Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Monday, Nov 26, 2007
ePaper
Online edition of India's National Newspaper Monday, Nov 26, 2007 ePaper |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Tamil Nadu |
|
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
Advts: Retail Plus | Classifieds | Jobs | Obituary |
Tamil Nadu
Card had a credit limit of Rs.54, 000 “Complainant has given contradictory versions on when he lost the card” CHENNAI: The State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has awarded Rs.15,000 compensation to a senior citizen for the mental agony he suffered from the negligence by a bank and another opposite party which allowed funds to be withdrawn more than the limit of a credit card which had been lost. “In these modern days of rapid communication, it is rather ridiculous that the bank should need 15 days from the date of its being notified about the loss [of credit card] to take action and hot-list,” a Commission Bench of President Justice K. Sampath and Member Pon.Gunasekaran has said. K.V. Sundaravadanan of Mahalakshmi Colony, Ashok Nagar, lodged a complaint with the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), that he had lost his Bank of Baroda credit card which had a limit of Rs.54, 000. He immediately reported the matter to the bank for the card being hot-listed, and filed a police complaint. However, from the opposite parties statement, he found that his stolen card had been misused to the extent of Rs.1.50 lakh. Approval had been given for payments in excess of the card’s limit. The complainant cited BOB Cards Ltd, Mumbai, and the Credit Card Department of Bank of Baroda, Anna Salai, as the opposite parties. The opposite parties submitted that as per the terms and conditions, if a card was lost or stolen, the card holder’s liability would cease only 15 days after receipt of the intimation letter by the bank. The complainant had given contradictory versions on when he had lost the card. He was negligent in keeping the card with him. He had no right to allege deficiency in service. As the district forum dismissed the complaint, the complainant filed an appeal. The Commission Bench said it was immaterial when and where the card was lost. The limit fixed was Rs.54, 000. When the limit had been exceeded, the bank should check with the complainant. There was no evidence that the complainant was permitted to exceed that limit after he had been contacted and he had made any such request. The moment the loss was brought to the notice of the opposite parties, they should have hot-listed the card and should not have allowed further credit. This was not done. “The opposite parties shall if at all be entitled to claim Rs.54,000 only from the complainant and having regard to the conduct of the opposite parties, we direct that this will not carry any interest,” the Bench said, and set aside the district forum’s order.
Printer friendly
page
News:
ePaper |
Front Page |
National |
Tamil Nadu |
Andhra Pradesh |
Karnataka |
Kerala |
New Delhi |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Miscellaneous |
Engagements |
|
 
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | The Hindu ePaper | Business Line | Business Line ePaper | Sportstar | Frontline | Publications | eBooks | Images | Home |
Copyright © 2007, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|
