Canara Bank fails to recover dues from credit card customer

Canara Bank was claiming Rs30,000 as credit card dues from a customer but would have to give up the claim, as it has failed to prove that the person had applied for the credit card in the first place, according to the Economic Times.
 
The legal issue started when Canara Bank, MG Road branch, filed a civil case in 2010 against one RK Dhingra, a resident of New Delhi for recovery of Rs30,454 as credit card dues. It claimed this money was due as he had used the ‘Cancard’ credit card issued to him. Dhingra had allegedly used the card between 12 March 2006 and 21 March 2007.
 
The bank issued Dhingra a legal notice for payment of dues which he did not reply to. Following the notice, it filed a case. The bank claimed that as per the terms and conditions, Dhingra had to make the payment within 15 days from the date of monthly statement of accounts. Since he had failed to do it, he had to pay the amount along with an interest of 2.5% per month.
 
The civil court however dismissed the claim of the bank in 2011. The bank then approached the High Court, the same year. The judgement in the case was passed by the HC on October 29 this year. Before the HC, the bank claimed that the lower court did not appreciate the evidence and documents it had submitted. Since Dhingra had failed to reply to the legal notice, it had to be taken as an admission that he had spent the money through the credit card.
 
Upholding the lower court order and rejecting the bank’s claim, the HC said, “No document is produced to show that the respondent/defendant had made an application for sanction of Cancard nor any document shown handing over of the card to the respondent/defendent by the Bank. Further, the trial court has rightly observed that the Bank has failed to produce Cancard application which is material document. The contention that as the respondent has not replied to the legal notice, as such it is to be taken as admission, is liable to be rejected. Whether one replies to the legal notice or not, it is for the plaintiff to prove its case by cogent evidence, which the petitioner has failed to do so in the case.”
 
The HC dismissed the bank’s petition and said, “No error of jurisdiction or illegality is committed by the trial court and the petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the judgement and decree passed by the trial court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is rejected.”

User

  Loading...
  Loading...

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.

Changes in Our Business Model
 
 
25th Sept 2020
 
Greetings from Moneylife Advisory Services
 
Between financial years 2019-21, SEBI has come up with extensive changes to investor advisor regulations. On Sep 23, 2020, SEBI had issued new additional guidelines. This comes just two months after extensive changes announced in July 2020. Earlier, in December 2019 there was an ad hoc circular
 
As a result of these changes, IAs, cannot accept fees through credit cards, will have to sign a 26-clause investor agreement, have to maintain physical record written & signed by client, telephone recording, emails, SMS messages and any other legally verifiable record for five years. IAs were already asked to record the suitability and rationale for every piece of advice given, sign them and store them for five years.
 
While these extensive and frequent changes, designed to strengthen the conduct of IAs are well-meaning, these have sharply increased compliance efforts and cost. We, being online advisors, find many of changes harder to implement, compared to advisors working in the physical space. We will have to have an army of advisors, administrative and tech staff to be compliant. If we do this, we will have to divert money to these areas and the cost of our service will double. We want to remain the least-cost service in the market to benefit more and more people. In the circumstances, we are forced to change our business model from “advisory” to “research”. This will mean the following:
 
What remains the same:
  • Recommendations on insurance, investment and Lion stocks, will continue as a part of the MAS premium subscription. Our strength has always been research and this will remain available to you through our recommendations.
  • The magazine and all textual content will remain as part of the service
  • We will have to suspend the restructuring tool.
 
What changes:
  • The interactions in Ask / Handholding will offer investment advice but not specific to your situation. It will offer information on investment products and also clarify your doubts about various financial products. It will be a forum for information, not for advice. This will be implemented with immediate effect and our guidelines in Ask, reflect this now.
 
Over the next few weeks our site and our communication to you will reflect these and other additional changes.
 
We feel this will not affect you much in terms of what really matters in investing: knowing what to buy and when to buy. This is our edge and it will still be available to you.
 
img
Debashis Basu
Founder