SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(SCDRC) 23317

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
The Chief Manager State Bank of India Main Branch Fort Salem-1 and another – Appellant
Versus
R.Venkateswaran No.194 B Kannan Kurrichi 10th ward Kattuvalam P.Mannarpalayam and another – Respondent
SC/33/A/448/2022



Daily Order

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH  : PRESIDENT

 

F.A. No. 448 of 2022

[Against the order passed in C.C. No.23 of 2022 dated 29.07.2022 on the file of DCDRC, Salem].

 

Tuesday, the 31st day of October 2023

 

1.  The Chief Manager

     State Bank of India

     Main Branch, Fort,

     Salem -636 001.

 

2.  The Manager

     SBI Cards and Payments

         Services Limited

     DLF Infinity Towers,

     Towers C, 12th Floor,

     Block-2, Building 3

     DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon

     Haryana-122 002.                                             .. Appellants/                                                               1st & 2nd Opposite parties

 

 

Vs.

 

1.  R. Venkateswaran

     S/o.Rajamanickam

     Door No.194B

     Kannankurichi 10th Ward

     Kattuvalavu,

     P.Mannarpalayam

     Salem-636 008.                                            .. 1st Respondent/

                                                                                Complainant

 

2.   The Managing Director

      Magic Bricks Realty Services Ltd.,

      9-10, Bahadursha Zafarmarg

      Balmiki Basti, Vikram Nagar

      New Delhi-110 002.                                     .. 2nd Respondent/

                                                                        3rd Opposite party

 

 Counsel for the Appellants/

           Opposite parties No.1 & 2        : M/s.A. Damodaran

 

Counsel for the 1st Respondent/

                        Complainant              :  M/s.V. Balaji

 

For the 2nd Respondent/

                3rd Opposite party              :  Served called absent

 

 

                The 1st Respondent as Complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission against the opposite parties praying for certain directions. The District Commission had passed an ex-parte order and allowed the complaint, in part.  Against the said ex-parte order, this appeal is preferred by the 1st & 2nd opposite parties, praying to set aside the order of the District Forum, Salem dated 29.07.2022 in C.C. No.23 of 2022.

 

                This appeal came before me for final hearing today, on 31.10.2023.  Upon hearing the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, 1st respondent, perusing the documents, lower court records and the order passed by the District Commission, this Commission made the following order in the open court.

ORDER

THIRU.R.SUBBIAH, PRESIDENT(Open court)

                The opposite parties 1 & 2 before the District Commission are the appellants herein.

       

        2. The case of the complainant before the District Commission is that he is working as a Sheristadar of Subordinate Judge Court, Salem.  The Assistant Manager of the 1st opposite party approached the complainant and convinced him to obtain a SBI Credit Card.  At the time of issuing the Credit Card the opposite parties gave assurance that they would not charge for annual maintenance of the credit card.  But, in the first bill itself, the opposite parties had charged the annual charges.  On enquiry, he was informed that if he makes credit liabilities for Rs.2000/- within two months the annual charges would be adjusted.  Hence, the complainant availed credit facilities for a sum of Rs.6000/-.  Inspite of the same, the complainant was again charged the annual charges.  Therefore, the complainant lodged a complaint with the SBI Credit Card customer care centre on 20.03.2021 through email.  On the same day, the complainant received a phone call from the SBI Credit Card customer care centre and the executive explained about the reward point conversion and reduced the annual maintenance charges.  During the conversation, there was a fraudulent transaction of Rs.24,240/- to the 3rd opposite party.  Immediately, the complainant declined the transaction but the opposite parties failed to cancel the said fraudulent transaction of Rs.24,240/- from the complainant’s credit card accou

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top