Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Member

The gist of the complaint is that about alleged transfer of a sum of Rupees.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lac) only from the Fixed Deposit Account of the complainant to the savings bank account by pre-mature encashment and thereafter deduction of a sum of Rupees.1,46,120/-(Rupees One Lac Forty Six Thousand and One Hundred Twenty) only. The complainant made correspondences with the respondent Bank but the perseverance did not yield positive results and hence this case.

The complaint as averred by the complainant states that he held a savings bank account with the State Bank of India at their Baruipur Branch (OP1) wherein the General Manager of the Complaint Redressal Cell of the State Bank of India is the OP2. A sum of Rs.10,00,000/- was deposited as a fixed deposit for a tenure of one year on 02.08.2014 with an annual interest rate of 9.25%. But the complainant discovered a deduction of Rs.1,46,120/- from the said Fixed Deposit on account of deduction for a credit card bill although the complainant claimed having never applied for the said Credit Card. Being dissatisfied the complainant lodged various complaints on 10.03.2015, 18.03.2015 and 27.03.2015.In the Brief Note of Arguments also, the complainant summerised that the deduction of Rs.1,46,120/- on 19.12.2014 from the Fixed Deposit / Savings Bank Account in respect of Credit Card dues is unauthorized. Inspite of exchange of many correspondences between the parties thereafter, it did not resolve the disputes rather the Bank repudiated the claimsHence the complainant case. The complainant prayed for refund of Rs.10,00,000/- with a cost @18% from the date of maturity of the Fixed Deposit along with refund of the said deducted amount of Rs.1,46,120/- and a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- along with a litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-. As per the complainant the Bank has failed to discharge their liabilities towards this consumer by acting as an agent of “SBI Credit Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd” which has no office in the premises of the Bank.  The complainant pleaded ignorance during having put various signatures with necessary particulars by the Assistant of the Bank at the time of purchasing the Term Deposit and denied having furnished any particulars about the said Credit Card. The complainant also contested that the Bank should have given advance notice before allowing premature encashment of the said term deposit and crediting in the Savings Account of the complainant which tantamounts to be violative of natural justice and unfair trade practices . Hence the Bank has acted in a deceitful manner and failed to protect the interest of the customer by stopping to sustain the loss. The complainant in support of his pleadings exhibited the serialized documents namely the term deposit advice (PE-running Page-7), Savings Bank Account details (PE-Page-8), Credit Card deduction details (PE-Page-9), Protest Letter dated 10.03.2015, 18.03.2015, 27.03.2015, and 27.05.2015 from complainant (PE-Page10 to 13), Bank reply dated 07.04.2015 (PE-Page-14), SBI Card Statements (PE-Page15 to 19) and Communication dated 26.10.2017 from Grievance Cell, Consumer Affairs Directorate (PE page 20). 

The OP Bank contested the dispute at each and every step by filing Written Version and BNA along with questionnaire and replies.  It was averred by the OP Bank that the complaint is hit by limitation. The OP also contested that in spite of having scope to adjudicate through Banking ombudsman, the complainant preferred for Consumer Forum and hence the complaint needs to be dismissed in Limini. The OP also challenged that the complainant is not a consumer in accordance with law. In gist, the OP accepted having a Fixed Deposit investment of Rs.10,00,000/- in the said bank account with an assurance of transfer of the matured value of the Fixed Deposit . The OP states that as per factum of the case, the complainant enjoys a Credit Card facility from ‘SBI Credit Card and Payment Services Ltd.’with a limit of Rs.1,75,000/- which was secured against the said Fixed Deposit having the bank, the authority to exercise the right of lien and / or general lien with regard to the said FDR by way of adjustment of the amount enjoyed by the complainant out of the secured Credit Card. As there was an outstanding of Rs.1,46,120/- during enjoyment of the secured Credit Card granted in the name of the complainant, therefore, in default of the non-payment, the SBI Credit Card Department adjusted the outstanding dues with the FDR admittedly by pre-mature encashment as per rules, terms and conditions of Credit Card Agreement.  It was also brought to notice by the OP Bank that the complainant applied for securing the Credit Card by furnishing the details of Voter Card, PAN Card and FDR details for lien. As the State Bank of India is incorporated under SBI Act’ 1955, u/s 3 of the Act mandates that it will carry out banking business and SBI is engaged in the process of selling credit card- which is not a banking business.  Therefore, the said ‘SBI Credit Card and Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.’ should have been added here as a party for appropriate adjudication. Hence the competent authority of Baruipur Branch deposed on affidavit accordingly affirming that there is no deficiency of service in the above stated rules and conditions and documents.  In the affidavit affirmed by the OP Bank the documentary evidences of the defence, in support of their arguments were exhibited, though not serialized, that includes the credit card application form dated 09.08.2014 (2 Pages), declaration from the complainant for applying for the SBI Card and acceptance of fees thereof (2 Pages), authorization letter submitted by complainant as an applicant for Credit Card (2 Pages), Customer Declaration Form and Consent Letter (2 Pages), KYC (1 Page), Statement of Savings Account (4 Pages), Document Retention and disposal policy of SBICPSL dated 27.04.2017 showing record retention schedule (17 Pages) and the transaction details of the said Credit Card (2 Pages) amounting to an outstanding Rs.1,46,120/- including late payment charges and GST. 

Initially the complaint was filed on 21.12.2017 u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant. Having filed beyond 240 days after the cause of action, the complaint petition was turned down as per order dated 05.06.2018 of DCDRF, South 24 Parganas as not admitted being barred by Limitation act. Subsequently, the complaint case was remanded back to Baruipur Commission by SCDRC, West Bengal as per FAA/660/2018 dated 21.01.2020 for fresh adjudication on merit. The final hearing was conducted on 12.04.2023 contested by Ld. Advocates of both sides along with submission of Brief Note of Arguments. The arguments as advanced by the Ld Advocates were heard, records and documents and exhibits perused and points considered. The complainant had a saving bank account with State Bank of India at their Baruipur branch. The complainant obtained a credit card from SBISPC Ltd.  The credit card bills having not been paid by the complainant, dues amounting to Rs.1,46,120/- was deducted from the balance available in his saving account after pre mature encashment of the Fixed Deposit. The consumer complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank, which inter-alia contested that the credit card dues having not been paid, bank was justified in deducting the same fromthe saving bank account of the complainant. The complainant, though adduced having not applied for issuance of the said credit card and though demanded for an acknowledgement of receipt of credit card, but remained ambiguous in stating on affidavit that whether the said credit card was ever used by him.The complainant has nowhere in the complaint petition or any other records or documents denied having not used the said credit card. Only in Serial (4) of the complaint petition it was averred by complainant that he never applied for said credit card as alleged by OP1 bank. But from the defence exhibit it is apparent that credit card was applied for vide application form no. B0009838625 dated 09.08.2014 where complainant subscribed his signature. Also in the questionnaire by complainant and reply by OP1, complainant resorted to limiting his query that whether credit card was applied before the bank or not to which the OP bank replied that the said credit card was applied for before SBI CSPL through the branch of the bank.

The Questionnaires and Replies from the OP and Complainant respectively on this point clearly depicts that the complainant was evasive in disclosing that whether the said credit was being used by him or not. Though, the learned counsel for the complainant stated during the course of arguments that the credit card was never applied for, but never denied that the purchases referred in the statements were not made by the complainant. Further the dispatch details of card vide letter reference no. Law/SM/355/17 dated 01.12.2017 was provided by SBICSPL that was exhibited as well by OP bank. Moreover, a careful examination of credit card statements issued from time to time to the complainant and exhibited by the OP bank reveals that various purchases were done randomly from vendors like Sony centre for Rs. 9700/- and Rs. 16900/-, Mobiwik for Rs. 500/-, Haldiram for Rs 400/-, Future value retail for Rs. 950/-, VIP Industries for Rs. 1100/-,Dominos pizza for Rs. 321/-, Sreeleathers for Rs.270/-, I Zone for Rs. 11236/- and Rs.24190/-, Daffodills for Rs. 3599/-, West Bengal Expo for Rs. 800/-, Adi Dhakeswari Bastralaya for Rs. 980/-, Jewelleries for Rs.13100/- etc. etc. for a total no of 49 purchases from different merchants. The total dues claimed in the card statements for Rs1,46,120/-also includes finance charges levied by the bank from time to time.  The said dues kept on increasing on account of addition of late fee and finance charges, though no fresh purchase was made after encashment of FD and recovery of card dues thereof.

The next question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner bank was entitled to deduct the card dues from the saving bank account of the complainant.  The learned counsel for the OP contended that the terms and conditions on which the credit card was issued.  From the defence exhibit including application form for credit card, it is conspicuous that the applicant applied for a Credit Card on 09.08.2014 for himself under the name and style of “SBI Advantage Gold and More Card” and all the details as mentioned therein are matching with the KYC of the complainant. The Savings bank account no. is also perfectly matching with the relationship account no. linking the mention in the Application Form of Credit Card dated 09.08.2014 where the applicant’s signature is also found as subscribed. Further, as per the authorization letter, signed and submitted by the applicant cum complainant before the Branch Manager, SBI Baruipur i.e. the OP Bank, the following is the relevant portion which is reproduced below : -

“I maintain a term deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- with TDR / STDR Account No.32405236611 dated ………. maturing on 02.08.2015 ……………………………….. I confirm to the Bank that I have created a charge on the said deposit (or on the property and proceeds of the said deposit) in favour of SBI CPSL as security for the due repayment of the dues / bills in respect of Credit Card issued / proposed to issue to me by SBI CPSL.  In respect of the said deposit, I / we irrevocably and unconditionally authorize and request the bank to earmark and hold the deposit for an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- and all renewals / roll over’s thereof as security for all amounts now or in the future due from me to SBI CPSL in respect of the SBI Credit Card ………………………”

Bank can recover dues from savings account if a customer fails to pay. bank can recover credit card dues of its customers by withdrawing from their savings account. The terms and conditions of Bank credit card mentions inter alia that the bank, at any time and without notice, will have lien and right to set-off on all outstanding dues belonging to the Card member standing to their credit in any account/custody of the bank if upon demand by the bank, the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within the prescribed time.” This was held valid in a similar case where order of the National Commission in HDFC Bank Vs Anish Munjal on January 23, 2019 which in a Revision Petition no. 1737 OF 2013 (against the Order dated 22/02/2013 in Appeal No. 17/22/2011 of the State Commission, Rajasthan) when NCDRC held that as per Cl. 6 of the terms and conditions, on which the credit card was issued, allowed the bank to set-off dues of the card member from his savings account with the bank without any notice. The commission, hence, set aside previous orders against the bank. It said, “In view of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner bank was entitled to set off the credit card dues at any point of time, without any notice to the complainant. Therefore, deduction of the amount of Rs.53,043,68/- from the saving bank account of the complainant was in consonance with the above referred condition stipulated by the bank, while issuing the credit card to the complainant/respondent.”

In this case in hand, it is quite apparent that a lien on the FD was created. A right of Lien if created on the bank, then the bank, at any time and without notice would have lien and right to set-off all the dues belonging to the Card member or add on Card member standing to their credit in any account of the bank, upon demand by the bank, if the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within the prescribed time.

In view of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner bank was entitled to set off the credit card dues at any point of time, without any notice to the complainant.  Therefore, deduction of the amount of Rs.1,46,120/- from the saving bank account of the complainant was in consonance with the above referred condition stipulated by the bank, while issuing the credit card to the complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, no deficiency on behalf  of the OP bank in rendering service to the complainant got established. The complainant petition therefore is not substantiated and the same is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs.

In the result, the complaint case does not succeed.

Hence it is,

                                                                                    ORDERED

That the case, be and the same, is hereby dismissed on contest. There will be no order as to payment of cost.

Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned as per CPR.

The final Order will be available in the website at www.confonet.nic.in

Dictated and corrected by

Partha Kumar Basu

        Member