Ernakulam District Commission Holds RBL Bank Liable For Imposing Hidden Charges On Credit Account, Failure To Close Account Despite Requests

Brief Facts:

The Complainant subscribed to a credit card facility provided by RBL Bank (“Bank”). The Bank assured him that there would be no hidden/yearly charges attached to the card. After the issuance, the Complainant used the car to purchase fuel of around Rs. 50,000/-. Despite waiting for 40 days, he did not receive any text message for the payment. The Complainant tried to reach the Bank via phone calls but received no response. Therefore, he decided to close the credit card account. On raising the request, he was asked to pay Rs. 50,590/-. After the payment, he was assured that the account would be closed.

However, instead of closing the account, the Bank sent him a message with a demand of Rs. 4,718/-, which later increased to Rs. 13,153/-. Finally, the Complainant also received a legal notice with a demand of Rs. 14,859/- from the Bank. In response, he pointed out that the credit card mentioned in the notice was never issued to him and requested the removal of his name from the CIBIL defaulters' list. However, the Bank failed to take any action or correct his CIBIL record. As a result, the Complainant's credit score fell from 760 to 390.

Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Ernakulam (“District Commission”). The Bank failed to file a written statement within the statutory period. Therefore, it was proceeded against ex-parte.

Observations of the Commission:

The District Commission observed that even after the Complainant was assured that there would be no hidden charges, the Bank kept on demanding additional charges and failed to close his account. The legal notice sent by the Bank, demanding Rs. 14,859/-, was sent for a credit card which was not issued in favour of the Complainant. The Bank also failed to rectify the situation due to which the Complainant's CIBIL score was affected.

The District Commission held that the Bank's failure to close the account and rectify the Complainant's CIBIL score amounted to a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Further, since the Bank failed to file the written statement on time, the Complainant's version remained unchallenged. Reliance was placed on Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [(1994) 1 SCC 243], wherein it was held that failure to provide a promised service constitutes a deficiency.

Resultantly, the District Commission directed the Bank to remove the Complainant's name from the CIBIL defaulter list, restore his CIBIL score, and pay him Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. It was also directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for the legal costs.

Case Title: Arun MR vs M/s RBL Bank Ltd.

Case No.: C.C. No. 594/2023

Advocate for the Complainant: Tom Joseph

Advocate for the Opposite Party: None (ex-parte)

Date of Pronouncement: 26.09.2024