HDFC demands credit card dues after settlement, to pay Rs 40K

The New Delhi District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said once the bank had received the amount as settled between it and the customer, it cannot revive the original outstanding.

The forum also noted that the legal notice was machine generated and did not reflect the settlement made in 2006 by the bank and said its "negligence" in managing its office "compelled" the customer to engage a lawyer and pursue this litigation.

"It is seen that legal notice issued does not reflect the settlement reached in 2006, and payments made. It is a machine generated notice. Once opposite party (HDFC Bank) received all the outstanding amount settled by instalments, it cannot revive the original outstanding.

 

"The negligence of the bank in managing its office has resulted in issuance of a legal notice requiring complainant to engage an advocate and file this litigation.

"We hold opposite party guilty of gross deficiency of service and award damages of Rs 40,000, inclusive of cost of litigation (to complainant)," the bench presided by C K Chaturvedi said and directed the bank to withdraw its notices.

The forum's order came on a complaint by Delhi resident Anurodh Tanwar who had said he had settled his outstanding credit card dues in 2006 by paying Rs 17,400 to the bank as per a mutual settlement.

After making all the payments he started receiving fresh demands though he had not used the card after the settlement, Tanwar had said.

HDFC Bank while admitting that a final settlement was made in 2006, contended that the settlement offer stood void as he defaulted in paying the settled amount by a few days.

The forum rejected the contention saying the bank at best could have claimed interest for the delay.