HDFC held guilty of unfair trade practice, to pay Rs 15K
- Lakhvi's release: PM Modi conveys India's concerns to China
- Modi must do to Raje, Swaraj what we did to Tomar: Arvind Kejriwal
- AIPMT test to be re-conducted on July 25: CBSE
- Palamu Express derails following blast by suspected Maoists in Jharkhand
- All Income Tax refunds to be put directly in bank accounts: CBDT
HDFC Bank has been directed by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 15,000 to one of its customers for showing her credit card dues as unpaid despite her having paid and settled it.
Relying on the bank statements and other documents submitted by woman customer Anita Singh, South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said the total amount stood paid off and held the bank guilty of indulging in unfair trade practice.
"In view of documentary evidence placed on record by the parties, we feel satisfied that the grievance as expressed by complainant in her complaint is justified and her allegations of deficiency-in-service stand fully established against the opposite parties (HDFC Bank employees).
"We hold the opposite parties guilty of deficiency in service as well as of adopting unfair trade practice by dishonouring their commitment of settlement arrived at between them which the complainant duly complied with," the bench presided by Narendra Kumar said.
It directed the bank to get Singh's status updated in the Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd (CIBIL) and to pay her Rs 10,000 as compensation and Rs 5,000 as litigation cost.
Delhi resident Anita Singh had alleged in her complaint that the bank on April 28, 2009 had offered to settle her outstanding credit card dues for a sum of Rs 18,400, which she had paid in full in three instalments by April 30, 2009.
However, the bank raised fresh demands of Rs 1,060 in September 2009 and Rs 1,100 in December 2009, both towards her credit card dues, the woman had alleged.
On checking her credit card account status she found that her dues were being shown as unpaid, she had said.
The bank in the defence of its employees had contended that the demand was raised as the woman had not paid the settlement amount.