Vishakhapatnam District Commission Holds SBI Liable For Issuing Credit Card And Deducting Unjustified Charges Without Account Holder's Consent
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Dr Gudla Tanuja(President) and Rahimunnisa Begum (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for issuing a credit card without the account holder's consent, which subsequently led to unjustified charges, wrongful deductions, and illegal collection...
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam (Andhra Pradesh) bench of Dr Gudla Tanuja(President) and Rahimunnisa Begum (Member) held State Bank of India liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practices for issuing a credit card without the account holder's consent, which subsequently led to unjustified charges, wrongful deductions, and illegal collection of amounts.
Brief Facts:
The Complainant held a salary account with the State Bank of India. Without her consent, she received a credit card through post. Upon querying, she was assured that no additional charges beyond an annual fee of Rs. 448/- would apply. Despite receiving the card, she never used it nor availed any credit. However, she discovered periodic deductions from her account. The Complainant claimed that she approached SBI multiple times, orally requesting reimbursement of these deductions, which were not positively addressed by SBI. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (“District Commission”) against SBI and SBI Cards & Payment Services.
In response, SBI contended that the Complainant applied for the credit card voluntarily, submitted the KYC documents and opted for auto-debit authorization. According to it, monthly statements were regularly sent to her registered email which demonstrated her awareness of transactions and charges on the credit card. It further stated that the Complainant's card account was closed upon her request, with necessary reversals executed in May 2022.
SBI Cards & Payment Services didn't appear before the District Commission for proceedings.
Observations by the District Commission:
The District Commission held the unilateral charges levied by SBI without the Complainant's authorization, constituted a breach of trust. Despite the Complainant's authorization for debits from her savings account, SBI irregularly deducted partial amounts. It held that this was not communicated to the Complainant in advance and resulted in the collection of fees exceeding the agreed-upon annual charges. Despite her attempts to communicate these discrepancies to SBI, she received no timely response. Therefore, the District Commission held that the unwarranted levying of charges on an unused card and the subsequent collection from the Complainant's account amounted to clear deficiencies in SBI's service.
Consequently, the District Commission held that SBI failed in its duty to safeguard the Complainant's account properly which led to these discrepancies and wrongful deductions from her savings account. It held that this constituted a significant deficiency in service for which SBI was unquestionably liable. It dismissed the complaint against SBI Cards & Payment Services.
Therefore, the District Commission directed SBI to pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for deficiency of service and Rs. 5,000/- towards awarded costs to the Complainant.
Case Title: N. Sujatha V.L. vs SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd and Anr.
Case Number: 246/2022
Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2024