Haryana

StateCommission

A/88/2015

ICICI BANK - Complainant(s)

Versus

A.K.TIWARI - Opp.Party(s)

SANDEEP PURI

11 Nov 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

                                                 

First Appeal No  : 88 of 2015

Date of Institution: 22.01.2015

Date of Decision : 11.11.2016

 

1.      ICICI Bank Limited, Booth No. 129, Ground Floor, Sector-16, Market Faridabad, through its Manager.

2.      ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Bank towers Bandra Kurla complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai, through its Manager.

                                      Appellants-Opposite parties

 Versus

 

A.K. Tiwari son of Shri S.L. Tiwari resident of House No. 1358, Sector-8, Faridabad.

                                     

                                      Respondent- Complainant

 

 

CORAM:             Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nawab Singh, President.

                             Shri B.M. Bedi, Judicial Member.

                             Shri Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member   

 

Argued by:          Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the appellants

 

                                                   O R D E R

 

B.M. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

          ICICI Bank Limited- opposite parties No.1 and 2 are in appeal against the order dated 05.12.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Faridabad (in short, ‘District Forum’) vide which the complaint was allowed and opposite parties No.1 and 2 was directed to credit Rs.30,552.44 in the saving bank account of the complainant within 30 days, besides Rs.2,200/- as compensation and Rs. 2,200/- as litigation expenses.

2.      A.K. Tiwari -complainant filed complaint with allegations that he has got issued a credit card No. 4477473685004009 valid from April 2005 to April 2010.  The opposite parties raised bills to the tune of Rs.46,568/- as detailed in the paragraph-3 of complaint.  The appellants did not properly disclose the actual and trustworthy facts to the complainant before issuance of credit card. The bank debited a sum of Rs.30,552.44 in his saving bank account stating the same to be due against use of credit card. The complainant filed complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act before the District Forum.

3.      Opposite parties contested the complaint and pleaded that complainant has applied for a credit card facility. The complainant was chronic defaulter towards payments dues against the facility of credit card.  Thus, the bank by exercising its lien as provided under section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 debited the said amount in the saving bank account of complainant.  Opposite parties prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.      District Forum on hearing both the parties allowed the complaint and issued directions to the appellants as mentioned in opening para of this order.

5.      It is not disputed that complainant had availed the credit card facility from the opposite parties and a sum of Rs.30,552.44 was due and payable by the complainant.

6.      The only question to be determined as to whether bank without the consent of complainant could debit the amount due against credit card in his saving bank account to recover the amount due to them.

7.      It has been settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1992 SC 1066, wherein it has been held that “the above passages go to show that by mercantile system the Bank has a general lien over all forms of securities or negotiable instruments deposited by or on behalf of the customer in the ordinary course of banking business and the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognized and in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, a Banker has a general lien over such securities or bills received from a customer in the ordinary course of banking business and has a right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer’s debit balance. Such a lien is also applicable to negotiable instruments including FDRs which are remitted to the bank by the customer for the purpose of collection.  There is no gainsaying that such a lien extends to FDRs also which are deposed by the customer”.         

6.      Since the bank has lien available in the Statue under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act therefore, bank was certainly within its right to recover the amount by way of debit in the saving bank account of complainant. No consent of account holder is required in this respect.  District Forum did not take all the aspects into the consideration while allowing the complaint therefore the impugned order can sustain and is set aside. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the complaint is dismissed.

7.      The statutory amount of Rs.2200/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the appellants against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

         

Announced 11.11.2016

(Diwan Singh Chauhan) Member

(B.M. Bedi) Judicial Member

(Nawab Singh) President

DK