1.                  HDFC Bank Ltd., Bank House, Industrial Area, Chandigarh.

2.                 HDFC Bank Ltd., Credit Card Division, Head office, Mumbai.

3.                 HDFC Bank Ltd., HDFC Bank Cards Division, 8, Lattice Bridge Road, Thiruvanmiyurr, Chennai 600041.

……Appellants/OPs

V e r s u s

Asha Madhu w/o Sh.Madhusudanan Pillai,  R/o H.No.4-A,  Sector 44-A, First Floor, Army Flats, Chandigarh.

              ....Respondent/complainant

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:    JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

S.  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER.

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

                        Respondent in person

PER  JAGROOP  SINGH   MAHAL, MEMBER

                        This is OPs’ appeal against the order dated 28.9.2011, rendered by the ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the District Forum) vide which it allowed the complaint filed by the complainant/respondent and directed the appellants/OPs as under:-

“5]       In the light of above observations & findings, we allow the present compliant and direct the OPs to refund an amount of Rs.8518/- along with an interest @12% p.a. from the date when the same was realized from her Saving Account through Lien, till its realization.  We also saddle OPs with a consolidated amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- along with litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

                                    This order be complied with by OPs within 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs shall be liable to pay an interest @12% p.a. on the amount of compensation also that stands against them after completion of 30 days from the date of order till its actual payment, besides paying cost of litigation.”

2.                             The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who was an employee of the OPs and was the holder of Staff Platinum Credit Card, at the time of leaving the service in April, 2009, requested them to convert her Card into simple Credit Card.  She filled-up necessary conversion form and sent the same to Bank’s Credit Card Division in Chennai. It was alleged that since, May, 2009 OPs failed to provide her with e-statements of said Credit Card despite repeated requests to the Customer Care and the other bank officials.   It was also alleged that the OPs marked a lien of Rs.16,987/- on 21.7.2010 on her salary account held with HDFC Bank, Sector 8, Chandigarh, without any prior intimation to her.  Though, an e-mail was sent to OPs seeking details pertaining to the lien, but they instead debited an amount of Rs.17,091.45 from her Saving Account on 26.7.2010. It was alleged that in these circumstances, while she was not aware of her account status, but she kept on making payments against the credit card dues to the Collection Team of the Bank. She even approached the Banking Ombudsman, to seek redressal of her grievance, as a result of which, the OPs credited an amount of Rs.6,931/- & Rs.4,280/- on 29.9.2010 in her account, however, no transaction details were made available to her, nor the OPs came forward to redress her grievance for over a year.  When the grievance of the complainant was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was filed.

3.                             The OPs in their joint written reply have admitted the factual matrix of the case.  It was submitted that they have already complied with the order of the Banking Ombudsman and the differential amount was refunded to the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant continued to use the said Credit Card even after leaving the service and that they did not charge any overdue or late payment charges after July, 2009, when as per the OPs the amount due towards her was adjusted.  It was pleaded that the Forum does not have the power under Act to sit in Appeal on an order passed by the Banking Ombudsman. It was submitted that marking of lien on complainant’s saving account was their legal as well as contractual right. It was alleged that the complainant was irregular in making her payments against the outstanding amount of her Credit Card even prior to the period in dispute and that she was liable to pay late payment, overdue charges and other charges that stood against her account.  Remaining averments were denied, being wrong.  Pleading that there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint was made. 

4.                             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 

5.                             After hearing the complainant in person, ld. Counsel for the OPs and on going through the evidence on record, the ld. District Forum allowed the complaint, as stated above.

6.                             Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/OPs.

7.                           We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant, respondent in person and have also gone through the evidence on record of the case carefully. 

8.                             The learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties/appellants has argued that only a sum of Rs.429/- is to be paid by them to the complainant after adjusting the entire payment made by her. The calculations have been given by the learned Counsel at page 8 and 9 of the memorandum of appeal. However, we find that the same is not correct because instead of mentioning the amount due from the complainant as Rs.19,370.49 Ps, he has mentioned it as Rs.19,730.49 Ps.  On the other hand the complainant/respondent has submitted the written submission in para No.8 of which it mentioned that a sum of Rs.5,770/- is yet to be paid by the OP/appellant, which contention also is not correct as discussed hereunder.

9.                             There is no dispute about it that a sum of Rs.19,370.49 Ps. was due from the complainant/respondent as per accounts statement dated 18.6.2009. It is also admitted that the complainant had deposited Rs.14,980/- on various dates and therefore, a sum of Rs.4,390/-  remained due from her. The Opposite Parties/appellants received a sum of Rs.17,091.46 as lien and therefore, they received a sum of Rs.12,701/- in excess of the amount due from the complainant/respondent.  The complainant filed an application before the Banking Ombudsman, who ordered refund of Rs.11,911/.  Still a sum of Rs.790/- is due from the Opposite Parties/appellants. The learned District Forum, therefore, went wrong in calculating the correct amount due from the complainant or received by the Opposite Parties/appellants.

10.                         The Opposite Parties/appellants were deficient on three counts; firstly they did not send any statement of account to the complainant. It was necessary for the Opposite Parties/appellants to send statement of accounts so as to enable her to know about the date on which as well as the amount, which was to be deposited by her. The Opposite Parties/appellants have not produced any document to suggest if any statement was ever delivered to the complainant/respondent. In its absence the Opposite Parties/appellants would not be entitled to impose any penalty or penal interest for delay in depositing the amount due from her.

11.                           The second deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties/appellants is that a sum of Rs.4,390/-  only was due from the complainant/respondent but it debited an amount of Rs.17,091.46 Ps to her account When Opposite Parties/appellants did not refund the excess amount, the complainant had to approach the Banking Ombudsman and it was during the proceedings before the Ombudsman, that the Opposite Parties/appellants realized their highhandedness and refunded Rs.11,911/-. Had the Opposite Parties/appellants not deducted such a huge amount of Rs.17,091.46/-, the complainant would not have bothered to plunge into this litigation. The litigation was therefore, thrust on the complainant due to the illegal acts of the Opposite Parties/appellants.

12.                         The District Forum rightly held that the next deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties/appellants was that they debited the amount of Rs.17,091.46 without giving any notice to the complainant. It was necessary for the Opposite Parties/appellants to have afforded the complainant an opportunity of being heard, before the said amount (after imposing a lien) was withdrawn from her account. The illegal action on the part of the Opposite Parties/appellants compelled the complainant to approach the banking ombudsman and when she did not get complete justice, then to file the present complaint before the District Forum. In this manner, the Opposite Parties/appellants, not only caused financial loss to the complainant but also caused her mental and physical harassment for which the learned District Forum rightly allowed a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.7,000/- as litigation costs.

13.                          In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Opposite Parties/appellants, were really deficient in rendering service. The wrong action on their part created the entire litigation. However, the order of the learned District Forum requires modification and instead of Rs.8,518/-, we direct the   Opposite Parties/appellants to refund Rs.790/- to the complainant/respondent. The   Opposite Parties/appellants shall pay interest @12% p.a. on the excess amount of Rs.12,701/- with effect from the date the same was recovered till its payment back to her partly before the Banking Ombudsman and the remaining in pursuance of this order.  With this modification the present appeal is partly allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs of litigation.       

14.                       A sum of Rs.13,428.31/- was deposited by the appellants  at the time of filing this appeal.  After the expiry of the period for filing revision, the aforesaid amount of Rs.13,428.31/- alongwith interest, if any accrued thereon, shall be paid to the complainant/respondent in partial satisfaction of its claim, if no stay order is received from the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

            Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.