Are the following mitc terms of sbi cards have any legality?
A Sen
(Querist) 04 July 2019
This query is : Resolved
My questions to the learned forum arises from observing how SBI Cards recovery agents are mentally, emotionally and verbally harassing a recently widowed senior citizen on the credit card dues of her deceased spouse who was the principal holder and she was a supplementary/add-on card holder and seldom used her card.
The recovery card agents statements try to link, apart from their usual derogatory verbal communications from virtual numbers (no call back numbers) – which is against the established norms set by the Master Circular regarding Credit Card and BCSBI norms, run around the following two declarations of the Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITCs) declaration of SBI Cards:
1. Terms and Conditions Governing Credit Card facilities shall be applicable to the Supplementary /Add on Cardholder as well.
2. The total Outstanding on the Card Account, together with the amount of any Charges effected but not yet charged to the Card Account, will become immediately due and payable in full to SBICPSL on bankruptcy or death of the Primary Cardholder and the Card Account shall immediately stand cancelled. The Primary Cardholder's estate will be responsible for settling any Outstanding on the Card Account and should keep SBICPSL indemnified against all costs including legal fees and expenses incurred in recovering such Outstanding. Pending such repayment, SBICPSL will be entitled to continue to levy finance charges at its prevailing rate.
My questions to the learned forum are:
1. Since credit card is an unsecured personal loan agreement between the principal holder and the bank, and the add-on card holder’s card was dependent on the principal holders and its issuance/termination is dependent on the status of the principal holder, under which legal provision SBI states that all the responsibility of due falls on add-on card holder after the demise of the principal holder, whereas during the life of principal holder, all liabilities of dues of both cards were on the principal holder alone – under which Indian law this antipodal reversal of role is possible when a credit card issuance does not require a mortgage/guarantor;
2. Since it is an unsecured personal loan, thus not covered under SARFAESI Act, under which legal provision the bank declares that on demise of the Principal holder, the estate of the principal holder will be responsible for recovery of dues. I am aware that the exact phrases are used in some of the USA States (not in most), but under which legal provision can the bank make the estate of principal holder be responsible for the repayment of an unsecured personal loan without mortgage/guarantor.
It is important to note that I have seen similar cases with private banks (ICICI) that on reporting demise report with original copy of death certificate, block the card and credit card loan has been waived off and the case terminated.
KISHAN DUTT KALASKAR
(Expert) 04 July 2019
Not interested to answer this question as i have no time.
P. Venu
(Expert) 04 July 2019
Please try to make the posting brief
P. Venu
(Expert) 04 July 2019
Please try to make the posting brief
kavksatyanarayana
(Expert) 04 July 2019
Dear querist, I think you know all. However report to sbi-Ombudsman.
Dr J C Vashista
(Expert) 05 July 2019
Too long story, be brief and precise to seek obligation of experts (FREE OF COST).
No time or energy to oblige.
It is advisable to consult and engage a local prudent lawyer for appreciation of facts/records, guidance and proceeding.
