BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
CACHAR :: SILCHAR
Con. Case No. 37 of 2014
Sri Geetopriya Chokroborty,
Vivekananda Housing Co-Operative Society
Meherpur, Silchar- 788005, Dist- Cachar, Assam. Complainant.
-V/S-
1. HDFC Bank Ltd.
Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg,
Lower Parel (West) Mumbai- 400013 O.P No.1.
2. The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank
Club Road, Silchar- 788001, Assam O.P No.2.
3. The Branch Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd.
Netaji Subhas Avenue, Silchar-788005 O.P.No.3.
Present: - Sri BishnuDebnath, President,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda, Member,
District Consumer Forum,
Cachar, Silchar.
Appeared: - Mr. RupendraMohan Das, Advocate for the complainant.
Mr. Mithu Deb, Advocate for the O.P.No.1 & 2
None for O.P.No.3.
Date of Evidence 18-02-2015, 27-01-2016
Date of written argument 13-06-2017, 09-08-2017
Date of oral argument 09-11-2017, 07-03-2018, 19-05-2018
03-07-2018, 07-09-2018 (None has argued)
Date of judgment 01-10-2018
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
Sri Bishnu Debnath,
- This case has been brought by Sri Geetopriya Chokroborty (complainant) against HDFC Bank and its Branch Manager at Silchar for award of Rs. 64,587.96 and refund of all EMI interest and other charges after proper rendition of Account and also award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000 for mental agony etc. and cost of the proceeding of RS.20,000/-
- Brief fact:-
The complainant is holder of saving Bank Account No. 10091140007696 of HDFC Bank at Silchar Branch. The said account has credit card facility vide Card No. 5520880000255773. On 10-09-2012 the complainant incurred transaction at M/S Eregnow.com for an amount of Rs.81,836.25 by using the said credit card. But said amount has been paid back to the HDFC Bank through a cheque No. 4091 dated 04-10-2012 of his another Bank A/C No. 061901501518 of ICICI Bank Silchar. The said Bank is referred as proforma O.P in this judgment. Though the complainant paid back the amount spent through credit card within 30 days from its expenditure but the O.P HDFC Bank most whimsically and illegally started debiting EMIs to realize the aforesaid amount with interest. On corresponding, the HDFC Bank informed by issuing letter dated 13-01-20-14 that they have credited an amount of Rs.64,587.96 on 19-06-2013 in the undisclosed account of the complainant as cancellation of EMIs.
- Not only that the complainant also brought allegation that the HDFC Bank most illegally freezed his personal loan A/C No. 21621502 maintain in the bank of O.P and by their letter dated 04-04-2014 placed a ‘‘Hold on Fund’’ of all the account of the complainant including SB A/C No. 10091140007696 by exercising the ‘‘Banker’s lien and right to set off’’.
- The HDFC Bank and its Branch Manager at Silchar in their joint W/S denied all the allegations. Rather stated inter-alia that the amount spent through credit card was started realization with installment basis because transaction has been converted to dial an EMI request received from the complainant. Subsequently, the above said dial an EMI has been cancelled on 18-06-2013 and all 9 EMI debited on the credit card account has been credited along with corresponding service tax. The proforma O.P i.e. ICICI Bank did not contest the case.
- During hearing the complainant submitted his deposition supporting affidavit and also exhibited some documents. The contesting O.P also submitted deposition of Md. Safiulla, the legal Manager of the O.P and exhibited some documents.
- After closing evidence, both sides’ counsels submitted written arguments. I have perused the evidence on record and written argument. I have also heard both sides’ counsels’.
- From the evidence on record, it is concluded that fact of purchased item for Rs. 81,836.25 and fact of refund of Rs. 82,000/- within 30 days of expenditure through credit are admitted by the O.Ps. Thus, as per terms and conditions of credit card facility there is no cogent ground to recover the amount of Rs. 81,836.25 with interest on EMI basis. It is admitted fact that the complainant repaid the aforesaid amount with slight excess i.e. Rs. 82,000/- on 04-10-2012 i.e. within 30 days and the O.P accept that amount. So, there would not be any confusion to the O.P to continue to give effect EMI although the request received in earlier occasion from the complainant to recover the amount of Rs. 81,836.25 with interest on EMI basis.
- On careful perusal of the record including evidence on record and Bank statement of SB A/C No. 061901501518 of the complainant maintain in the Bank of the O.P that the said amount of Rs. 82,000/- was not deposited to SB A/C but credited to the account of the O.P.
- That is why in my considered view when fund is available with the O.P to adjust the amount spent by the complainant through credit card, so it is the bounden duty of the O.P to stop the scheme of EMI and adjust available fund to the amount spent by the complainant through credit card. But the O.P-Bank very consciously for earning more money by means of interest with EMI continued the EMI scheme and attempted to realize more money from the complainant. The said attitude of the O.P-Bank is not at all appreciable rather it may be treated as unfair trade practice.
- Therefore, the O.P is asked to refund the excess amount realize from the Bank account of the complainant and restore all the banking facility which were pre-existed at the time of transaction of Rs.81,836.25. In addition, the O.P No.1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation for mental agony to the complainant to the tune of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) only and cost of the proceeding of RS.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand) only.
- The O.Ps are directed to carry out the order to make amount to satisfy the awarded aforesaid within 45 days from today. In default, the O.Ps are to pay interest on total calculated amount at the rate of 10% per annum.
- With the above, the case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the partiers. Given under my hand and seal of this District Forum on this the 1st day of October, 2018.
