BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH ======== Consumer Complaint No | : | 26 of 2011 | Date of Institution | : | 18.01.2011 | Date of Decision | : | 16.06.2011 |
Nitika Sood d/o Sh.N.C.Sood r/o 1104, Sector 18-C, Chandigarh. ….…Complainant V E R S U S 1. Branch Manager, ICICI Bank, Direct Cards, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 2. Mr.Ravi Gupta, Manager, ICICI Bank, Direct Cards, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 3. Mr.Amitabh, Employee, ICICI Bank, Direct Cards, SCO No.129-130, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh. 4. Branch Head, ICICI Bank, SCO No.17, Phase-10, Mohali. ..…Opposite Parties CORAM: SH.P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Vivek Arora, Adv. for complainant. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs No.1 & 4. OPs No.2 and 3 exparte. PER P.D.GOEL, PRESIDENT The complainant namely Nitika Sood has filed the present complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act (as amended upto date) “hereinafter referred to as the Act”. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant took credit card fromOP-1 bearing card No.444341017782. The complainant had been using the said credit card regularly. It is the case of the complainant that in the month of May, 2002, the said credit card was lost and information to this effect was given to OP-1. The complainant was made to sign the performa for getting the duplicate card. The complainant was assured that duplicate card will be issued at the earliest. The complainant alleged that OP-1 had failed to issue the duplicate credit card to her, so non-issuance of the same amounts to deficiency in service. It is further the case of the complainant that she opened the salary account No.108401500912 with ICICI Bank, Mohali and her salary amounting to Rs.41000/- was credited in the said account on 30.12.2010. It is the allegation of the complainant that without giving her prior information, the OPs had withdrawn the amount of Rs.41000/- from her account on 31.12.2010. Consequently, the complainant approached bank officials of the OP-1 but they failed to disclose the current status of the account. The withdrawal of Rs.41000/- is stated to be illegal. Ultimately, the complainant served a legal notice dated 4.1.2011 but to no effect, hence this complaint. 2. OPs No.2 and 3 failed to appear despite due service, hence they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 7.3.2011. 3. OPs No.1 and 4 filed written statement and took some preliminary objections. On merits, the averments of the complainant made in the complaint were denied. It is replied that intention of the complainant was not to pay the dues against the credit card. It is further repaid that in exercise of the right of the bank to impose the lien in case of the failure of a person who owes money to the bank under one account, the bank can exercise its right of lien and adjust the accounts by transferring money from one account of the debtor to another account. It is further replied that the complainant was liable to pay the amount of Rs.41,000/- , so the bank in exercise of its right of lien transferred the amount of Rs.41000/- from salary account of the complainant to her other account. It is further replied that the complainant has utilized the card and amount of Rs.68,063/- was payable as on 06.01.2001. The complainant was also required to pay the said amount on or before the due date failing which she was liable to pay the amount along with interest and late payment charges. It is further replied that the complainant did not make the payment as and when due. It is denied that the complainant was regularly depositing the amount due against the credit card. It is also denied that the ATM machine was not working. In the end, it is replied that replying OPs have transferred the amount from salary account to credit card account as per the law. Pleading that there has been no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made. 4. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. The only point which calls decision from this Court is that whether the OPs No.1 and 4 had a legal right to adjust the amount of Rs.41,000/- from one account of the complainant to her another account. The answer to this is in the affirmative. 7. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant conceded that the credit card of the complainant was lost in May, 2009. The careful scrutiny of the bank statement attached with the reply at Page 5 to 39 makes it clear that certain amounts were due towards the complainant from 21.05.2008 to 30.04.09. It is evident from the statements of account at page 16 that on 30.04.2009, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.41,270.04 to the OPs No.1 and 4. 8. Admittedly, the complainant has not challenged the entries contained in the bank statements at page 5 to 16 attached with the reply. Thus, it is proved that on 30.04.09, the complainant was liable to pay Rs.41,270.04 to the OPs-Bank. 9. Learned counsel for the complainant, during the course of arguments, agreed that OPs-Bank can impose lien in case of failure of a person who owes money to the bank under one account, the bank can exercise its right of lien and adjust the account while transferring the money from one account of the debtor to the another account. In the instant case, the OPs-Bank had transferred the amount of Rs.41,000/- from the salary account of the complainant to her credit card account. 10. Now it is established on record that the amount of Rs.41,270.04 were outstanding towards the complainant as on 30.04.09. The credit card of the complainant was lost in May, 2009. As the OPs-Bank had only adjusted the amount of Rs.41,000/- from one account to the other account of the complainant, therefore, it can be legitimately concluded that the OPs No.1 and 4 had not committed any illegality. They did so in exercise of its right to impose a lien as stated above. Reliance placed upon the case titled as Shri B.P.Gupta Versus The State Bank of India, New Delhi, 1993(1)-PLR-18 (P&H). 11. Before parting with the judgment, OPs No.1 and 4 are directed to issue the duplicate credit card to the complainant forthwith as per the rules and also on completion of requisite formalities. 12. In view of the above, it is held that the complaint is devoid of any merits and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. 13. The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned. | | | Sd/- | Sd/- | 16.06.2011 | | | [Rajinder Singh Gill] | (P.D.Goel) | cm | | | Member | President |
| | MR. RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. P. D. Goel, PRESIDENT | , | | 
