Date of Filing:16.03.2009<br /> Date of Order:30.04.2009<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 30TH DAY OF APRIL 2009<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO:602 OF 2009<br /> <br /> Sri. S.B. Krishna,<br /> S/o Late K. Narasimha Murthy,<br /> R/at No.175, 5th Main Road,<br /> Avalahalli Extension,<br /> BSK III Stage, Bangalore-85. Complainant<br /> <br /> V/S<br /> Authorised Signatory,<br /> ICICI Bank Ltd.,<br /> Credit Card Collection,<br /> Bommanahalli,<br /> Bangalore-68. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> This is a complainant filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming refund of Rs.11,411-41/- from the opposite party Bank. <br /> The brief facts of the case are that, the complainant is the Credit Card Holder in the opposite party Bank bearing No. 3770 413164 23002 and he was prompt in making payment of all the dues raised in respect of the said credit card. The complainant was paying his monthly premium in respect of his Lombard Insurance Policy through Credit Card. Due to personal reasons, the complainant got the said insurance policy cancelled in February-2008. The premium paid was transferred back to this credit card. This entry is also reflected in the statement dated 3/3/2008. After that entry there was another entry charging Rs.5,719/-. The complainant questioned about this the opposite party Bank staff given narration as “EMI Principal”. An amount of Rs.5,719/- had been mentioned as EMI Principal for the transaction held on 28/2/2008. In fact the complainant had not made any transactions on 28/2/2008 and there was no outstanding amount as on that date. During the period of statement there were two transactions one for Rs.140/- and another was for Rs.3,892/-. According to the Bank website there was no transaction of Rs.5,719-09. The opposite party Bank has recovered an amount of Rs.5,719-09 from the S.B A/c bearing No. 004701501413 of the complainant. Except this transaction the complainant had no objections about the other transactions mentioned in the said bill. Complainant requested the Bank to furnish the details of the outstanding amount mentioned in the bank statement dated 3/3/2008, but the bank instead of furnishing the details of the amount an irrelevant reply was given stating that an enquiry can not be conducted after 90 days and as such they had not furnished the details to the complainant. The opposite party Bank has not shown any interest to furnish the required information sought by the complainant. The opposite party Bank has deducted an amount of Rs.7,519.41. In spite of repeated requests and correspondence by the complainant, the opposite party Bank has not furnished the details as sought by the complainant and this amounts to negligence. The complainant issued legal notice on 15/1/2009 but failed to furnish the reply to the legal notice issued by the complainant. The opposite party has deducted an amount of Rs.7,519.41 from the S.B A/c of the complainant along with Rs. 3,892/- received from the Lombard Insurance totaling amount of Rs.11,411-41. The Bank has neither refunded the said amount nor replied to the complainant after issue of legal notice dated 12/1/2009. Hence, the complaint. <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice was served. In spite of service of notice the opposite party has not appeared. Defense version not sent even by post also. Therefore the opposite party placed as exparte.<br /> 3. Affidavit evidence of complainant filed. Arguments are heard.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 4. Perused the complaint and documents. It is the case of the complainant that, opposite party Bank has debited an amount of Rs.7,514-41 from the complainant’s S.B A/c bearing No. 004701501413. But complainant submitted that this amount has already been debited from S.B A/c on 15/12/2008 itself. Statement of transaction in Savings Account for the period 01/10/2008 to 31/10/2008 has been produced by the complainant. As per this statement Rs.7,519/- has been shown as withdrawn on 15/12/2008. Therefore, the complainant submitted that he had requested the opposite party to furnish details of outstanding amount as mentioned in the credit card statement. In spite of his request opposite party Bank has not furnished details as sought by the complainant. Therefore, this is a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. Opposite party Bank has failed to furnish the required information to the complainant. The complainant has submitted that he has made repeated correspondence and representations and requested over telephones and even on his personnel visits also opposite party Bank has not furnished the details of amount recovered. The complainant had issued legal notice to the opposite party Bank. In spite of the notice the opposite party Bank has failed to reply to the legal notice. Since an amount of Rs.7,519/- shown as EMI principle on 28/02/2008 in the credit card account is not proper and correct. It is the case of the complainant that he was paying monthly premium towards Lombard General Insurance policy and got the said insurance policy in February-2008, accordingly the premium paid was transferred back to his credit card account. The complainant submits that the amount received in respect of refund of the policy amount had not been credited to his S.B A/c. Therefore, the complainant wants that the said amount shall be credited to the S.B A/c. The amount of Rs. 5,719/- which has been shown as EMI principle for the transaction held on 28/02/2008. The complainant submitted that he has not made any transaction on 28/02/2008 and there was an outstanding amount as on that date. Therefore, the entry as EMI principle dated 28/02/2008 appears to be wrong and not proper. The case made out by the complainant has gone unchallenged. The opposite party Bank has not appeared before this Forum in spite of service of notice. There are no reasons to disbelieve the case put up by the complainant. The opposite party Bank by remaining absent/exparte has accepted the facts stated by the complainant. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the documents and the affidavit evidence filed by the complainant, the complaint deserves to be allowed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 5. The complaint is allowed. The opposite party Bank is directed to reverse back/credit an amount of Rs.5,719/-(shown as EMI principal) and also credit Rs.3,892/- received from the ICICI Lombard General Insurance to the S.B A/c of the complainant (since the complainant got cancelled the health insurance policy).<br /> 6. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the present proceedings to the complainant. <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately as per statutory requirement. <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 30TH DAY OF APRIL-2009. <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings.<br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER<br /> Rhr., <br /> <br />