, within a period of thirty days.

AS observed above, order of District Forum was passed on 6.4.2010 and appeal was filed on 30.7.2010. Thus, there was delay of 114 days in filing the appeal and no application for condonation of delay has been filed nor any reason has been mentioned as to why there was delay in filing of this appeal.

THUS, there is no illegality in the impugned order. Having no case even on merits, petitioner wanted to wriggle out of the settlement. In order to achieve this object, petitioner has gone to the extent of making false accusation against the District Forum, that it wrongly recorded the admission of its counsel and has also caused aspersion on the District Forum, which is unethical and uncalled for.

In this manner, petitioner has wasted not only its own time, money and energy but has wasted the time and energy of State Commission as well as of this Commission.

IT appears to this Commission that all is not well with the working of petitioners Legal Department, otherwise, no person having proper legal background would have advised the petitioner to file this revision. Time and again, the Apex Court and this Commission have observed that Companies/Public Sector Undertakings would be advised in not spending share holders/public money, unnecessarily on avoidable and wholly frivolous litigation, such as the present one.

IT is well-settled that frivolous litigation clogs the wheel of justice making it difficult for this Commission to provide easy and speedy to the genuine litigants. A strong message is required to be sent to those litigants who are in the habit of challenging each and every order of the fora below, even if, the same are based on sound reasoning. Petitioner has not only wasted precious time of this Commission but has also deprived the respondent/complainant, the fruits of the decree. No mercy should be shown to such type of litigants who create obstruction in the smooth functioning of the judicial system. In Ravinder Kaur Vs. Ashok Kumar, AIR 2004 SC 904, Apex Court observed ; Courts of law should be careful enough to see through such diabolical plans of the judgment debtor to deny the decree holders the fruits of the decree obtained by them. These type of errors on the part of the judicial forum only encourage frivolous and cantankerous litigations causing laws delay and bringing bad name to the judicial system.

Since two fora below have given detailed and reasoned order which does not call for any interference nor they suffer from any infirmity or erroneous exercise of jurisdiction, the present petition is hereby, dismissed with cost of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only).

PETITIONER is directed to deposit the cost of Rs.20,000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within thirty days. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said cost within the prescribed period, it shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization. List the matter for compliance on 23.5.2011.