Told to pay Rs 27,000 credit card ‘dues’ after 17 years, man wins Rs 9,000 from HDFC

“Moreover, after about 17 years from the date of said disputed transactions, the appellants (HDFC Bank), vide notice dated 11.01.2022 demanded an amount of Rs 27,593.43 from the respondent/complainant, which is totally against law and time-barred,” the June 8 order read.

‘Card surrendered in 2005’

The complainant claimed that he had availed credit card facility from HDFC Bank in 2005 and the maximum limit for using the amount by way of credit was Rs 20,000. It was also mentioned that he had a savings bank account with HDFC Bank and all the transactions were being conducted by him from the said bank account.

It was alleged that the complainant was served with the details of expenses spent through the credit card in 2005, but to the utter surprise of the complainant, except the amount of Rs 4,000, he had not at all used the said credit card for any other purposes.

He approached the bank, which later assured that the credit card amount would be rescheduled accordingly. The complainant allegedly surrendered the credit card in June 2005 and was under the impression that the bank had settled the alleged credit card statement.

However, it was claimed by the complainant that in the second week of January 2022, he was served with a letter showing the credit balance of Rs 27,593. He alleged that not a single penny was outstanding, and the notice was served after about 17 years.

The complainant stated that he approached the bank and requested to withdraw the letter, but they failed to accede to the request. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank, he filed a consumer complaint before the district commission.

Aggrieved by the outcome at the district forum which ordered a payout of Rs 9,000, HDFC Bank moved the state commission. The complainant was represented by advocate Abhinav Jain.

No proof of surrender: HDFC

Advocate Niharika Goyal, appearing for HDFC Bank, submitted that the bank was not afforded an opportunity to be heard.

It was contended that if the bank had been heard, they would have filed a detailed reply to the complaint, which is completely misconceived and without merit.

The complainant had misled the district commission by stating that he had surrendered his credit card, whereas no evidence has been placed on record to substantiate the same, it was stated. In fact, it stated that the credit card could not have been surrendered since there were dues, which were to be paid by the complainant.

‘No irregularity in district forum’s order’

• The state commission found that HDFC Bank cannot claim they were not afforded an opportunity of being heard, as there was negligence on their part for not contesting the complaint despite service.
• It upheld the district commission’s order, finding no irregularity in it, and dismissed HDFC’s appeal, while directing it to issue a no-dues certificate to the complainant.
• The commission found that the district commission rightly held the bank to be deficient in providing service as they failed to redress the complainant’s grievance in a time-bound manner despite his repeated written requests.

Significance of ruling

This ruling underscores that banks cannot revive allegedly outstanding dues after the passage of several years and seek recovery through fresh notices. Financial institutions are expected to address customer grievances promptly and provide efficient and timely services, failing which they may be held liable for deficiency in service.

For consumer-related grievances, individuals may contact the consumer helpline in their respective states (Chandigarh: 0172-2700183) or call the National Consumer Helpline at 1915 for assistance.