A RANGANATHAN Vs. STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant availed credit card facility from the opposite party. The 1st complainant maintains Non Resident External Account, Non Resident Ordinary Account, Foreign Currency Non Resident Deposits and Non Resident Non Repatriable Deposits. There were adequate funds maintained by the 1st complainant in the said accounts viz., NRE account, NRO account, NRNR deposits and FCNR account. The 1st complainant has also given standing instructions for payment of credit card dues standing in his wife s name from his NRO account which is further guaranteed by NRE account as well as NRNR deposits. There were standing instructions to replenish funds regularly on the utilization of card by the 2nd complainant. As on 31.12.1996, there was no amount due and payable. Hence, the 2nd complainant was surprised to receive a telegram stating that the cheque for Rs. 27,022.35 had been returned for insufficient funds . The complainants never issued any such cheque nor there was any need to do so inasmuch as amounts due under the credit card are to be adjusted as per the standing instructions. Even before the complainants could verify the demand, the opposite party sent hirelings and thugs in the name of bill collector , who visited the complainants house and demanded payment and behaved in a undignified and threatening manner. The 2nd complainant was threatened and insulted in the presence of her guests. She informed the NRI department of the opposite party about the demand made by an unknown person making threats. She also informed the 1st complainant who by way of fax complained to the opposite party regarding the illegal demand and the threatening attitude of the opposite party. The opposite party owned their mistake and also conceded that the demand for payment made by the bill collector was wrong, but they put the blame upon the computer. The attitude of the opposite party is thoroughly irresponsible and not in keeping with the tune of Multinational Banks. The 2nd complainant was put to a lot of mental agony, insult and torture. The sending of goondas and making threat is unbecoming of the opposite party. Thus, there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party for which a compensation of Rs. 20,00,000 is claimed.

(2.) THE case was opened on 18.4.2005. Ex. A1 to Ex. A7 were marked and the arguments of complainants Counsel were heard. This Commission suggested to the opposite party to bring their Manager in person and explain the circumstances and tender apology to the complainants. The Counsel appearing for the opposite party agreed to produce the Manager before this Commission on 20.4.2005. Accordingly the matter was adjourned to 20.4.2005. On 20.4.2005 when it was called the Manager was not present. But some other person said to be a staff was alone produced before this Commission. The manner in which the matter is treated and dealt with by the opposite party is really abhorrent. Having accepted to produce the Manager before this Commission, the opposite party is trying to wriggle away from such a situation by making false excuses. In the circumstances, holding that the opposite party are trying to procrastinate and stultify the proceedings, we have no hesitation in setting the opposite party ex parte.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: