STANDARD CHARTERED BANK Vs. RAJ MOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant provides service of credit card. Transaction of Rs. 3,000/ - was declined against the credit card when the respondent was in London despite the fact respondent was having balance of Rs. 28,000/ -. On account of deficiency in service causing immense embarrassment, harassment, agony and financial loss to the respondent. The appellant vide order dated 2.2.2002 passed by the District Forum has been directed to pay Rs. 20,000/ - along with Rs. 5,000/ - towards cost of litigation. Feeling aggrieved the appellant has directed this appeal. Admittedly, the respondent was having credit limit of Rs. 95,000/ -. There is no dispute that there was credit balance of Rs. 28,000/ - in the card account of the respondent. In its defence, the Counsel for the appellant has raised the plea that as on 4.1.2000, the transaction which had already billed to the card account were for Rs. 60,146.19p. and in addition to this respondent had an outstandings of Rs. 7,593.99p. towards the domestic transactions and apart from these outstanding, there were few charges which were authorised on the card account but were yet to be billed. In view of the apprehension that the outstanding amount against the card may exceed the credit limit transaction of Rs. 3,000/ - was declined. Over and above, the appellant has also taken the plea that as gesture of relationship and goodwill, annual charges of the card were reversed. It is pertinent to mention here that in response to the complaint, appellant admitted its mistake and tendered apology for the inconvenience caused to the respondent vide letter dated 17.1.2000 (Ex. PW 1/1).

(2.) SOLE circumstance of there being balance of Rs. 28,000/ - in the account of the respondent, when transaction of Rs. 3,000/ - was declined when the respondent was in foreign land against the limit of Rs. 95,000/ - is itself sufficient ground to prove deficiency in service on the part of the appellant as the act of the appellant in not allowing such transaction. As per Section 2(1)(g) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deficiency means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service by way of section.

(3.) EVEN if we accept the plea of the appellant raised in its defence still the fact remains that transactions which were completed as on 4.1.2000 amount to Rs. 61,146.95p. against the credit limit of Rs. 95,000/ - and there was still outstanding balance of Rs. 7,590.95p. towards domestic transactions and even if the charges which were authorized on the credit account but were yet to be billed were added it did not cross the credit limit. It appears that the appellant was apprehensive that the card of the respondent may not be mis -used because on a single day, the respondent had several transactions but such an apprehension was highly misplaced and did not arise from the obligation which the appellant under took as per terms and conditions of the card i.e., contract or otherwise in relation to such kind of service.