08/15/2016
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.
iStock
Brazil bank will have to pay R$ 3,000 in damages
The 1st Special Civil Court of Brasilia condemned the Bank of Brazil to pay R$ 3,000 in punitive damages to a customer who had blocked his credit card. We had an internal seat restriction on the client, the plaintiff. The main issue of the case fell on the legality or illegality of the restriction and therefore practice in tort card lock.
The judge who reviewed the case said that the existence of internal register of institutions does not seem unfair since the facts contained in the databases are true. The magistrate also recalled that the simple blocking of credit card does not constitute grounds for indemnity for moral damages.
However, the court considered that the situation experienced by the consumer could not be interpreted as mere discomfort or annoyance: "(...) the credit card lock, without the consumer has contributed to much in demand ratio brought against the institution bank without plenty of doubt creates anxiety, distress and discomfort for which the consumer would not, if the service had worked properly. " Still, the author was in another state without sufficient means to solve the problem immediately.
Thus, the judge concluded that the embarrassment caused to the applicant overstepped the hassle mere field to invade the sphere of psychological stress and emotional shock capable of generating moral nature damage - whose value was defined at $ 3000, and was considered the proportionality between the damage suffered and caused consequences as well as economic and financial conditions caused the damage agent.
Finally, the author requested the maintenance of its line of credit, but the magistrate refused: "(...) the principle of the will of autonomy is somewhat more flexible in legal relations of consumption, especially at consumer vulnerability. However, this does not mean subjective mitigation consumer's right to have credit provided in their favor. Therefore, the refusal to supply this specific type of service (consumer credit supply) substantiates regular exercise of a right. "
Appeal the sentence.
Source: Metropolises
To access the Metropolises site, click here.
Our news are taken in full of our partner sites. For this reason, we can not change their content even in cases of typographical errors.
This article was translated by an automatic translation system, and was therefore not reviewed by people.