Sbi Cards And Payment Services Pvt Ltd vs Dwijendra Narayan Deb

THE matter in the present proceedings arises from the claim of the Complainant/Mr Dwijendra Narayan Deb that the amount billed to his credit card account was never drawn by him from any ATM. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum, Kolkata was that he had applied for a credit card from OP/SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt. Ltd. in May, 2006. He received two cards, one in his name and the other in the name of his son. Allegedly the two cards received were of a different category than what was applied for. Therefore, he used the available option of destroying the same and returning them to OP at the given address i.e. Post Bag No.28, New Delhi -110001.

AS per his Complaint before the District Forum, the two cards were cut into pieces and returned to the OP at the above address, together with the PIN numbers. The same were sent with a forwarding letter of 21.6.2006. Therefore, the Complainant has called the subsequent account statement dated 3.7.2006 received from OP as ''completely wrong, false and absurd''. Compensation of Rs.4.90 Lakhs has been sought by the Complainant alleging that: - The credit card was fraudulently activated and used by some third person, who was aware of the facts of its destruction and return to the bank. What started as a claim of Rs.6874.64 by the OP in July, 2006 has swollen into a bill of Rs.29,590,08/ - by the date of the Complaint. Constant harassment and intimidation by the recovery agents of the OP forced the Complainant to lodge criminal complaints with the Police on several occasions. Failure of the SBI Helpline to find any solution to the problem. Deficiency of the OP in issuing a credit card, different from what was sought by the Complainant.

THE complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the following ground: "Be it mentioned here on perusal the copy of letter and the case of the Complainant there is no whisper about manners of service. Pertinently it would be mentioned here the 2nd letter of Complainant dated 14.8.2006 was sent by registered post with A/D as Xerox copy of the postal receipt was annexed alongwith the copy of the letter. If that be so, when the service of the letter dated 21.6.2006 has been challenged the Complainant is to prove the service of that letter as to that the said letter was duly served upon the Opposite Party at their Delhi address in the name of the addressee. The Complainant allegedly claimed that all those documents including two credit cards and PIN letter were returned on destroying the same. So when all those vital documents were sent with a forwarding letter dated 21.6.2006 onus lies upon the Complainant to prove that such letter was duly served upon the Opposite Parties. But in this regard we have no hesitation to hold that the Complainant has failed to establish it by documentary evidence when service was challenged by the Opposite Party."

Decision was reversed in Appeal by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission holding that the question of withdrawal of cash, using one of these cards on 29.06.2006, did not arise as the cards had already been destroyed and sent back to the OP eight days earlier, on 21.06.2006. Therefore, the State Commission held the bill to be absurd and not only quashed the same but also awarded compensation of Rs.4.00 Lakhs together with litigation costs of Rs.10,000/ -.

THUS , the difference in the conclusions reached by the two Fora below is purely based on differing appreciation of same set of facts.

WE have carefully perused the material on record and heard the two sides. Advocates Ms Gurmeet Bindra for the Petitioner/OP and Mr Jawahar Raja for the Respondent/Complainant have been heard at length.

CONTENTIONS raised in the Revision Petition are very substantially a reiteration of the claims of the OP in the written reply before the District Forum. The main point stressed by learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioner as well as in the Petition itself is that the Complainant has not led any evidence in support of his claim of having cut the two credit cards into pieces and having sent them on 21.06.2006. The case of the Complainant on this point was that as per instructions in the Terms and Conditions and other documents sent with the cards, the same had to be sent back to the OP at Post Bag No.28, GPO, New Delhi -110001. Significantly, this is also stated in the written reply of the OP, without being challenged. In fact, the reply goes on to add "It is a well known fact that any letter addressed to any Post Bag does not get delivered/served vide any mode other than ordinary postal service". It is, therefore, evident that having given this mode for return of the cards, the OP was well aware that no postal acknowledgment/evidence of it would be available in the hands of the sender. Therefore, in our view, the OP cannot be permitted to raise this plea that the Complainant has not produced any evidence of sending the same. As the State Commission has observed, the Complainant had followed up the matter by a subsequent letter, which was sent and is acknowledged by the Petitioner/OP.

IT also needs to be noted that having generated a bill in support of its claim of withdrawal of Rs.6000/ - from a particular ATM, the Petitioner/OP has at no stage supported its claim with the record of the ATM transaction. Explanation for this, as contained in the written response before the District Forum, in our opinion, is nothing less than objectionable. It is claimed that it would be very difficult and time consuming for the OP to bring forth such evidence of their transactions. Neither the Revision Petition nor the Counsel for the Petitioner/OP has made any attempt to explain or improve upon this illogical and unacceptable stand.

THIS is a case where the Complainant has done what was required of him under instructions of the OP. Therefore, the burden of proof shifted completely to the OP to produce evidence that even thereafter the transaction of withdrawal of Rs.6000/ - had actually taken place.

EQUALLY significantly, there is no denial on the part of OP at any stage that the pieces of the two cards, claimed to have been sent by the Complainant on 21.06.2006, were actually found in the Post Bag No.28, when the mail box was opened. If the alleged mail was not received, it needed a specific denial from the OP.

IN the above background, we find no merit in the case of the Revision Petitioner. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, jurisdictional error or material irregularity, which could justify intervention of this Commission in exercise of powers under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Revision Petition is consequently dismissed for want of merit.