Hi ,  welcome  |  Textile views  |  Political views  |   CA and CS News  |   Legal News  |   Government jobs  |  Textile jobs 
Showing posts with label Consumer protection. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Consumer protection. Show all posts

AMIR Hospital has been ordered to pay compensation for medical negligence

Written By Views maker on Sunday, December 22, 2013 | 1:07 AM

Mrs. Anuradha wife of Dr.Kunal was admitted in A.M.I.R for treatment in the year 1998, She failed to recover and finally died. Dr.Kunal claimed that the death of his wife was due medical negligence of the AMIR Hospital and filed a suit against the Hospital and finally after 15 years of legal battle Supreme Court has awarded a Compensation for the medical Negligence.

<< Click to read Full Judgement >>

கோல்கத்தா மருத்துவமனைக்கு எதிரான வழக்கில் இழப்பீடு வழக்க உச்சநீதிமன்றம் உத்திரவு

டாக்டர் குணால் சஹாவின் மனைவி அனுராதா சஹா கடந்த 1998 ஏ.எம்.ஆர்.ஐ மருத்திவமனையில் உடல்நல குறைவு காரணமாக அனுமதிக்கபட்டார். சிகிச்சை பலன்யின்றி உயிர் இழந்நார். தன் மனைவின் இறப்பு மருத்துவமனையின் கவனகுறைவால் ஏற்பட்தாக டாக்டர் குணால் வழக்கு தோடர்ந்தார். 15 ஆண்டுகள் கழித்து கடந்த அக்டோபர் மாதம் உச்சநீதிமன்றம் இழப்பீடு வழக்க உத்திரவிட்டது.

1:07 AM | 0 comments

Survey of a land – is it a statutory obligation?

Written By Views maker on Thursday, August 4, 2011 | 12:37 AM

The district forum has considered the amount paid for survey of the land as consideration for the service to be rendered. The STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, chennai has taken a different view that it’s a statutory obligation and will not be covered under consumer protection act. kindly read the below judgement and times of India article.

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI

BEFORE : Hon’ble Thiru Justice M.THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT

Thiru A.K. ANNAMALAI, M.A.,M.L., M.Phil MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

F.A.NO.394/2010

(Against order in CC.NO.54/2008 on the file of the DCDRF, Perambalur)

DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF JULY 2011

1. The District Collector

Ariyalur

2. The Thashildar

Senthurai Appellants/ 1 and 3 opposite parties

Vs.

1. K. Malairaja

S/o. A. Kani Nadar

Government Hospital Road

Periyar Nagr, Senthurai

Ariyalur District Respondent/ Complainant

2. The Revenue Divisional Officer

Udayarpalayam Respondent/ 2nd opposite party

3. T. Karthikeyan

Head Surveyor, Taluk Office, Senthurai

4. Govindasamy

Deputy Thashildar (Given up)

Taluk Office, Senthurai Respondents/ 4 and 5 Opposite parties

The 1st Respondent as complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum against the opposite parties praying for the direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.95000/- as compensation for mental agony, alongwith cost of Rs.5000/-. The District Forum allowed the complaint. Against the said order, this appeal is preferred praying to set aside the order of the District Forum dt.06.01.2010 in CC.No.54/2008.

This petition coming before us for hearing finally on 30.06.2011. Upon hearing the arguments of the counsel on both sides, perusing the documents, lower court records, and the order passed by the District Forum, this commission made the following order:

Counsel for the Appellants/ 1 & 3 Opposite parties: M/s. K. Senthilkumar

Counsel for the 1st Respondent/Complainant : M/s. K. Malakraja

JUSTICE M. THANIKACHALAM, PRESIDENT

1. The opposite parties are the appellants.

2. The complainant/ respondent acquired ownership in Survey No.260/11, two scents, by virtue of sale deed dt.2.11.92. In the same survey No., the maternal uncle Malaikani, had purchased two scents, and purchased a house, and one Chokalingam unable to pay the loan, left the village, executing a power deed. In the year 1995, joint patta was issued in favour of Chockalingam, and the complainant, and therefore the complainant sought the subdivision by paying a sum of Rs.80/- on 7.2.2004. On 5.12.2007, when the complainant sought for FMB, he was informed to pay survey fee, in order to measure the property, which was also paid on 28.1.2008. But demanding Rs.1000/-, the surveyor by name Kasinathan, refused to measure the property, requesting the sale deed from Chockalingam. Thus having collected the amount, for measuring the property, not performing their duty, the opposite parties have committed deficiency, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.95000/-, and other appropriate relief.

3. The opposite parties, admitting the availability of the Survey No. and total extent therein, its extent, as well as the sub divisions 260/A,B,C, resisted the case, further contending that S.No.260/11C 0.01.0 belongs to one Manoranjitham, that survey No.260/11C, 260/11C1, 260/11C-2, measures 0.00.70, stands in the name of Chockalingam, Malairaja, jointly, and at the time of updating patta, it was not divided, and the title between the parties, have to be decided before measuring the property, and therefore as such, since there is a dispute between Chockalingam and complainant, as per the documents the property was measured, and if the complainant felt the area available for him is less, he ought to have approached the appropriate court, and settled the matter, and not to file the case before the consumer forum, since the case itself is not maintainable, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.

4. The District Forum assuming somuch of power, as if available under the constitution of India, issued directions not only to conduct enquiry, as well to issue patta, but also compensation, as per the order dt.6.10.2010, which is under challenge.

5. The prayer in the complaint, though many accusations and non-performance of the duties by the opposite parties are pleaded, is for the recovery of Rs.95000/- and cost of Rs.5000/-, and not for anyother relief, though in the body of the complaint, so many averments were made against the opposite parties. The District Forum had jurisdiction, to find out whether the opposite parties had committed deficiency, then issue direction, if case is maintainable, as empowered under Sec.14 of the Consumer Protection Act, nothing more, whereas the District Forum issued directions, which read:

“The present Tahsildar sendurai is directed to issue patta to the complainant containing to the area of his possession in sendurai Natham S.No.260/11 C2, 260/11C and furnish FMB effecting sub division of that particular Area under section 3 coupled with Sec.23 of patta pass book Act 1983, after conducting summery Enquiry under Rule 4(3) and (4) of Tamil Nadu Patta Pass book Rules 1987, within 60 days.

The tahsildar who was functioning at Senthurai as on 8.8.2008, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant for the injury caused by his evading negligent act of not conducting the summery enquiry U/R 4(3) of Tamil Nadu patta pass book rules 1987 and issued patta pass book with FMB U/S 3 coupled with Sec. 23 of patta pass book Act 1983, alongwith cost of Rs.2000/-.

The opposite party is directed to collect the compensation from the concerned Tahsildhar who functioned as on 8.8.2008, at Sendurai, and pay it in the forum to the complainant within a month, on his failure, the order is enforceable against him.

We do not know, under what circumstances, this kind of order was issued even without prayer, where the opposite parties were not directed to meet this kind of case. Thus, by going through the prayer in the complaint, and the result in the order, it is crystal clear that the District Forum had exceeded its jurisdiction, unwantedly, unnecessarily which can be seen from the nature of the complaint also, further.

6. The reliefs available under the Consumer Protection Act, are generally restricted one, though the reliefs are in addition to the reliefs available under other laws. Only certain categories of persons are permitted to tap the doors of the consumer forum, and that person should be a consumer”, as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Act, as well the service, as defined under Sec.2(1)(o). What are the reliefs, a consumer fora can grant are catalogued under Sec.14. The reliefs sought for in the complaint, neither comes under the Consumer Forum, nor the complainant comes within the meaning of consumer, nor the opposite parties come, within the meaning of service provider. This being the position, it is not known, why the District Forum constrained itself, to assess the provisions available under Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Rules, etc., that too, when there is dispute between the parties, regarding the joint patta, ownership etc., that can be seen from the cursory reading of the complaint, since the complainant himself has stated, that there was joint patta, and one of the joint pattadhar left to Madras, giving power of attorney etc Therefore, when the surveyor attempted to measure the property, as per the documents, he found certain difficulties, and in that view, he expressed it is not possible to demarcate the property, issue FM, which cannot be termed as deficiency in service. Under the above stated circumstances, the complainant ought to have gone to the Civil court, to agitate his title, extent, then alone he ought to have approached the revenue authorities, for subdivision of the property, and having failed, as if everything was admitted, a consumer complaint came to be filed, which is not maintainable, even if it is true.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant urged before us, that the opposite parties are not the service providers, whereas they are discharging their statutory function, who will not come within the meaning of service provider, which, submission we are unable to ignore in view of the Apex Court ruling, as seen from Maharish Dayanand University Vs. Surjeet Kaurm reported in (2010) 11 Supereme Court Cases 159, and the same also can be seen from the causetitle. The opposite parties are District Collector and Tahsildhar. Their services are not hired or availed, as defined under Sec.2 (d)(ii) for consideration, and this service also will not come under Sc.2(1)(o). The payment of Rs.80/- or whatever may be the amount, to measure the property is a statutory liability, which will not come within the meaning of consideration. Nowhere in the complaint, it is stated, that the opposite parties are service providers, committed deficiency in service etc. This kind of position was considered, in the above quoted judgement, in paragraph 13, where it is observed “but the Act does not intend to cover discharge of statutory function”, though that case relates to examination conducted by the university. There is no contract between the opposite parties, and the complainant also. There is no question of malfeasance and misfeasance. This being the position, when the title is claimed, on the basis of the sale deed, and when there is a dispute between the neighbours, which resulted in measuring the property, the consumer forum, cannot poke its nose, unnecessarily, since that is the duty of the civil forum to decide the case of the title, extent etc The District Forum, unfortunately exceeding its jurisdiction, straining unnecessarily, strained the opposite parties also, making them uncomfortable to do their job properly, and this kind of order should not be allowed to remain in the papers, and it should be erased, without trace, for that appeal deserves acceptance

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.54/2008 dt.6.1.2010, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout.

Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.

A.K.ANNAMALAI M.THANIKACHALAM

JUDICIALMEMBER PRESIDENT

INDEX : YES / NO

Rsh/d/mtj/Bench-1/Government

 

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Complete mutation in a month, consumer forum tells city survey

TNN Jan 4, 2011, 07.14am IST

NAGPUR: In a significant verdict that will provide respite to lakhs of citizens purchasing new homes, the Nagpur district consumer forum has directed the city survey officers to complete the mutation of properties within a month. A bench comprising chairman Vijaysingh Rane and member Milind Kedar found the city survey offices guilty of deficiency in services as per section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act. The forum directed the concerned officials to pay 1,000 as compensation for causing harassment to the complainants.

The forum's ruling came while hearing complaints filed by Bhagwat Ramde, Kishor Dahikar and Kamalabai Aphale, alleging that the city survey offices failed to complete the mutation of their properties despite a lapse of several months. Tushar Mandlekar and VA Bagaddeo were counsels for complainants while additional public prosecutor Jyoti Vajani represented city survey officers.

According to Mandlekar, it is necessary for city survey offices to record the mutation of properties within 30 days from the receipt of the application. Since the authorities charge a fee in the form of 5 court fee stamp, they fall under the definition of servicing a consumer, and they commit a deficiency in service by not providing mutation within the stipulated period.

The respondents had admitted the delay of several months in noting the mutation of the complainants, but justified it by saying that it was unintentional since officials were busy in other activities, like measurement of land, preparation of maps, election duties and other court cases. They also argued that since they are statutory authorities, and not earning any profits, they do not render any services hence there is no question of deficiency therein.

The forum allowed the complaint while observing that since the authorities have charged fees, they're bound to provide service. Since the time limit is fixed by the commissioner of land records as 30 days, the service ought to be completed in that period. As the authorities delayed the mutations beyond three months, they have undoubtedly committed a deficiency in services.

The forum also passed the general direction that city survey officers should decide the mutation applications in the stipulated period of 30 days.

On another contention by complainants that the city survey officers charge 15 per entry for grant of property card, popularly known as 'aakhiv patrika', which is against the provisions of the law, the forum asked the respondents to seek clarification from higher authorities.

Legal eagles said that a large number of citizens throughout the state would be benefited by this decision of the forum.

City survey offices admitted the delay, but justified it by saying that it was unintentional since officials were busy in other activities, like measurement of land, preparation of maps, election duties and other court cases.

12:37 AM | 1 comments

Reliance communication – excess charging case

Written By Views maker on Tuesday, August 2, 2011 | 1:50 AM

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, COIMBATORE-18.

Present: Thiru R.DHANDAPANI, B.Sc.,B.L., President

Thiru K.RATHINAM, M.A., Member

Tmt.S.SARASWATHI, B.Sc., Member

C.C.NO.374/2009

Thursday, the 30th day of June, 2011

P.SRILAKSHMI, w/o R.Prakash,

42 -1,KRG Nagar 4th Street,Ward No.72,

Ganapathy (w),Coimbatore - 641 006. .... Complainant

... Vs ...

1.The Authorised Representative,

M/s RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,

K.R.Complex,1295,Sathy Road,

Ganapathy (PO),Coimbatore - 641006.

2.The Authorised Representative,

M/s RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,

Alankar Building,551,D.B.Road,

R.S.Puram,Coimbatore -2.

3. The Authorised Representative,

Customer Care Division,

M/s RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD,

H Block 1st Floor,Dhirubai Ambani Knowledge City,

Navi Mumbai - 400710, Maharastra.

4. The Proprietor,

KRISHNA COMMUNICATION,

M/s Reliance Communications Ltd,

Authorised Outlet,K.R.Complex,1295,Sathy Road,

Ganapathy (PO),Coimbatore - 6. Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 27.6.2011 in the presence of M/s.S.Radharamanan, Advocate for complainant and of M/s.Ramani & Shankar for the opposite parties 1 to 3 subsequently they remained absent and set exparte and the fourth opposite party called absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

THIRU R.DHANDAPANI, PRESIDENT

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant obtained broadband net connection by remitting security deposit of Rs.3500/- with the fourth opposite party on 31.3.09. The opposite parties promised that the net connection would be provided immediately. The opposite parties 2 to 4 are the branches of the 1st opposite party and the 4th opposite party is the authorized outletting unit of the above opposite parties. However the net connection provided on 4.4.09 but suddenly from 10.4.09 the net connection was not at all working. For the complaint of the complainant to the executives of the opposite parties there was no response. But on 12.4.09 she received a phone call from a third opposite party stating the net connection was cut of due to alleged heavy usage and she has to pay Rs.4000/-. It is pertinent to note that neither any instruction manual nor other instructions were supplied to the complainant regarding the procedures and conditions for usage of the net connection by the opposite parties. Hence the question of heavy usage of the broadband connection does not arise at all. Without any notice are providing opportunity of being heard to the complainant the opposite parties have cut off the broadband connection which is an unfair and restrictive trade practice. When the complainant contacted the third opposite party through email she received a reply on 14.4.09 directing her to pay a sum of Rs.5,193.80p as her dues which is a false claim. For further email reminders of the complainant there was no response. Instead she received an email from the third opposite party stating the claim of Rs.7,111.34p was waived and the complainant was remit to Rs.535.60 towards monthly bills which is unjustified when the broadband connection itself had been cut off on 12.4.09 as per the version of the opposite parties. Whileso, the second opposite party sent a legal notice dt. 1.7.09 with a false claim of Rs.655.06p and threatening to initiate actions against the complainant if the amount is not paid. The very unlawful acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Without prejudice to her rights and to avoid threats from the opposite parties the complainant was forced to remit Rs.700/-. When the complainant demanded the opposite parties to repay the security deposit paid by her they refused to return it to the complainant. The acts of the opposite parties have caused mental agony and financial loss to the complainant. Hence she caused a legal notice to be issued to the opposite parties on 10.7.09. There was no response from the opposite parties. But the represented of the second opposite party threatened the husband of the complainant in his office. Further the third opposite party sent demand letter dt.18.7.09 and 18.8.09 making false claims. Hence this complaint. The opposite parties may be directed to refund the security deposit of Rs.3500 collected from the complainant with interest at the rate of 24%p.a. from 31.3.09 till the date of repayment and refund a sum of Rs.700 that has been wrongly collected from her by them, they may be also directed defer all the bills from 12.4.09 and to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc. caused to her besides a cost of Rs.5000/-.

The written version allegations of the opposite parties 1 to 3, in brief, is as below:

2. The complainant applied for a postpaid broadband connection on 30.3.09 and opted for Rs.650 plan. For the said purpose she has purchased High Speed Data card (HSD) from the fourth opposite party on payment of Rs.3500 which is an outright purchase and is not a security deposit made by her. No further sums has been paid by her to the opposite parties. The HSD card was activated on 31.3.09. The credit limit was only Rs.500/-. However the complainant’s usage was very high owing to the fact that she has using the internet to chat to Australia and in the circumstances on 10.4.09 the opposite parties made a request to her to make an interim payment to enjoy un-interruption service. However the complainant did not make any payment. On 13.4.09 she addressed email seeking particulars about her broadband usage and it was provided to her immediately on 14.4.09. On 16.4.09 she wanted further clarifications and it was replied to by the opposite parties on 20.4.09 even thereafter the complainant did not make any payment. In the meantime, the first bill for the complainant was generated on 18.4.09 for a sum of Rs.7391 covering the period 31.3.09 to 17.4.09 for data usage of 3621MB. The due date for payment was 6.5.09. But the complainant did not make payment and hence her connection was temporarily barred due to non payment of bill. During the period of March, April 2009 on account of a problem in the system of the opposite parties, the mobile Directory Numbers – MDN were not automatically barred even after usage over and above credit limits due to a failure in the backup system. Therefore, the opposite parties decided to waive off the bill amounts for such period for the customers and a sum of Rs.7,114 was waived in the case of the complainant and she was requested only to pay the balance amount. Even thereafter the complainant did not pay the balance amount. The opposite parties sent replies to her on 25.6.09 and 30.6.09. Thereafter there was no reply from the complainant. The subsequent bills were generated on 18.5.09 and 18.6.09 for the sum of Rs.258.15 and 119.38p respectively. These bills reflecting the charges towards rentals and not for usage. The total amount outstanding as per the bill dt.18.6.09 was Rs.700 which was payable by 6.7.09. After much explanation, the complainant has made payment of the said amount only on 8.7.09. Thereafter, the complainant continued to avail the services of the opposite parties and in respect thereof, bills dt.18.7.09 and 18.8.09 were generated which remain unpaid till today. The amount of Rs.3500 by the complainant to the 4th opposite party was not a security deposit and in any event none was collected by these opposite parties. Hence there is no question of refund because HSD card purchase is an outright purchase by the complainant and, therefore, cannot be surrendered. The complainant, after having enjoyed a complete benefit of waiver for a huge sum of Rs.7,114/-, is greedy for more and is trying to arm-twist opposite parties further to waive of the entire sums and avail of free service without making any payment. The complaint is driven by malafide. It is specifically denied that the services rendered by opposite parties were deficient. The complaint is, therefore liable to be dismissed.

3. The 4th opposite party received the notice from this Forum on 7.10.09 but he failed to appear before this Forum on the hearing date. Hence he was called on 2.11.09 in Open Forum found absent and set exparte.

4. The opposite parties 1 to 3 failed to file Proof Affidavit. Their counsel reported no instructions. Hence notice was ordered to them. The above opposite parties failed to appear and filed Proof Affidavit.

5. With regard to second opposite party paper publication was made in one issue of Makal Kural for their appearance on 5.5.11. However, third opposite party failed to appear on 5.5.11. He was called absent and set exparte.

6. Thereafter, the opposite parties 1 to 4 remained exparte after filing of the written version of opposite parties 1 to 3.

7. The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:-

1. Whether the opposite parties have committed

deficiency in service?

2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINTS No.1 & 2:-

8. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service on the following scores:-

  1. when the Net connection was not working from 10.4.09, after installation on 4.4.09, the opposite parties unlawfully demanded Rs.4000/- and disconnected the broadband connection without any notice to her thereby causing sufferings to her;
  2. the opposite parties have collected a sum of Rs.700 from her when she was not used the broadband connection cut off;
  3. the opposite parties have refused to refund the security amount of Rs.3500 paid by her;

9. In support of her claim, the complainant has filed Ex.A1 (series) the email correspondence she had with the opposite parties. A perusal of the above document clearly reveal that the complainant has requested the opposite parties to provide details has to how the charges are claimed when the broadband connection has already been disconnected in the previous week. A perusal of the above document further reveals that the opposite parties, without furnishing the details required by the complainant, went on claiming further amounts from her which is a clear case of deficiency in service to the customer.

10. A perusal of Ex.A3 reveals that the opposite parties have caused a legal notice to be issued to the complainant on 1.7.09 demanding dues to the extent of Rs.655.06p without furnishing any details and, threatening to initiate legal proceedings against her.

11. A perusal of Ex.A4, receipt dt.8.7.09, supports the contention of the complainant that she had been forced to pay an amount of Rs.700/- in view of the threatening activities of the opposite parties.

12. Ex.A5 is the legal notice of the complainant dt.10.7.09 addressed to the opposite parties seeking details and her grievances. She has further requested therein to refund the deposit amount of Rs.3500/- etc. failing which she would be forced to take suitable action through the Consumer Forum.

13. Ex.A6 to A8 acknowledgement cards reveals that the opposite parties have received the above notices but they have not complied with them or sent any reply to the complainant .

14. Failure to reply to the notice of the customer is also a case of deficiency in service. Since, they have not sent any reply to the above legal notice, it has to be presumed that they have accepted the allegations made therein.

15. A perusal of Ex.A9 and A10, bills dt. 18.7.09 and 18.8.09, reveal that the opposite parties have committed further deficiency in service demanding amount of Rs.231.28 and 651.32p respectively without furnishing any details to the complainant.

16. Though the opposite parties have filed a written version stating that the amount of Rs.3500/- was collected from the complainant towards sale of high speed data card to her and the complainant exceeded the credit limit etc. they have not submitted any evidence, muchless acceptable evidence before this Forum in support of their claims. Hence, we do not find any force in their contention.

17. The evidence submitted by the complainant have categorically established that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by charging amounts from her without furnishing details when the broadband connection had been disconnected within six days of the provision of the connection to her and failed to refund the security deposit inspite of her repeated requests thereby causing financial loss and sufferings to her.

18. From the above facts and evidence, it stands proved that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and the complainant is entitled to compensation. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties jointly and severally

a. To refund the sum of Rs.3500/- collected from the complainant towards security deposit with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from 31.3.09 till the date of payment;

b. To refund a sum of Rs.700/- being the amount wrongly collected from her;

c. To defer all the bills from 12.4.09;

d. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant due to their deficiency in service, and

e. to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings

within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 30th day of June, 2011.

(Sd/-…) (Sd/-…) (Sd/-..)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:

1. Ex.A1/1-4-09 to Demand Letter copies of E-Mail demand sent to the 3rd opposite

30-6-09 party vide their customer care departments and their E-Mails.

2. Ex.A2/18-6-09 Copy of Bill issued by the 3rd opposite party.

3. Ex.A3/1-7-09 Copy of Advocate notice issued by the 2nd opp.party

4. Ex.A4/8-7-09 Copy of payment receipt issued by the 4th opp.party.

5. Ex.A5/10-7-09 Copy of Advocate notice issued by the complainant along with postal receipt (4 Nos)

6. Ex.A6/14-7-09 Acknowledgement card signed by the 1st opp.party.

7. Ex.A7/14-7-09 Acknowledgement card signed by the 2nd opp.party.

8. Ex.A8/14-7-09 Acknowledgement card signed by the 4th opp.party.

9. Ex.A9/18-7-09 Copy of Bill issued by the 3rd opposite party

10.Ex.A10/18-8-09 Copy of Bill issued by the 3rd opposite party with address cover.

(Sd/-…) (Sd/-…) (Sd/-..)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

1:50 AM | 0 comments

Receipt with no endorsement is more than enough in credit card settlement

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, COIMBATORE-18.

Present: Thiru R.DHANDAPANI, B.Sc.,B.L., President

Thiru K.RATHINAM, M.A., Member

Tmt.S.SARASWATHI, B.Sc., Member

C.C.NO.39/2010

Monday, the 11th day of July, 2011

A.P.Muruganandam,

S,o A.N.Palanisamy,

No.4, B.K.R. Nagar, Sathy Road,

Coimbatore- 641 012. --- Complainant

Vs

1. SBI Cards & Payment Services (P) Ltd.,

P.B. No. 28, G.R.O, New Delhi- 110 001.

2. Stat Bank of India,

Cards & Payment Recovery Services,

Coimbatore- 641 011. --- Opposite Parties

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 27.6.11 in the presence of Thiru N.D.N.Parthasarathy, Advocate for complainant and of Thiru A.M. Martin, Advocate for opposite parties and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

THIRU R.DHANDAPANI, PRESIDENT

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is as below:

1. The complainant was the holder of credit card issued by the opposite parties. Final settlement was made on 18.3.06 and the complainant closed his credit card account. The receipt issued by the collection agent bars the endorsement ”AGAINST FULL SETTLEMENT” since then, the complainant had nothing to do with the credit card account and it was agreed that nothing more remained to be paid. Whileso the complainant was shocked to receive a letter from the first opposite party claiming as due a sum of Rs.3,283.17p as if the credit card account was still alive. There was also a threat of appropriate legal proceedings against the complainant. Further the complainant received frequent telephone calls from the local Collection agent using foul language which caused great mental agony to the complainant. Hence the complainant caused a legal notice to be issued on 7.10.09 for which the opposite parties sent a reply. The complainant who is an engineer with good business dealings and contacts has been harassed to the maximum extent by the opposite parties. Hence they should be directed to give a clear guidance towards his past credit card account and pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony besides cost of the proceedings.

The written version allegations of the opposite party, in brief, is as below:

2. The complaint is bad for non joinder of parties. The complainant has paid dues pertaining to the month of March 2006 in part as against the total due amount and the alleged receipt with endorsement “AGAINST FULL SETTLEMENT” is totally denied by this opposite party as false and not maintainable. The endorsement on the receipt is not valid since the same should be supported by a full and final settlement letter issued by the opposite parties on its letter head. Since the card account is running account and it would continue until the procedure for closure of cards as mentioned in the card holder’s agreement is followed. No settlement letter has been obtained and the balance amount was liable to be paid. Hence, the charges have been accumulating over the period of time. The collection person is not entitled to issue receipt the such endorsement and the said collection agent who issued the receipt has not been made a party to the proceedings. When any credit account holder reminds defaulter the banks make follow up massacres to recover the amount. At no point of time, did any of the officers or agent had ever behaved as mentioned in the complaint. When the complainant chooses to use the card he subject himself to the terms and conditions of the card holder’s agreement. Hence the follow up measures had been taken within the framework of the terms and conditions of the cardholder’s agreement. There can be no deficiency of service or mental agony as alleged by the complainant. As per the terms and conditions the entire liability as far as the credit card is concern became due and payable and the same was required to be paid on the due date. Things being so the complainant never came forward to settle the amount due. The complainant has come to this Forum only with an intention to avoid payment of outstanding amount. The complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

3. The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:-

1. whether the complaint is bad for non joinder of parties?

2. whether this Forum, has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this complaint ?;

3. whether the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service? and

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to any compensation?

4. On behalf of the complainant, the Proof Affidavit of the complainant was filed and Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked.

5. On the side of the opposite parties, the Proof Affidavit of the opposite parties was filed and Ex.B1 to B3 was marked.

Point No.1

6. The opposite parties resist the claim of the complainant stating that their company is a Multi National Company and a join venture of M/s.GE Capital, incorporated at USA, with limited liability in India and the complaint is bad for non joinder of parties as the above M/s. GE Capital has not been added as a party by the complainant.

7. It is their further argument that on every usage of the card, the charge slip is sent by the vendor / shop /dealer to the acquirer who is VISA the basic company (Banker) which makes a payment to the vendor immediately on presentation of the charge slip by the vendor and, therefore, failure to implead the VISA is fatal to the case of the complainant.

8. However, there is nothing on record to show that M/s.GE Capital and the opposite parties are joint venture companies. Hence impleading of M/s.GE Capital is not necessary to this complaint.

9. Equally, the opposite parties have not produced any records, showing that the charge slip is sent by vendor to the acquirer who is VISA. Hence the contention of the opposite parties that VISA is a necessary party has to fail. Considering the above facts we hold that the complaint is not bad for non joinder of parties. Point No1 is answered accordingly.

Point No.2

10. According to the opposite parties, that as per the agreement the exclusive jurisdiction has been vested with the Courts of Delhi and, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable before this Forum. The opposite parties have not produced the so called agreement said to have been signed by the complainant limiting the jurisdiction regarding litigation to Delhi only. Hence the argument of the opposite parties on this aspect is rejected. Point 2 is answered accordingly.

Point No.3

6. The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by claiming a sum of Rs.30130 as due from him even though he has paid the entire amount payable to them on 18.3.06 by way of final settlement. It is his further case the opposite parties have caused metnal agony and sufferings to him by their threats to take legal proceedings against him.

7. Per contra, the opposite parties contend that the alleged settlement is not true and the complainant has paid dues pertaining to the month of March 2006 in part as against the total due amount and the endorsement on the receipt is not valid. Hence, according to them, the complainant is yet to make further payments for which they have issued notice and, therefore, they cannot be accused of committing deficiency in service.

8. In support of his claim for having made final payment, the complainant has submitted Ex.A1 which is titled “TEMPORARY CASH/DD/CHEQUE COLLECTED RECEITP NO.4960221”. A perusal of the above document reveals that the collecting agent of the opposite parties have collected a sum of Rs.9,000/- from the complainant on 25..3.06 against full settlement. Hence the opposite parties cannot now contend that their collection agent is not authorized to make such endorsement such as “AGAINST FULL SETTELMENT”. It is noteworthy that the above receipt stating “AGAINT FULL SETTLEMENT” has been issued in the receipt bearing the logo of the SBI Cards with the signature of their collecting agent. Hence it is too late in the day for the opposite parties to contend that the above amount was not towards full and final settlement.

9. Even though, in paragraph 5 of their written version, they have contended that the complainant has paid the above amount towards dues for the month of March 2006 in part as against the total due amount, they have not produced a single piece of paper or statement of accounts showing the amount payable by the complainant as of March 2006 showing the total amount due from him and the part amount paid by him.

10. Ex.A2 is the letter dt.19.9.09 issued by the opposites parties to the complainant demanding a sum of Rs.30,283.17p towards outstandings and payable by him for the usage of the SBI cards. It is pertinent to note that the above notice had been issued after a lapse of one year and six months of the full and final settlement made under Ex.A1 dt.18.3.06. If really that was not against full and final payment as of March 2006, the opposite parties would have sent monthly statement of accounts to the complainant and would have resorted to legal proceedings when the amount is not paid in time. But they have sent Ex.A2, the legal notice dt.19.9.09, after a lapse of three and half years revealing that their contentions are not true.

11. Ex.A4 is the legal notice issued by the advocates of the opposite parties dt.17.12.09 from New Delhi wherein they have demanded a sum of Rs.32,113.74p as due and payable by the complainant towards the usage of the credit card by the complainant. In the above notice, they have threatened to initiate arbitration proceedings etc. if the amount is not paid. When the complainant has made full and final settlement as early as March 2006, as per Ex.A1 the question of complainant paying further amount warranting legal action in the year 2009 does not arise. At any rate, when a dispute has been raised before this Forum in this regard the opposite parties are bound to submit the statement of accounts and explain how the above amount is due, and payable by the complainant. However they have not let in any evidence, muchless acceptable evidence, in this regard. The above facts unfold that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service by claiming the above amount from the complainant inspite of the full and final settlement made by him and have caused him mental agony and sufferings by their legal notice etc.

12. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service and they are liable to pay compensation to the complainant for the mental agony sustained by her. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

13. In the result the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite parties (a) to issue No Due Certificate to the complainant with regard to the credit card Account No.4317575024838162; (b) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant due to their deficiency in service, and(c) to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings within a period of two months from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 11th day of July, 2011.

(Leave) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:

1. Ex.A1/18-3-06 Copy of the receipt issued by the opposite parties.

2. Ex.A2/19-9-09 Copy of letter issued by the 1st opposite party.

3. Ex.A3/7-10-09 Copy of the legal Notice issued by the complainant to opp.parties

4. Ex.A4/17.12.09 Copy of reply to the above legal notice

5. Ex.A5/18.12.10 Copy of notice issued by District Legal Services Authority

List of Exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

1. Ex.B1/- Copy SBI Credit card’s manual

2. Ex.B2/- Copy of tariff and charges applicable for card

3. Ex.B3/- Copy of terms and conditions of card

(Leave) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

1:35 AM | 0 comments

Failure to reply the notice under consumer protection act would amount to deficiency of service

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL

FORUM, COLLECTORATE CAMPUS, COIMBATORE-18.

Present: Thiru R.DHANDAPANI, B.Sc.,B.L., President

Thiru K.RATHINAM, M.A., Member

Tmt.S.SARASWATHI, B.Sc., Member

C.C.NO.155/2011

Tuesday, the 19th day of July, 2011

S.Sakthi Ganapathy,M.Com.,B.L.,

Advocate, 91, Uppara Street,

Coimbaatore- 641 001. .... Complainant

... Vs ...

Franch Express Net Work Pvt., Ltd.,

B-7, Madhani Complex, 100 Feet Road,

8th Street Corner, Gandhipuram,

Coimbatore- 641 012 rep.by its Manager. Opposite Party

This case coming on for final hearing before us on 12.7.2011 in the presence of Thiru. S.Shanmugam, Advocate for complainant and the opposite party remained absent and set exparte and upon perusing the case records and hearing the arguments and the case having stood over to this day for consideration, this Forum passed the following:

ORDER

THIRU R.DHANDAPANI, PRESIDENT

Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

The averments in the complaint are as follows:

1. The complainant has filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service by the opposite party/courier. According to him, the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by failing to deliver a consignment sent by him through them on 1.3.11 which has caused mental agony and financial loss to him.

2. The opposite party received the notice from this Forum on 10.6.10. However he did not appear before this Forum on the hearing date ie. on 28.6.11.

3. Again the matter was posted to 12.7.11 the opposite party did not appear on that date also. Hence he was found absent and set exparte.

4. The points that arise for consideration in this complaint are:-

1. Whether the opposite party has committed deficiency in service?

2. If so, what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINT Nos:1 & 2:-

5. To prove his claim, the complainant has filed his proof affidavit and Exhibits A1 to A3 were marked.

6. Ex.A1 is the courier docket dt.1.3.11. A perusal of it reveals that the complainant has sent a consignment through the opposite party on that day

7. Ex.A2 is the legal notice dt.28.3.11 sent by the complainant. In the above letter, he has asked the opposite party to deliver the consignment to the addressee and also to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to him for the mental agony etc. sustained by him.

8. A perusal of Ex.A3, the copy of acknowledgement card, reveals that the opposite party/courier has received the above notice on 29.3.11. However, they have not sent any reply to the complainant.

9. Failure to reply to the notice of the customer is also a case of deficiency in service. Since they have not sent any reply to the above legal notice, it has to be presumed that they have accepted the allegations made therein.

10. Hence, we hold that the opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not delivering the consignment sent by the complainant through the opposite party under Ex.A1 and have caused mental agony and sufferings to him and, therefore, the complainant is entitled to compensation. Points 1 and 2 are answered accordingly.

19. In the result, the complaint is allowed. We direct the opposite party:-

a. To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation for mental agony and other sufferings caused to the complainant due to their deficiency in service, and

b. to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- towards cost of the proceedings

within a period of one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute this order u/s.25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Pronounced by us in Open Forum on this the 19th day of July, 2011.

(Sd/-) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:

1. Ex.A1/1-3-11 Copy of consignment slip No. A19248253

2. Ex.A2/ 28-3-11 Copy of legal notice.

3. Ex.A3/29-3-11 Copy of Acknowledgement card.

(Sd/-) (Sd/-) (Sd/-)

(K.RATHINAM) (S.SARASWATHI) (R.DHANDAPANI)

Member Member President

1:30 AM | 0 comments

MASTER CIRCULAR ON CREDIT CARD OPERATIONS OF BANKS

Written By Views maker on Monday, July 18, 2011 | 10:52 PM

CIRCULAR NO. DBOD.NO.FSD.BC. 14 / 24.01.011/ 2011-12, DATED 1-7-2011

Please refer to the Master Circular No. DBOD.FSD.BC.16/24.01.011/2010-11, dated July 1, 2010 on credit card operations of banks consolidating the instructions/guidelines issued to banks till June 30, 2010. The Master Circular has been suitably updated by incorporating instructions issued upto June 30, 2011. The Master Circular has also been put on the RBI website (http://www.rbi.org.in). A copy of the Master Circular is enclosed. All the credit card issuing banks/NBFCs should adhere to these guidelines strictly.

Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of banks

A. Purpose To provide a framework of rules/regulations/standards/practices to the credit card issuing banks/NBFCs for their credit card business and ensure that the same are in alignment with the best customer practices. Banks should adopt adequate safeguards and implement the following guidelines in order to ensure that their credit card operations are run on sound, prudent and customer friendly manner.

B. Classification A statutory guideline issued by the RBI.

C. Previous guidelines consolidated This Master Circular consolidates the instructions contained in the circulars listed in the Appendix.

D. Scope of Application To all Scheduled Commercial Banks (excluding RRBs) / NBFCs that engage in credit card business directly or through their subsidiaries or affiliated companies controlled by them.

Structure

1. Introduction

1.1 Background

1.2 Basic features of credit cards

1.3 Types of credit cards

1.4 Fair Practices Code

2. Issue of cards

3. Interest rates and other charges

4. Wrongful billing

5. Use of DSAs/ DMAs and other agents

6. Protection of customers rights

6.1 Right to privacy

6.2 Customer confidentiality

6.3 Fair practices in debt collection

7. Redressal of Grievances

8. Internal control and monitoring systems

9. Fraud Control

10. Right to impose penalty

Annex- Most Important Terms and Conditions

Appendix – List of circulars consolidated

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

1.1.1 This circular is aimed at providing general guidance to banks/NBFCs on their credit card operations, and the systems and controls expected of them in managing their credit card business. It also sets out the best practices that they should aim to achieve.

1.1.2 Experience has shown that the quality of banks’ credit card portfolios mirrors the economic environment in which they operate. Very often, there is a strong correlation between an economic downturn and deterioration in the quality of such portfolios. The deterioration may become even more serious if banks have relaxed their credit underwriting criteria and risk management standards as a result of intense competition in the market. It is therefore important for banks to maintain prudent policies and practices for managing the risks of their credit card business which are relevant to the market environment that they operate in.

1.1.3 To facilitate a better understanding of the credit card operations, the basic features of credit cards and their associated operations are highlighted in the sub-sections below.

1.2 Basic features of credit cards

1.2.1 The term “credit card” usually/generally refers to a plastic card assigned to a cardholder, usually with a credit limit, that can be used to purchase goods and services on credit or obtain cash advances.

1.2.2 Credit cards allow cardholders to pay for purchases made over a period of time, and to carry a balance from one billing cycle to the next. Credit card purchases normally become payable after a free credit period, during which no interest or finance charge is imposed. Interest is charged on the unpaid balance after the payment is due. Cardholders may pay the entire amount due and save on the interest that would otherwise be charged. Alternatively, they have the option of paying any amount, as long as it is higher than the minimum amount due, and carrying forward the balance.

1.2.3 A credit card scheme typically involves the following parties:

l Cardholders – persons who are authorized to use credit cards for the payment of goods and services;

l Card issuers – institutions which issue credit cards;

l Merchants – entities which agree to accept credit cards for payment of goods and services;

l Merchant acquirers – Banks/NBFCs which enter into agreements with merchants to process their credit card transactions; and

l Credit card associations – organisations that license card issuers to issue credit cards under their trademark, e.g. Visa and Master card, and provide settlement services for their members (i.e. card issuers and merchant acquirers).

1.2.4 Credit card schemes normally operate at an international level too, meaning that cardholders belonging to card issuers in one country can make purchases at the place of business of merchants in another country.

1.2.5 The focus of this circular is on the operations, risks and controls associated with credit card schemes of which banks (or their subsidiaries or affiliated companies under their control) are either the card issuer or the merchant acquirer.

1.3 Types of Credit Cards

1.3.1 Credit cards can be broadly categorised into two types:

General purpose cards and private label cards: The former are issued under the trademark of credit card associations (VISA and Mastercard) and accepted by many merchants while the latter are only accepted by specific retailers (e.g. a departmental store).

Banks in India can undertake credit card business either departmentally or through a subsidiary company set-up for the purpose. They can also undertake domestic credit card business by entering into tie-up arrangement with one of the banks already having arrangements for issue of credit cards.

Prior approval of the Reserve Bank is not necessary for banks desirous of undertaking credit card business either independently or in tie-up arrangement with other card issuing banks. Banks can do so with the approval of their Boards. However, only banks with networth of Rs.100 crore and above should undertake credit card business. Banks desirous of setting up separate subsidiaries for undertaking credit card business would, however, require prior approval of the Reserve Bank. Banks should adopt adequate safeguards and implement the guidelines enunciated in this circular in order to ensure that their credit card operations are run on sound, prudent and customer friendly manner.

1.3.2 Most of the card issuing banks in India offer general purpose credit cards. These cards are normally categorised by banks as platinum, gold or classic to differentiate the services offered on each card and the income eligibility criteria. Banks may, at the request of a cardholder, issue a supplementary card (also referred to as ‘add-on cards’) to another individual who is usually an immediate family member of the cardholder.

1.3.3 It is quite common for banks to partner with business corporations or non-profit making organisations (e.g. charitable or professional bodies) to issue co-branded cards. However they need to undertake due diligence on the non-bank entity to protect themselves against the reputation risk to which they are exposed to in such an arrangement. NBFCs, which desire to enter into a co-branding arrangement for issue of credit cards with banks, may be guided by the instructions contained in Circular No. DNBS (PD) CC No.83/03.10.27/2006-07 dated December 04, 2006

1.3.4 Banks may also issue corporate credit cards to the employees of their corporate customers.

1.3.5 The types of credit cards mentioned above are illustrative and not exhaustive. Banks may, from time to time, introduce new credit card products to satisfy customer needs and cater to the changes in market conditions.

Fair Practices Code

1.4 Each bank must have a well documented policy and a Fair Practices Code for credit card operations. The Banking Codes and Standards of India(BCSBI) has released a “Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers”(Code) in July 2006 as also a Guidance Note in December 2006, which have been adopted by most of the banks with the approval of their Boards. Such of the banks which have subscribed to the BCSBI Code may incorporate the principles contained in BCSBI Code for evolving their Fair Practices Code for credit card operations, in lieu of IBA Fair Pratices Code for credit card operations. The banks’ Fair Practices Code, should at a minimum, incorporate the relevant guidelines contained in this Master Circular. Banks/NBFCs should also widely disseminate the contents of this Master Circular, including through their websites.

2. Issue of Cards

  a.  Banks/NBFCs should ensure prudence while issuing credit cards and independently assess the credit risk while issuing cards to persons, especially to students and others with no independent financial means. Add-on cards i.e. those that are subsidiary to the principal card, may be issued with the clear understanding that the liability will be that of the principal cardholder.

b.  In terms of the instructions contained in the Circular DBOD. No. Leg.BC.65/09.07.005/2006-07 dated March 6, 2007, banks have been advised that in case of all categories of loans irrespective of any threshold limits, including credit card applications, banks should convey in writing the main reason/reasons which in the opinion of the bank have led to the rejection of the loan applications. It is reiterated that banks should convey in writing the main reason/reasons which have led to the rejection of the credit card applications.

c.  As holding several credit cards enhances the total credit available to any consumer, banks/NBFCs should assess the credit limit for a credit card customer having regard to the limits enjoyed by the cardholder from other banks on the basis of self declaration/ credit information.

d.  The card issuing banks/NBFCs would be solely responsible for fulfilment of all KYC requirements, even where DSAs / DMAs or other agents solicit business on their behalf.

e.  While issuing cards, the terms and conditions for issue and usage of a credit card should be mentioned in clear and simple language (preferably in English, Hindi and the local language) comprehensible to a card user. The Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITCs) termed as standard set of conditions, as given in the Annex, should be highlighted and advertised/ sent separately to the prospective customer/ customers at all the stages i.e. during marketing, at the time of application, at the acceptance stage (welcome kit) and in important subsequent communications.

Interest rates and other charges

3. Credit card dues are in the nature of non-priority sector personal loans and as such, upto June 30, 2010, banks were free to determine the rate of interest on credit card dues without reference to their BPLR and regardless of the size in terms of the Master Circular on Interest rates on advances However, banks have been advised vide our Circular No. DBOD.No.Dir.BC.88/13.03.00/2009-10 dated April 09, 2010 that Base Rate system will replace the BPLR system with effect from July 01, 2010. All categories of loans should henceforth be priced only with reference to the Base Rate except:

(a)  DRI advances

(b)  Loans to bank’s own employees

(c)  Loans to bank’s depositors against their own deposits.

Banks are advised to be guided by the instructions contained in the circular dated April 09, 2010 while determining the interest rate on Credit card dues. Banks have also been advised vide our Circular No. DBOD No.Dir.BC.93/13.03.00/2006-07 dated May 7, 2007 that they should prescribe a ceiling rate of interest, including processing and other charges, in respect of small value personal loans and loans similar in nature. The above instructions are applicable to credit card dues also. In case, banks/ NBFCs charge interest rates which vary based on the payment/ default history of the cardholder, there should be transparency in levying of such differential interest rates. In other words, the fact that higher interest rates are being charged to the cardholder on account of his payment/default history should be made known to the cardholder. For this purpose, the banks should publicise through their website and other means, the interest rates charged to various categories of customers. Banks/NBFCs should upfront indicate to the credit card holder, the methodology of calculation of finance charges with illustrative

examples, particularly in situations where a part of the amount outstanding is only paid by the customer.

Further, the banks/NBFCs have to adhere to the following guidelines relating to interest rates and other charges on credit cards:

   a.  Card issuers should ensure that there is no delay in dispatching bills and the customer has sufficient number of days (at least one fortnight) for making payment before the interest starts getting charged. In order to obviate frequent complaints of delayed billing, the credit card issuing bank/NBFC may consider providing bills and statements of accounts online, with suitable security built therefor. Banks/ NBFCs could also consider putting in place a mechanism to ensure that the customer’s acknowledgement is obtained for receipt of the monthly statement.

b.  Card issuers should quote Annualized Percentage Rates (APR) on card products (separately for retail purchase and for cash advance, if different). The method of calculation of APR should be given with a couple of examples for better comprehension. The APR charged and the annual fee should be shown with equal prominence. The late payment charges, including the method of calculation of such charges and the number of days, should be prominently indicated. The manner in which the outstanding unpaid amount will be included for calculation of interest should also be specifically shown with prominence in all monthly statements. Even where the minimum amount indicated to keep the card valid has been paid, it should be indicated in bold letters that the interest will be charged on the amount due after the due date of payment. These aspects may be shown in the Welcome Kit in addition to being shown in the monthly statement. A legend/notice to the effect that “Making only the minimum payment every month would result in the re-payment stretching over…. years with consequent interest payment on your outstanding balance” should be prominently displayed in all the monthly statements so as to caution the customers about the pitfalls in paying only the minimum amount due.

   c.  Banks/NBFCs should step up their efforts on educating the cardholders of the implications of paying only ‘the minimum amount due’. The “Most Important Terms and Conditions” should specifically explain that the ‘free credit period’ is lost if any balance of the previous month’s bill is outstanding. For this purpose, banks/ NBFCs could work out illustrative examples and include the same in the Welcome Kit sent to the cardholders as also place it on their website.

  d.  The banks /NBFCs should not levy any charge that was not explicitly indicated to the credit card holder at the time of issue of the card and without getting his / her consent. However, this would not be applicable to charges like service taxes, etc. which may subsequently be levied by the Government or any other statutory authority.

   e.  The terms and conditions for payment of credit card dues, including the minimum payment due, should be stipulated so as to ensure that there is no negative amortization.

f.  Changes in charges (other than interest) may be made only with prospective effect giving notice of at least one month. If a credit card holder desires to surrender his credit card on account of any change in credit card charges to his disadvantage, he may be permitted to do so without the bank levying any extra charge for such closure. Any request for a closure of a credit card has to be honoured immediately by the credit card issuer, subject to full settlement of dues by the cardholder.

g.  There should be transparency (without any hidden charges) in issuing credit cards free of charge during the first year.

Wrongful billing

4. The card issuing bank/NBFC should ensure that wrong bills are not raised and issued to customers. In case, a customer protests any bill, the bank/ NBFC should provide explanation and, if necessary, documentary evidence to the customer within a maximum period of sixty days with a spirit to amicably redress the grievances.

5. Use of DSAs/DMAs and other agents

a.  When banks /NBFCs outsource the various credit card operations, they have to be extremely careful that the appointment of such service providers does not compromise with the quality of the customer service and the banks’/NBFCs’ ability to manage credit, liquidity and operational risks. In the choice of the service provider, the banks/NBFCs have to be guided by the need to ensure confidentiality of the customer’s records, respect customer privacy, and adhere to fair practices in debt collection.

b.  In terms of the BCSBI’s Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers, banks which have subscribed to the Code are required to prescribe a Code of Conduct for their Direct Sales Agents (DSAs) whose services are engaged by banks for marketing their products/services. Banks should ensure that the DSAs engaged by them for marketing their credit card products scrupulously adhere to the banks’/NBFCs’ own Code of Conduct for Credit Card operations which should be displayed on the individual bank’s/NBFC’s website and be available easily to any credit card holder.

   c.  The bank/NBFC should have a system of random checks and mystery shopping to ensure that their agents have been properly briefed and trained in order to handle with care and caution their responsibilities, particularly in the aspects included in these guidelines like soliciting customers, hours for calling, privacy of customer information, conveying the correct terms and conditions of the product on offer, etc.

Protection of Customer Rights

6. Customer’s rights in relation to credit card operations primarily relate to personal privacy, clarity relating to rights and obligations, preservation of customer records, maintaining confidentiality of customer information and fair practices in debt collection. The card issuing bank/NBFC would be responsible as the principal for all acts of omission or commission of their agents (DSAs/DMAs and recovery agents).

6.1 Right to privacy

   a.  Unsolicited cards should not be issued. In case, an unsolicited card is issued and activated without the written consent of the recipient and the latter is billed for the same, the card issuing bank shall not only reverse the charges forthwith, but also pay a penalty without demur to the recipient amounting to twice the value of the charges reversed.

b.  In addition, the person in whose name the card is issued can also approach the Banking Ombudsman who would determine the amount of compensation payable by the bank to the recipient of the unsolicited card as per the provisions of the Banking Ombudsman Scheme 2006 i.e., for loss of complainant’s time, expenses incurred, harassment and mental anguish suffered by him.

c.  There have been instances where unsolicited cards issued have been misused before reaching the person in whose name these have been issued. It is clarified that any loss arising out of misuse of such unsolicited cards will be the responsibility of the card issuing bank/NBFC only and the person in whose name the card has been issued cannot be held responsible for the same.

d.  The consent for the cards issued or the other products offered along with the card has to be explicit and should not be implied. In other words, the written consent of the applicant would be required before issuing a credit card.

e.  Unsolicited loans or other credit facilities should not be offered to the credit card customers. In case, an unsolicited credit facility is extended without the consent of the recipient and the latter objects to the same, the credit sanctioning bank/NBFC shall not only withdraw the credit limit, but also be liable to pay such penalty as may be considered appropriate.

f.  The card issuing bank/NBFC should not unilaterally upgrade credit cards and enhance credit limits. Prior consent of the borrower should invariably be taken whenever there are any change/s in terms and conditions.

g.  The card issuing bank/NBFC should maintain a Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) containing the phone numbers (both cell phones and land phones) of customers as well as non-customers (non-constituents) who have informed the bank/NBFC that they do not wish to receive unsolicited calls / SMS for marketing of its credit card products. Since the DNCR would have been already set up by the banks, they should give wide publicity to the arrangement.

h.  The intimation for including an individual’s telephone number in the Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) should be facilitated through a website maintained by the bank/NBFC or on the basis of a letter received from such a person addressed to the bank/NBFC.

   i.  The card issuing bank /NBFC should introduce a system whereby the DSAs/ DMAs as well as its Call Centers have to first submit to the bank/NBFC a list of numbers they intend to call for marketing purposes. The bank/NBFC should then refer to the Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) and only those numbers which do not figure in the Registry should be cleared for calling.

j.  The numbers cleared by the card issuing bank/NBFC for calling should only be accessed. The bank/NBFC would be held responsible if a Do Not Call Number (DNCN) is called on by its DSAs / DMAs or Call Centre/s.

k.  The card issuing bank/NBFC should ensure that the Do Not Call Registry (DNCR) numbers are not passed on to any unauthorised person/s or misused in any manner.

l.  Banks/NBFCs/ their agents should not resort to invasion of privacy viz., persistently bothering the card holders at odd hours, violation of “do not call” code etc.

m.  The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has framed the Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC) Regulations 2007 for curbing UCC. The Regulation envisages that all the telecom service providers would set up a mechanism to receive requests from subscribers who do not want to receive UCC and for this purpose they will maintain and operate a Private Do Not Call List. The Private Do Not Call List will include telephone numbers and other details of all such subscribers. The telephone numbers and area code from this Private Do Not Call List will be updated online by the operators to a National Do Not Call Registry (NDNC) which will be maintained by National Informatics Centre (NIC) and thus the NDNC will have the telephone numbers of all the subscribers all over India who have opted not to receive any UCC. Telemarketers will have to register in the NDNC Registry. The telemarketers would submit online the calling list to the NDNC Registry where the list will be modified/ scrubbed by excluding the numbers listed in the registry and the modified/scrubbed list will be online transferred back to the telemarketers for making calls. The Telecom Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC) Regulations, 2007 have been notified in the Gazette on June 6, 2007.

The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) has issued relevant guidelines for telemarketers along with the registration procedure and these guidelines have made it mandatory for telemarketers to register themselves with DoT or any other agency authorized by DoT and also specified that the telemarketers shall comply with the Guidelines and Orders/Directions issued by DoT and Orders/Directions/Regulations issued by TRAI on Unsolicited Commercial Communications (UCC). For the effective implementation of the UCC Regulations, TRAI has mandated that the telemarketers have to register themselves with the DoT, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India failing which their telecom services may face disconnection. The Telecom Service Providers have been directed to disconnect the telephone connections provided to the telemarketers in case of violation of the UCC Regulations by them.

Keeping in view the above aspects, banks are required to implement the following instructions:

  (i)  Banks should not engage Telemarketers (DSAs/DMAs) who do not have a valid registration certificate from DoT, Govt. of India, as telemarketers.

(ii)  Banks should furnish the list of Telemarketers (DSAs/DMAs) engaged by them along with the registered telephone numbers being used by them for making telemarketing calls to IBA to enable IBA to forward the same to TRAI.

(iii)  Banks should ensure that all Telemarketers (DSAs/DMAs) presently engaged by them register themselves with DoT as telemarketers.

(iv)  As per the laid down procedure, the telemarketer (DSAs/DMAs) shall get automatically registered with NDNC Registry while they register themselves with DoT.

(v)  As IBA will be the co-coordinating agency at the industry level to ensure compliance with the requirements of TRAI regulations, banks are advised to actively cooperate with IBA in this regard.

Further, in addition to DSAs/DMAs, banks/their Call Centres, who make solicitation calls, are also required to be registered as Telemarketers with DoT and banks/their Call Centres, while registering themselves as Telemarketers, will be required to give the details of the telephone numbers used by them for telemarketing.

(vi)  Hon’ble Supreme Court has recently directed that any telemarketer who is not registered with Department of Telecommunication (DoT) should not be permitted to operate the telemarketing services and as such any employment of telemarketer who is not registered with DoT by banks would be treated as a violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s direction.

6.2 Customer confidentiality

   a.  The card issuing bank/NBFC should not reveal any information relating to customers obtained at the time of opening the account or issuing the credit card to any other person or organization without obtaining their specific consent, as regards the purpose/s for which the information will be used and the organizations with whom the information will be shared. Instances have come to light where banks, as part of the MITCs, obtain the consent of the customer for sharing the information furnished by him while applying for the credit card, with other agencies. Banks should give the customer the option to decide as to whether he is agreeable for the bank sharing with other agencies the information furnished by him at the time of applying for credit card. The application form for credit card may be suitably modified to explicitly and clearly provide for the same. Further, in case where the customers gives his consent for the bank sharing the information with other agencies, banks should explicitly state and explain clearly to the customer the full meaning/ implications of the disclosure clause. Banks/NBFCs should satisfy themselves, based on specific legal advice, that the information being sought from them is not of such nature as will violate the provisions of the laws relating to secrecy in the transactions. Banks/NBFCs would be solely responsible for the correctness or otherwise of the data provided for the purpose.

   b.  In case of providing information relating to credit history/re-payment record of the card holder to a credit information company (specifically authorized by RBI), the bank/NBFC may explicitly bring to the notice of the customer that such information is being provided in terms of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005.

c.  Before reporting default status of a credit card holder to the Credit Information Bureau of India Ltd. (CIBIL) or any other credit information Company authorized by RBI, banks/NBFCs should ensure that they adhere to a procedure, duly approved by their Board, including issuing of sufficient notice to such card holder about the intention to report him/ her as defaulter to the Credit Information Company. The procedure should also cover the notice period for such reporting as also the period within which such report will be withdrawn in the event the customer settles his dues after having been reported as defaulter. Banks /NBFCs should be particularly careful in the case of cards where there are pending disputes. The disclosure/ release of information, particularly about the default, should be made only after the dispute is settled as far as possible. In all cases, a well laid down procedure should be transparently followed. These procedures should also be transparently made known as part of MITCs.

d.  The disclosure to the DSAs / recovery agents should also be limited to the extent that will enable them to discharge their duties. Personal information provided by the card holder but not required for recovery purposes should not be released by the card issuing bank/NBFC. The card issuing bank /NBFCs should ensure that the DSAs / DMAs do not transfer or misuse any customer information during marketing of credit card products.

6.3 Fair Practices in debt collection

(a)  In the matter of recovery of dues, banks should ensure that they, as also their agents, adhere to the extant instructions on Fair Practice Code for lenders (Circular DBOD.Leg. No. BC.104/09.07.007/2002-03 dated May 5, 2003) as also BCSBI’s Code of Bank’s Commitment to Customers(those banks which have subscribed to the BCSBI Code). In case banks have their own code for collection of dues, they should, at the minimum, incorporate all the terms of BCSBI’s Code referred above.

(b)  In particular, in regard to appointment of third party agencies for debt collection, it is essential that such agents refrain from action that could damage the integrity and reputation of the bank/NBFC and that they observe strict customer confidentiality. All letters issued by recovery agents must contain the name and address of a responsible senior officer of the card issuing bank whom the customer can contact at his location.

(c)  Banks/NBFCs/their agents should not resort to intimidation or harassment of any kind, either verbal or physical, against any person in their debt collection efforts, including acts intended to humiliate publicly or intrude the privacy of the credit card holders’ family members, referees and friends, making threatening and anonymous calls or making false and misleading representations.

(d)  The banks should also ensure to comply with the guidelines in respect of engagement of recovery agents (Circular No. DBOD. No. Leg. BC.75 /09.07.005/2007-08 dated April 24, 2008) issued by RBI. These guidelines inter-alia cover aspects relating to i) engagement of Recovery Agents including verification of antecedents of their employees by agents, (ii) incentives to recovery agents – banks to ensure that contracts with the recovery agents do not induce adoption of uncivilized, unlawful and questionable behaviour or recovery process, (iii) methods followed by recovery agents, (iv) training to recovery agents , (v) taking possession of property mortgaged /hypothecated to banks, (vi) use of forum of Lok Adalats, (vii) complaints against the bank/recovery agents and (viii) periodical review of the recovery agents’ mechanism.

Insurance cover to Cardholders

6.4 In cases where the banks are offering any insurance cover to their credit card holders, in tie-up with insurance companies, the banks may consider obtaining in writing from the credit card holders the details of nominee/s for the insurance cover in respect of accidental death and disablement benefits. Banks may ensure that the relevant nomination details are recorded by the Insurance Company. Banks may also consider issuing a letter to the credit card holder indicating the details regarding the name, address and telephone number of the Insurance Company which will handle the claims relating to the insurance cover.

7. Redressal of Grievances

   a.  Generally, a time-limit of 60 (sixty) days may be given to the customers for preferring their complaints / grievances.

b.  The card issuing bank /NBFC should constitute Grievance Redressal machinery within the bank/NBFC and give wide publicity about it through electronic and print media. The name and contact number of designated grievance redressal officer of the bank /NBFC should be mentioned on the credit card bills. The designated officer should ensure that genuine grievances of credit card subscribers are redressed promptly without involving delay.

c.  Banks/NBFCs should ensure that their call centre staff are trained adequately to competently handle all customer complaints.

d.  Banks/NBFCs should also have a mechanism to escalate automatically unresolved complaints from a call center to higher authorities and the details of such mechanism should be put in public domain through their website.

e.  The grievance redressal procedure of the bank/NBFC and the time frame fixed for responding to the complaints should be placed on the bank’s website. The name, designation, address and contact number of important executives as well as the Grievance Redressal Officer of the bank/NBFC may be displayed on the website. There should be a system of acknowledging customers’ complaints for follow up, such as complaint number / docket number, even if the complaints are received on phone.

f.  If a complainant does not get satisfactory response from the bank/NBFC which is a subsidiary of a bank within a maximum period of thirty (30) days from the date of his lodging the complaint, he will have the option to approach the Office of the concerned Banking Ombudsman for redressal of his grievance/s. The bank/NBFC which is a subsidiary of a bank shall be liable to compensate the complainant for the loss of his time, expenses, financial loss as well as for the harassment and mental anguish suffered by him for the fault of the bank and where the grievance has not been redressed in time.

Internal control and monitoring systems

8. With a view to ensuring that the quality of customer service is ensured on an on-going basis in banks/NBFCs, the Standing Committee on Customer Service in each bank/NBFC should review on a monthly basis the credit card operations including reports of defaulters to the CIBIL, credit card related complaints and take measures to improve the services and ensure the orderly growth in the credit card operations. Banks should put up detailed quarterly analysis of credit card related complaints to their Top Management. Card issuing banks should have in place a suitable monitoring mechanism to randomly check the genuineness of merchant transactions.

9. Fraud Control

9.1. Banks/NBFCs should set-up internal control systems to combat frauds and actively participate in fraud prevention committees/ task forces which formulate laws to prevent frauds and take proactive fraud control and enforcement measures.

9.2 With a view to reducing the instances of misuse of lost/stolen cards, it is recommended to banks/NBFCs that they may consider issuing (i) cards with photographs of the cardholder (ii) cards with PIN and (iii) signature laminated cards or any other advanced methods that may evolve from time to time.

9.3 In terms of instructions contained in the circular

RBI/DPSS.No.1501/02.14.003/2008-09 dated February 18, 2009 issued by Department of Payment and Settlement Systems, Reserve Bank of India on security issues and risk mitigation measures relating to online card transactions using Credit/Debit cards, banks were advised to put in place with effect from August 01, 2009.

i.  A system of providing for additional authentication/ validation based on information not visible on the cards for all on-line card not present transactions except IVR transactions.

        Banks were advised vide Circular Number RBI/DPSS No.2303/02.14.003/2009-2010 dated April 23, 2010 that the requirement of additional authentication/ validation to all card not present transactions was extended to IVR transactions also with effect from January 01, 2011.In terms of Circular DPSS.CO.No. 1503/02.14.003/2010-11 dated December 31, 2010 banks were permitted to run a parallel run of the new arrangement for a period of one month upto January 31, 2011. However, after January 31, 2011 no IVR transaction shall be permitted unless such transactions comply with the additional factor authentication requirement.

ii.  A system of “Online Alerts” to the cardholder for all ‘card not present’ transactions of the value of Rs.5,000 and above. In terms of Circular No. DPSS.CO.PD.2224/02.14.003/2010-11 dated March 29, 2011 banks have been advised to take steps to put in place a system of online alerts for all types of transactions irrespective of the amount, involving usage of cards at various channels. The measures were to be implemented latest by June 30, 2011.

9.4 Banks are advised to block a lost card immediately on being informed by the customer and formalities, if any, including lodging of FIR can follow within a reasonable period.

9.5 Banks may consider introducing, at the option of the customers, an insurance cover to take care of the liabilities arising out of lost cards. In other words, only those cardholders who are ready to bear the cost of the premium should be provided an appropriate insurance cover in respect of lost cards.

Right to impose penalty

10 Reserve Bank of India reserves the right to impose any penalty on a bank/NBFC under the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949/the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, respectively for violation of any of these guidelines.

ANNEX

1. Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITCs)

(a) Fees and Charges

  (i)  Joining fees for primary card holder and for add-on cardholder

(ii)  Annual membership fees for primary and add-on cardholder

(iii)  Cash advance fee

(iv)  Service charges levied for certain transactions

(v) Interest free (grace) period – illustrated with examples

(vi)  Finance charges for both revolving credit and cash advances

(vii) Overdue interest charges – to be given on monthly & annualised basis

(viii) Charges in case of default

(b) Drawal limits

  (i)  Credit limit

(ii)  Available credit limit

(iii)  Cash withdrawal limit

(c) Billing

  (i)  Billing statements—periodicity and mode of sending

(ii)  Minimum amount payable

(iii)  Method of payment

(iv)  Billing disputes resolution

(v)  Contact particulars of 24 hour call centers of card issuer

(vi)  Grievances redressal escalation—contact particulars of officers to be contacted

(vii) Complete postal address of card issuing bank

(viii) Toll free number for customer care services

(d) Default and circumstances

  (i)  Procedure including notice period for reporting a card holder as defaulter

(ii)  Procedure for withdrawal of default report and the period within which the default report would be withdrawn after settlement of dues iii) Recovery procedure in case of default

(iv)  Recovery of dues in case of death/ permanent incapacitance of cardholder

(v)  Available insurance cover for cardholder and date of activation of policy

(e) Termination/Revocation of card membership

  (i)  Procedure for surrender of card by cardholder – due notice

(f) Loss/theft/misuse of card

  (i)  Procedure to be followed in case of loss/ theft/ misuse of card-mode of intimation to card issuer ii) Liability of cardholder in case of (i) above

(g) Disclosure

  (i)  Type of information relating to cardholder to be disclosed with and without approval of cardholder

2. Disclosure of MITCs – Items to be disclosed in stages :

(i)

During marketing        –

– Item No: a

(ii)

At application

– Item Nos: all items from a to g

(iii)

Welcome Kit

– Item Nos: all items from a to g

(iv)

On billing

– Item Nos: a, b and c,

(v)

On an ongoing basis, any change of the terms and conditions

Note :

  (i)  The font size of MITC should be minimum Arial-12

(ii)  The normal terms and conditions communicated by the card issuer to the cardholder at different stages will continue as hitherto.

APPENDIX

List of Circulars consolidated by the Master Circular

No.

Circular No.

Date

Subject

1.

RBI/2010-11/449 DPSS.CO.PD.2224/02.14.003/2010-11

March 29, 2011

Security Issues and Risk Mitigation Measures -Online Alerts to the Cardholder for Usage of Credit / Debit Cards.

2.

RBI/2010-11/347 DPSS.CO.No.1503/02.14.003/2010-11

December 31, 2010

Security Issues and Risk Mitigation Measures related to Card Not Present Transactions

3.

RBI/2010-11/109 DBOD.FSD.BC.No.25/24.01.011/2010-11

July 9, 2010

Credit Card Operations of Banks

4.

RBI / 2010-11/61 DBOD.FSD.BC.16/ 24.01.011/ 2010-11

July 01, 2010

Master Circular on Credit Card Operations of banks

5.

RBI/2008-09/177 DBOD.No.FSD.BC.45/24.01 .011/2008-09

September 17, 2008

Unsolicited Commercial Communications -National Do Not Call (NDNC) Registry

6.

RBI/2008-2009/1 00 DBOD.FSD.BC.23/24.01 .011/2008-09

July 23, 2008

Credit Card Operations of Banks

7.

RBI/2007-2008/296 DBOD.No.Leg.BC.75/09.07.005/2007-08

April 24 2008

Recovery Agents engaged 2008 by banks

8.

RBI/2007 -2008/163 DBOD.FSD.BC.35/24.01 .011/2007-08

October 19, 2007

Unsolicited Commercial Communications National Do Not Call Registry

9.

RBI/2007-2008/78 DBOD.FSD.BC.19/24.01 .011/ 2007-08

July 3, 2007

Unsolicited Commercial Communications – National Do Not Call Registry

10.

RBI/2006-07/377 DBOD.No.Dir.BC.93/13.03.00/2006-07

May 7, 2007

Complaints about excessive interest charged by banks

11.

RBI/2006-2007/280 DBOD. No. Leg. BC.65/09.07.005/2006-07

March 06, 2007

Guidelines on Fair Practices Code for Lenders

12.

RBI 2005-06/ 211 DBOD. FSD. BC. No. 49/ 24.01.011/ 2005-06

November 21, 2005

Credit Card Operations by banks

13.

DBOD.Leg.BC.104/09.07.007/2002-03

May 5, 2003

Guidelines on Fair Practice Codes for Lenders

14

DBOD.No.FSC.BC.120/24.01.011/2000-01

May 12, 2001

Credit Card Business of banks

10:52 PM | 2 comments

Subscribe via email

Enter your email address:

Blog Archives