STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
U.T., CHANDIGARH
First Appeal No. | : | 49 of 2013 |
Date of Institution | : | 06.02.2013 |
Date of Decision | : | 01.03.2013 |
Akhil Garg s/o Nagesh Chand Garg. R/o 1139, Sector 11, Panchkula.
……Appellant/complainant
V e r s u s
1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Credit Cards, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9C, Chandigarh
2. Mr. Ravi Gupta, Debt Manager, ICICI Bank, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9C, Chandigarh.
....Respondents/Opposite Parties
Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
BEFORE: JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.
MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.
Argued by: Sh. Vivek Arora, Advocate for the appellant.
PER JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT
This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.12.2012, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant).
2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant took a credit card from Centurion Bank of Punjab (CBOP), Sector 9, Chandigarh Branch, Chandigarh, bearing account No.4443410174039006. Later on, the said bank was taken over by Opposite Party No.1 and, since then, the complainant has been its card holder. The complainant had been using the credit card, in question, and regularly depositing the money for such use. In the month of September 2008, the said credit card was lost. The complainant, thus, approached HDFC Bank, with a request, for issuance of a duplicate credit card. The Officials present there, gave him a printed application form. He filled in the said application form and submitted the same, to the bank, for issuance of a duplicate credit card, but despite numerous reminders, the same was not issued to him.
3. The complainant is having a salary account, in ICICI Bank, Branch Sector 9, Chandigarh. On 31.1.2012, his salary amounting to Rs.40,000/- was deposited in the said account. To his surprise, a sum of Rs.9,000/- was debited to the said account, by creating lien, on the remaining amount, by the Opposite Parties. When the complainant approached the Opposite Parties, to know, as to why, a sum of Rs.9,000/-, had been debited to his account, without his permission, he was told that he (complainant) had not cleared the outstanding amount, against the credit card, in question. He was further told that the remaining amount was also liable to be deducted, against the outstanding dues of the said credit card. It was stated that, an offer was made to the complainant, to settle the dispute, for a sum of Rs.20,000/-, but he declined the same. It was further stated that the complainant was never issued any bill/statement, showing any outstanding amount, against the said credit card. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Parties, amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. 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 to be called as the Act only), was filed, directing the Opposite Parties, to release the salary account of the complainant and give detailed statements of credit card bearing account No.4443410174039006; clarify, in what manner, and under which Rules, they had deducted the amount, from the account of the complainant, and why they had not issued the duplicate credit card to him, despite informing the loss of the same and request for issuance of duplicate credit card; revert back the amount of Rs.9,000/-, to the salary account of the complainant, illegally withdrawn, from his account; pay compensation, in the sum of Rs.90,000/-, for mental agony and physical harassment; and cost of litigation.
4. The Opposite Parties, in their joint written version, admitted that the complainant is their credit card holder, bearing account No.4443410174039006. It was stated that, on 21.12.2011, a sum of Rs.50,661.07Ps, was due, to be paid by the complainant, against the use of the said credit card. It was further stated that since the complainant, failed to pay the outstanding amount, due against the credit card, in question, held by him, the Opposite Parties, were very well within their right, to create lien, on another account, of the complainant, in the same bank, under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872. It was further stated that the complainant failed to produce on record, any documentary evidence, with regard to the loss of his credit card. It was further stated that, even, no intimation was received by the Opposite Parties, with regard to the alleged loss of the credit card, by the complainant, as also request for issuance of a duplicate credit card, in his favour. It was further stated that neither there was any deficiency, in rendering service, on the part of the Opposite Parties, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
5. The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, as stated above.
7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant.
8. We have heard the Counsel for the appellant, at the admission stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the appellant/complainant, submitted that, no doubt, the complainant was having credit card of the Opposite Parties, yet, he was never supplied the statements of account. He further submitted that the Opposite Parties were not legally entitled to create lien, in respect of the outstanding amount, against the credit card, on another account of the complainant, which he was holding, in the same bank. He further submitted that even intimation with regard to the loss of the credit card, in question, as also request for issuance of duplicate credit card, in favour of the complainant, was sent to the Opposite Parties, but they failed to take any action, in the matter. He further submitted that, as such, the Opposite Parties, were clearly deficient, in rendering service, as also indulged into unfair trade practice, but the District Forum, fell into a grave error, in not appreciating the evidence, on record, and law on the point, resulting into dismissal of the complaint. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum being illegal and invalid, is liable to be set aside.
10. Admittedly, the complainant was having a credit card of the Opposite Parties, bearing No.4443410174039006. It is not disputed, that the complainant was also using the same. It is evident, from Annexure R-1 (colly.), copy of the statements of account of the said credit card, that a sum of Rs.50,661.07Ps., was due against the complainant, in respect of the said card, as on 21.02.2012. These statements of account were duly supplied to the complainant, from time to time. There is nothing, on the record, to show that the complainant had asked for the supply of statements of account, but the Opposite Parties failed to do so. Since, the complainant had been using the credit card bearing No.4443410174039006, issued in his favour, by the Opposite Parties, it was his duty to clear the outstanding amount, due against the same, but he failed to do so. Under these circumstances, no option was left with the Opposite Parties, than to create lien, on another account of the complainant, which he was having in the same bank, for the purpose of recovery of the dues outstanding amount, against the said credit card, being held by the complainant. According to Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Opposite Parties were legally entitled to create lien, on another account of the account holder (complainant), for the recovery of outstanding amount. In Syndicate Bank vs Vijay Kumar And Others, AIR 1992 SC 1066, it was held as under:-
“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 that the general lien is a valuable right of the banker judicially recognised 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 arc deposited by the customer”.
11. In M. Mallika vs State Bank of India And Anr., IV (2006) CPJ 1 (NC), and Manager, Karnataka Bank Ltd. Vs. Puttamade Gowda, II (2004) CPJ 59 NC, the principle of law, laid down, was to the effect, that the banker has right to exercise lien, on another account of the account holder and debit the amount, to the said account, for recovery of the outstanding amount, in respect of another account of the complainant. The complainant failed to prove, on record, that he paid the outstanding amount, aforesaid, against the credit card, in question, issued in his favour, which was being used by him. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is also aptly applicable to the facts of the instant case. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that the exercise of a legal right of lien, by the banker, on the account of the complainant, being authorised under the provisions of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, could not be said to be illegal, and did not amount to deficiency, in rendering service, or indulgence into unfair trade practice. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
12. No doubt, in the complaint, it was averred by the complainant, that he lost his credit card, and requested the Opposite Parties, to issue him a duplicate credit card. However, this fact was denied by the Opposite Parties, in their written version. Annexures C-1 and C-2 are the copies of two letters, addressed to the Manager (Credit Card Dept.), HDFC Bank, Sector 9, Chandigarh, dated 28.01.2009 and 12.08.2009, respectively. No evidence was produced, by the complainant, to prove the mode of despatch of these letters. Even, no copy of the DDR, with regard to the loss of credit card, was produced by the complainant. Under these circumstances, it could very well be said that the complainant failed to prove loss of the credit card, issued, in his favour. He also failed to prove that he made a request to the Opposite Parties, for the issuance of a duplicate credit card. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, in this regard, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected.
13. No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the appellant.
14. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
15. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the District Forum is upheld.
16. Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
17. The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion
Pronounced.
01.03.2013
Sd/-
[JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]
PRESIDENT
Sd/-
[NEENA SANDHU]
MEMBER
Rg
