Despite raising the issue of unwanted marketing calls to the HSBC’s highest authorities in India, Sinha continued to be harassed by telecallers on behalf of the lender. Finally, after over four years, a consumer forum found the Bank and its agents guilty and asked them to pay Rs50,000
During 2007-2008, Delhi-based Ashutosh Sinha suffered from innumerable telemarketing calls by direct selling agents (DSAs) of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC). Incidentally, it was the same lender, who rejected Sinha’s application for a credit card and then wanted to sell him ‘other products’.
After repeatedly writing to all concerned officials from HSBC, Sinha even raised the issue before the Bank’s India chief, Naina Lal Kidwai (current president of FICCI). Unfortunately, despite her promises, Sinha continued to receive the unsolicited commercial communication or marketing calls from HSBC. Finally, in 2008, he approached a consumer forum, which last month upheld his appeal and fined HSBC and its three DSAs.
In its order, the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, said, “We are of the opinion that some unsolicited calls have been given to the Complainant by which the right of privacy of the Complainant was violated and the Complainant suffered inconvenience, harassment and mental agony due to unsolicited calls. We are of the opinion that Complainant is entitled to be reasonably compensated for that.”
The Forum asked HSBC and its three DSA to pay Rs50,000 as compensation for causing harassment to Sinha and also pay Rs5,000 towards litigation cost. However, he feels the penalty is paltry considering the inconvenience, harassment and mental agony he had to suffer. “Since the amount of Rs50,000 is too little, I may move higher court to make sure I drive the message home. I want this to be a lesson for all banks and financial institutions and hope others can learn from my experience too,” Sinha says.
Here is the first person account of Sinha’ ordeal to stop telemarketing calls from HSBC…
I moved to Delhi in March 2007 to join a new place of work after a three-year stint in Mumbai. A little later, sometime in May 2007, I applied for a credit card from HSBC. A person visited the office on behalf of HSBC, made me fill the form. He gave me a receipt for the application. About a month later, I was told that the application had been rejected. In addition, as happens with financial institutions, the communication was sugarcoated and no reason was given for the rejection.
No sooner had the application been rejected, I started getting calls for buying other products of HSBC such as personal loans, home loans and a whole lot of others. I ignored the first few calls because the rejection of the credit card application was fresh in my mind. And, besides, why should I give business to a bank that does not consider me worthy of a credit card customer?
However, the calls continued and refused to stop, so I decided to bring it to the notice of HSBC. I wrote to them repeatedly, and each time mentioned the number, date and time of the call. HSBC did reply to some of those emails and said that they were taking necessary action to have the calls stopped. But the calls did not stop. Between July and December 2007, I must have received at least 70 to 100 calls, some of which I did not respond. At times, I was so familiar with the numbers that I would not bother taking the call. On the occasions that I wrote to them, I made sure I wrote down the call details. Over several months, this became a trail of evidence that HSBC found it difficult to dismiss.
On 1 October 2007 the concept of Do Not Call was introduced by TRAI and it went live and I formally registered my phone to be a part of the do not call list. However, my phone was already on the do not disturb list by Vodafone.
On 23 December 2007, a little after 9am on Sunday, a person called me on behalf of HSBC, offering to sell credit cards. I asked the person to come home. Meanwhile, I called Malini Thadani (Head of Communications, Public Policy and Corporate Sustainability at HSBC at that time) and told her that if the person came home, I may beat him up. She was aghast and blurted, "How can you do that?" I told her the story of what had been happening for over six months. The person did not turn up.
Soon after, I got a text message from HSBC regional manager, Jamsher Dhillon. He came home the next day, with a bouquet of flowers, and assured me that I would not get calls from HSBC. I showed him the list of calls I had received, and within minutes, he found out about the culprits. He left my home at around 11:30am and before 3pm there was another call with a sales pitch! I called up Jamsher and he was surprised. He told me that he would send out an internal memo that no one should call my number. Much to my amazement, there were two more calls the next day. I contacted Jamsher again and he said that he was going to stop all telecalling. But he was surely lying because I got yet another call!
In the meantime, the quality control people from HSBC in Chennai apologized for what had been happening. They sent me an email and a hard copy of the letter, naming their channel partners who had been calling me regularly. Despite the apology, the calls did not stop!
I wrote to the HSBC headquarters and they asked me to contact the India office. Then, I wrote to Naina Lal Kidwai, who claimed that HSBC takes such matters very seriously! She referred the matter to the head of credit cards, Jagdish Khanna, who claimed that they were working on a system which would not allow any calls to be made if a phone number was on the do not call list. But till this was done, he said that he could not guarantee that the calls would stop.
The frequency of the calls, in the meanwhile, had come down but it did not cease completely.
Sometime in January 2013, when I had turned the heat on HSBC, the owner of Mascom India, one of the DSAs, contacted and met me at my office and claimed that he was a cousin of one of my colleagues and requested that I should not pursue the matter. A couple of weeks later, he came along with another person claiming to work for HSBC. The person wept inconsolably and said that because of my complaints, he was going to lose his job at HSBC. I decided to ignore his claims.
By now, I had decided that, whether it was HSBC or any other bank, it did not matter to them what end customers had to face. Therefore, I decided to pursue my case in the consumer court.
Nearly four and a half years after I had filed the case, on 22 April 2013, the consumer court found HSBC and its three DSAs guilty of violating my privacy and calling repeatedly. The guilty have been asked to pay Rs50,000 and Rs5,000 as litigation cost.
I still believe that I have got a raw deal since I have had to suffer at their hands for one full year. It must be pointed out that after the case was filed in the consumer court, I have never ever got any telemarketing calls from HSBC, but I still do get calls from HDFC Bank and Citibank.
You can read other stories of HSBC over here: http://moneylife.in/?cx=012932029967637413115%3Aroup7yt0ras&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=UTF-8&q=HSBC&imageField.x=15&imageField.y=11
While growth continues to be driven by large industries, trade services, NBFCs and retail, the mid-corporate segment is still exhibiting weak credit offtake, says Religare Capital Markets
February credit data released by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) indicates that credit pick-up remained lacklustre during the month, growing at 1.2% month-on-month. On a year-on-year basis, growth stayed muted at 14.6%, down from 14.9% in January 2013 and 15.2% in February 2012. While growth continues to be driven by large industries, trade services, NBFCs (non-banking finance companies) and retail, the mid-corporate segment is still exhibiting weak credit offtake, says Religare Capital Markets.
As per data available till 22 February 2013, non-food credit growth was at 9.2% in 11MFY13 (up from 7.9% in 10MFY13; averaged 12%-13% during FY07-FY12). Year-on-year growth remained muted at 14.6% in February versus 14.9% in January.
Mid-corporate segment sees sharp dip month-on-month, SME picks up and large corporates steady. The mid-corporate segment continues to see lower credit deployment with outstanding advances to the segment shrinking 6.5% month-on-month. SME credit growth picked up by 2.9% month-on-month. Growth in the large corporate segment was ahead of overall credit growth at 18.7%. Despite moderating from 24.3% in FY12, this segment remains the key driver.
Power and other infrastructure (ex-telecom) segments have been the primary drivers of credit growth, accounting for 43%/56% of the total incremental credit towards industries in the past 12 months/11MFY13. With strong growth year-to-date, the proportion of power sector loans has remained at elevated levels, contributing 19.1% of total industry advances in February’13 versus 16.7% in March’12.
Power/Road advances increased by 1.7%/1.9% Memorandum. Telecom sector exposure has remained flat month-on-month at Rs 920bn (-2% year-to-date). Overall infrastructure exposure remained flat at about 33.6% of industry credit.
Services loan growth picked up 2%. Within the services sector, growth continues to be driven by trade (up 33.8% year-) and NBFCs (up 16.6% year-on-year). The transport operators segment remains muted, with total outstanding credit flat at Rs 723bn after falling 8% in two months. Credit growth in commercial real estate dipped to 8.2% year-on-year.
The unsecured loan portfolio also continues to grow at a healthy rate with credit card loans outstanding up 24% year-on-year.
In its nine-page affidavit submitted before the apex court, the CBI chief admitted making changes in the 'coalgate' draft report on suggestions from Ashwani Kumar and the AG, but stated that it has neither altered the report nor shifted the focus of inquiries in any manner
The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on Monday admitted before the Supreme Court that it made certain changes in the coalgate draft report as per suggestions given by Ashwani Kumar, the union law minister and GE Vahanvati, the Attorney General (AG) as well as from officials from the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and coal ministry.
The submission made by CBI director Ranjit Sinha contradicts stand taken by the law minister and AG, who had refuted the allegation that they had suggested changes in the draft report.
In its nine-page affidavit, the CBI chief gave details of the meetings between the officials of the agency, the law minister, AG, then additional solicitor general Harin Raval and officials of PMO and Coal Ministry.
The affidavit said the changes made in the draft report on the suggestion of the law minister and Vanahvati have 'neither altered the report nor shifted the focus of inquiries in any manner'. "The central theme of the status report had not changed post meetings. There were no deletions of any evidence against any suspect or accused nor were any let off," the affidavit says.
Sinha also said that "no names of suspects or accused were removed from the status report and also that no suspect or accused was let off in the process."
Extending unconditional apology for any inadvertent omission or commission, Sinha said there is nothing in the CBI manual to guide whether status reports in an on-going investigation in a sub-judice matter are to be shared with others.
Sinha also said there are no minutes of meetings, which took place with law minister and officials of PMO and coal ministry and details of his affidavit "are based on best recollection of my memory and of my officers".
The affidavit from CBI also said that there was no intention to suppress from the Supreme Court the fact that the draft report was shared with political executive and government officials.