DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Akhil Garg s/o Nagesh Chand Garg r/o 1139, Sector 11, Panchkula.

                                      ---Complainant.

Versus

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.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA                       MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Vivek Arora, Counsel for the complainant

                        Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OPs.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Akhil Garg has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

a)                 to release his salary account and to give detailed statement of credit card bearing account No.4443410174039006.

b)                 to clarify in what manner and under which rules the opposite parties had deducted the amount from his account.

c)                 to revert back the amount of Rs.9,000/- to his salary account.

d)                to pay Rs.90,000/- as compensation.

e)                 to pay costs of the petition.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a card from CBOP (Sector 9, Chandigarh branch) bearing account No.4443410174039006.  Later on the said bank was taken over by the opposite party bank and since then he is its card holder.  It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he had been using the credit card and had been regularly depositing the money so used by him. 

                   According to the complainant, in the month of September 2008 the said credit card was lost. So he approached the HDFC Bank with a request for issuance of a duplicate credit card.  The officials present there gave him a printed application.  He filled the said application and submitted to the bank  for issuance of a duplicate credit card but till today the same has not been issued to him despite his reminders dated 28.1.2009 and 12.8.2009.

                   It has further been pleaded by the complainant that he is having his 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 from his account and the opposite parties also put a lien on the remaining amount.  When the complainant approached the officials of the opposite parties to know as to why a sum of Rs.9,000/- had been debited from his account without his permission, he was told that he (complainant) has not cleared the outstanding amount against the credit card and the remaining amount is also liable to be deducted against the outstanding dues of the said card.  An offer was made to him to settle the dispute for a sum of Rs.20,000/- to which he declined.  According to the complainant, he was never issued any bill/statement showing any outstanding amount against the said credit card and the action of the opposite parties in debiting the amount of Rs.9,000/- from his account and putting a lien on the remaining amount amounts to deficiency in service.

                   In these circumstances the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           In their joint written statement the opposite parties admitted that the complainant is their card holder.  According to the opposite parties, on 21.12.2011 a sum of Rs.50,661.07 was outstanding due against the use of the credit card.  It has been pleaded that the opposite parties were entitled to create a lien and to adjust the amount lying in one account for the purpose of clearance of dues of another account as is provided under Section 171 of the Contract Act.  As the complainant failed to clear the dues outstanding against the credit card account, the opposite parties had no option but to put a lien on the other account being operated by the complainant in the same bank.  So, according to the opposite parties, it had rightfully exercised its right to put a lien on account for non payment of the bank’s dues. 

                    Thus, according to the opposite parties, there is no deficiency in service on their part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

5.                           From the perusal of the statement (R-1) it is apparent that the outstanding amount against the complainant pertains to the use of the card in the year 2008.  It is further evident from the statement dated 3.12.2008 that an amount of Rs.50,661.07 was due against the complainant for use of the credit card.  There is no evidence on record from the side of the complainant to prove that he paid the said amount and cleared the credit card account.  In these circumstances the opposite parties had right to put a lien on the account being maintained by the complainant in their bank against any outstanding on any count with the same Bank.  Such an act of the opposite parties does not amount to any deficiency in service. 

6.                           In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.  

7.                           Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

26^th December, 2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER