Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/181/2019

V.G.K.Murthy, Son of V.Gopal, 13/4, Poes Road 1st Street, Teynampet, Chennai 600 018 - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.M/s.ICICI Bank Ltd., Represented by its Senior Branch Manager, Credit Card Division, Plot No.24, B - Opp.Party(s)

Mr.K.Ganesan

23 Feb 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present:   Hon’ble THIRU. JUSTICE. R. SUBBIAH                     :     PRESIDENT

                 Tmt. Dr. S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI                          :      MEMBER

 

F.A. No. 181 of 2019

(Against the order passed in C.C. No.231/2010 dated 18.03.2019 on the file of the D.C.D.R.F. Chennai (South).

 

Wednesday, the 23^rd day of February 2022

 

V. G.K. Murthy

S/o. Mr. V. Gopal

13/4, Poes Road 1^st Street

Teynampet, Chennai – 18.                                       .. Appellant/ Complainant

 

- Vs –

1.  M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Senior Branch Manager

     Credit Card Division

     Plot No.24, Block No.1

     Arihant Insight

     Ambattur Industrial Estate

     Chennai – 600 058.

 

2.  M/s. ICICI Bank Ltd.,

     Rep. by its Branch Manager,

     Customer Care Office

     E-36, 2^nd Avenue, Besant Nagar

     Chennai -600 090                                     .. Respondents/ Opposite Parties

 

   

    Counsel for Appellant /Complainant                  : M/s. K. Ganesan

    Counsel for the Respondents /Opposite Parties : No representation

                                                                            

This appeal is coming before us for final hearing on 28.01.2022 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the appellant/ complainant and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following :-

O R D E R

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT

1.        This appeal has been filed by the Appellant / Complainant under Section 15 and 17 (A)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 aggrieved by the order dated 18.03.2019 made in C.C. No.231 of 2010 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), dismissing the complaint filed by the appellant herein.

 

2.   The factual background culminating this appeal is as follows:  The case of the Complainant is that during 2006-2007, a representative of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties, approached the complainant with a request to avail credit card facilities from their Principal Branch ICICI Limited, stating that ICICI Bank Limited is the number one bank in the world and has got a very good reputation in the banking field for more than a decade.  Believing the words of the representative, the complainant availed a credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1013 for the sanctioned credit of Rs.50,000/- initially and enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-, considering the complainant’s prompt payments.  The complainant has been using the aforesaid credit card and paying the dues within the time stipulated, as per the terms and conditions, without any fault or whatsoever.    Whileso, the complainant was greatly shocked and surprised to receive a statement of accounts for the month of April 2008 with respect to the said credit card, along with yet another credit card No.4477 4735 1407 1005.  On receipt of the same, the complainant approached the opposite parties and informed them that he had never availed any such alleged fake credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005.  The officials assured the complainant that they will look into the matter and do the needful.  But, they failed and neglected to set right the defects contained in the said statement and issued a statement for the month of June 2008 by monitoring the complainant’s credit card No.4477 4735 1407 1013 as well as the fictitious credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005 again. The complainant approached the opposite parties immediately in person as well as by letter dated 04.07.2008 and pointed out the defects that had occurred in the statement of the Opposite parties.  However, the opposite parties have miserably failed and neglected to look into the matter.  Whileso, again to the complainant’s utter shock and dismay, the opposite parties went to the extent of blocking the complainant’s genuine credit card bearing No. 4477 4735 1407 1013 as the complainant has not paid anything towards the fictitious credit card especially when the complainant has been promptly and punctually paying the amounts as per the credit card originally availed by him.   The above conduct on the part of the opposite parties is deficiency of service, negligence, dereliction of duty and unfair trade practices.  The complainant was again shocked and surprised to receive a letter from the opposite parties dated 06.03.2009 stating that they have appropriated a sum of Rs.12,062.22 from the complainant’s saving bank account No.0001 0154 4750, in their branch towards alleged dues of the non-existent and fictitious credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005 (fake), inspite of the complainant having pointed out to them that such a credit card does not belong to him.  Hence, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 27.05.2009 through his counsel, with a request for restoration of the complainant’s credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1013 with immediate effect and also to reimburse a sum of Rs.12,062.22  together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and also to pay a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards  mental agony, physical strain and stress and sufferings undergone by the complainant.  But there was no response.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint seeking the following reliefs:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to cancel the fictitious card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005.    
2. To direct the opposite parties to jointly and severally to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- being the compensation towards mental agony,  physical strain and stress and sufferings undergone by the complainant.
3. To direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay the costs.

 

3.   The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties by filing a version stating that the complainant signed an agreement for availing credit card facilities of the opposite party Bank, subject to the terms and conditions incorporated in the agreement.  The transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is one of contract, whereby the complainant has agreed to avail the personal facilities of the opposite party subject to the conditions that in case of failure to pay for the services availed by him within the prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest, to ensure that the money is promptly paid.  Once loan is availed, the borrower is under obligation to pay the outstanding amount shown in the monthly statement furnished to him.  The charges including interest are strictly based on the agreement between the complainant and the opposite party and in accordance with the guidelines of RBI.  In the instant case, the complainant was issued a credit card i.e., the primary card No.4477 4735 1407 1013, in 2003.   Later, an add-on card bearing No. 4477 4735 1407 1005 was issued.  After making few prompt initial payments, the complainant defaulted continuously and owed a sum of Rs.78,946.42, as on February 2009.  Based on the primary card renewal, add-on cards are issued.   The complainant has wilfully denied the fact that he is a holder of another card, the primary card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1013.  The complainant owed a sum of Rs.55,620.79  as on June 2008 and he was duly reminded about the same.  Since he had not made any payments, his credit card was blocked.  The complainant is not bonafide and therefore he is not entitled to any relief from this Forum.  However, under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, the opposite parties are entitled to exercise lien on the amounts from any account of the customer towards the outstanding in any other account.  Therefore, there is absolutely no deficiency of service and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

 

4.  In order to prove the case, on the side of the complainant proof affidavit and 13 documents were filed and the same were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A13.  On the side of the opposite parties three documents were filed and marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B3, along with proof affidavit.

 

5.  The District Forum, after analyzing the evidence and records, dismissed the complaint as there is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties.   Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the complainant.

 

6.  Heard the submission of the counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on records. No representation for the opposite parties. 

 

7.   It is the submission of the complainant that he had availed a credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1013 for a sanctioned credit of Rs.50,000/- initially and enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-.  Whereas, in the month of April 2008, the statement of accounts sent by the opposite parties showed that there is yet another credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005.  When the complainant contacted the opposite parties and informed that he had not availed any such credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005, they assured that they would look into the matter.  Again they were sending the statement of accounts for the complainant’s benefit credit card No.4477 4735 1407 1013, along with the complainant’s fictitious credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005 during the subsequent months, without considering the request of the complainant.  The opposite parties have also appropriated a sum of Rs.12,062.22 on 06.03.2009 from the complainant’s saving bank account as alleged dues, for the non-existent and fictitious credit card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1005.  On the other hand, it is the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant has been issued with a primary credit card No.4477 4735 1407 1013 in 2003 and later, an add-on card bearing No. 4477 4735 1407 1005 was issued.  After making few prompt initial payments, the complainant defaulted in repayments. That was the reason for the opposite parties to block his primary card bearing No.4477 4735 1407 1013. As on February 2009, he owed a sum of Rs.78,946.42 to the opposite parties.  As per Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, the opposite parties are entitled to exercise lien on any account of the customer towards the outstanding amount and transfer the amount due.  Therefore, from reading of the complaint as well as the version, we could see that there is a disputed question of facts.  When there are disputed question of facts, the issue involved in the complaint cannot be decided before the Consumer Forum in a summary manner.  The proper forum to decide the issue is only a Civil Court, where the parties can adduce oral evidence by affording opportunity of cross-examination to other side.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the issue involved in this complaint cannot be decided, by merely relying upon the pleadings made on either side. 

 

8.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and hence the order dated 18.03.2019 made in C.C. No.231 of 2010 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South), is confirmed.  Consequently, the Appeal is dismissed.   However, the parties are at liberty to approach the appropriate forum.

 

 

S.M.LATHA MAHESWARI                                                           R.SUBBIAH

         MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

 

 

Index :  Yes/ No

AVR/SCDRC/Chennai/Orders/February/2022