Bangalore District Commission Holds Standard Chartered Bank And Shaha Finlease Liable For Demanding Credit Card Due Despite Final Settlement
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank and Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for demanding money from the Complainant to settle the Credit Card due despite him paying Rs. 15,500/- for full and...
The Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (Karnataka) bench comprising B. Narayanappa (President), Jyothi N (Member) and Sharavathi S.M (Member) held Standard Chartered Bank and Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd liable for deficiency in services for demanding money from the Complainant to settle the Credit Card due despite him paying Rs. 15,500/- for full and final settlement. The bench directed them to pay Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation along with Rs. 3,000/- for the litigation costs incurred by the Complainant.
Brief Facts:
Mr. V.V. Venkatesh Babu (“Complainant”) entered into a credit card agreement with Standard Chartered Bank (“Bank”) and subsequently surrendered the card in 2010. Allegedly, the bank began harassing the Complainant through incessant calls, claiming rental charges for the card that had been surrendered. Despite not using the card, the Complainant requested the bank to close the erroneously issued credit card. The bank proposed closing the associated account upon payment of Rs. 15,500/- as a full and final settlement, which the complainant paid on 07.08.2010. In response, the bank confirmed the payment in a letter, assuring the Complainant of no outstanding dues, and promising to remove his name from CIBIL records. However, subsequent issues arose, as the Complainant faced loan rejections and higher interest rates due to a demand from M/s. Shaha Finlease Pvt. Ltd. (“NBFC”), seeking Rs. 20,491/- from the Complainant for a no-due certificate and to update the CIBIL records as settled. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant approached the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Bangalore (“District Commission”) and filed a consumer complaint against the bank and the NBFC.
The bank didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings. NBFC argued that the Complaint was time-barred, as the Complainant approached them in 2018 after 8 years and filed the complaint after 5 years.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission noted that the Complainant a payment amounting to Rs. 15,500/- towards dues which was confirmed by the bank, stating there were no outstanding dues in the credit card account, and assurance was given regarding the updating of the appropriate status in CIBIL records. However, discrepancies arose, wherein the bank informed the Complainant about an overdue amount of Rs. 5,41,831/-. Subsequently, it noted that the NBFC demanded Rs. 20,491/- for a No Due Certificate and to update the amount to CIBIL.
The District Commission noted that despite giving assurances to the Complainant by the bank, the NBFC demanded Rs. 20,491/- to issue a “No Due Certificate. It held both the bank and the NBFC liable for deficiency in services.
Consequently, the District Commission directed the bank and the NBFC to pay a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the Complainant, with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this order until the payment is made. Additionally, they were directed to bear the litigation costs, amounting to Rs. 3,000/-, incurred by the Complainant.