Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/152/2015

ICICI Bank - Complainant(s)

Versus

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu - Opp.Party(s)

Sandeep Suri, Adv.

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

                                                                 

First Appeal No.	:	152 of 2015
Date of Institution	:	30.06.2015
Date of Decision		12.08.2015

 

1] ICICI Bank, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

2]   ICICI Bank, K-6 & K-7, K-12 & KB-12, Qutub Plaza, DLF, Ashoka Cresent Marg, Sector 26-A, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 ……Appellants/Opposite Parties.

Versus

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu, R/o 95, Sector 8, Chandigarh.

…..Respondent/Complainant.

 

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

 

BEFORE:   JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                SH. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

               

Argued by:Sh. Sandeep Suri, , Advocate for the appellants.

Sh. Arvind Sehdev, Advocate for the respondent.          

PER DEV RAJ, MEMBER

            This appeal is directed against the dissenting order dated 14.01.2015 rendered by Sh. Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member, District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only), to which the President, District Forum gave his concurrence and agreed with the reasoning and findings recorded therein, vide order dated 22.04.2015.

2.         However, the President, District Forum did not agree with the order dated 09.01.2015 recorded separately by the other Member, Mrs. Madhu Mutneja whereby the said Member dismissed the complaint with no order as to costs.

3.         Vide the order dated 14.01.2015, which attained majority vide order dated 22.04.2015, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties (now appellants) as under:-

“9]        Therefore, in two of the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant was not given the benefit of the grace period of complete 48 days and made to pay Rs.22967/- on the two transactions dated 15.5.2014 (auto-debit return i.e. Rs.6044.93 + Rs.747.15 as Service Tax) and on 27.5.2014 (interest charges i.e. Rs.14,395/- + Service Tax of Rs.1779/-).  Thus, the OPs failed in their offer of full grace period of 48 days to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs. Accordingly, the same is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.22,967/- to the complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its respective realization till it is paid.  The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant, apart from paying litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

10]       As on the date when the arguments of this complaint were heard on 24.12.2014, the quorum consisted of the Hon’ble Presiding Member (Mrs.Madhu Mutneja) and myself.  Therefore, to form a majority opinion, it is necessary that the present complaint be once again heard by the Hon’ble President of this Forum so as to give his consent to either of the two orders. Let the case be put up before the Hon’ble President for further proceedings.”

4.         The facts, in brief, are that the complainant, who was the customer of the Opposite Parties for a considerable period of time, was contacted by the Opposite Parties, to avail of the facility of a Credit Card, to which he agreed trusting his banker. It was further stated that the complainant was a good paymaster and had no problems with the Opposite Parties up-till April 2014. It was further stated that the due date for payment of the amount was 15^th of May 2014. It was stated that the complainant paid the cheque but due to insufficient funds, the payment could not be made. It was further stated that immediately on knowing about the same, the complainant deposited the amount in the bank and again gave a cheque to clear the dues. It was further stated that, at the end of May, when the complainant received the statement, he was astonished to see that he had been charged a sum of Rs.32,792.47 as 10% of the amount due. It was further stated that as the complainant was in USA, he could not do anything to stop such charges.

5.         It was further stated that the complainant was charged unnecessary fee, by the Opposite Parties, and, as such, he suffered losses on account of such deductions. It was further stated that the following kind of charges were levied on the complainant from time to time:-

Dated	Transaction details	Amount (Rs.)
15.5.2014	Auto Debit Return Fee	6044.93
15.5.2014	Service Tax	747.15
20.5.2014	Late Payment Fee	700.00
20.5.2014	Service Tax	86.52
20.5.2014	Returned cheque payment fee	6044.93
21.5.2014	Service Tax	747.15
27.5.2014	Interest charges	14,395.95
27.5.2014	Service Tax	1,779.34
Total		30,545.97

 

6.         It was further stated that, after coming back to India and looking at the Credit Card statement (Annexure C-2), the complainant immediately contacted the customer care and asked for the details of the same. It was further stated that the customer care officials assured the complainant that he would be contacted very soon. It was further stated that due to the ECS facility activated on the account, the Opposite Parties deducted the aforesaid amounts from his account. It was further stated that the Credit Card statement for the month of June was annexed as Annexure C-3. It was further stated that till date, no one from the Bank contacted the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1, for details, but noting was forthcoming. It was further stated that the complainant issued a legal notice dated 11.07.2014, to the Opposite Parties demanding a complete refund of Rs.32,792.47, which they charged over and above the due amount of Rs.3,02,246.50Ps for a period of 9 days delay but to no avail.  It was further stated that the aforesaid act of the Opposite Parties amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice.

7.         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, seeking directions to the Opposite Parties, to refund the whole amount, with interest; pay Rs.3,00,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony and Rs.25,000/- as litigation expenses.

8.         The Opposite Parties, in their written version, stated that the complainant was well aware, as per the statement placed, on record, by him that the due outstanding against him was Rs.3,02,246.50, for which, the due date was May 15, 2014.  It was further stated that RTGS/Standing instructions had first bounced on account of insufficient funds and thereafter, the cheque issued by the complainant was returned on account of insufficient funds.  It was further stated that realizing that the payment was not cleared to the Bank, the complainant immediately made cheque payments of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on May 24, 2014 and May 26, 2014 respectively.  It was further stated that as the customer had an Auto Debit facility for the total amount due, the Auto debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds as the balance in the account was Rs.2,32,826.80 as on May 15, 2014.  It was further stated that, on account of this, an Auto debit return fee of Rs.6,044.93, and late payment charges of Rs.700/- were levied in the account.  It was further stated that again the cheque payment of Rs.3.00 lacs was returned due to insufficient funds on May 20, 2014, for which, cheque bouncing fee of Rs.6,044.93 was levied in the card account.  It was further stated that as the payment was received after the due date and was short of Rs.2,246/-, interest charges of Rs.14,395.95 were levied in customer’s card account.  It was further stated that as per the account of the complainant on May 15, 2014, there was a balance of Rs.8,32,826.89, from which, a debit of Rs.6.00 lacs through RTGS was made on the same day, hence the balance was reduced to Rs.2,32,826.89. It was further stated that, subsequently, the Auto Debit payment effected was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds. It was further stated that an amount of Rs.3,02,246.50 was due and payable by the complainant on or before 15th of May, 2014, and when this amount was not paid, the auto debit return fee of Rs.6,044.93 was charged on account of cheque bouncing charges, while interest of Rs.14,395.95 was charged. It was further stated that, the bank charges were righty levied. 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.

9.         The Parties led evidence, in support of their case.

10.       After hearing the Counsel for the parties and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, vide the majority order, allowed the complaint against the Opposite Parties, as stated above, in the opening para of the instant order. 

11.       Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties.

12.       We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully as also the written arguments of the respondent.

13.       The Counsel for the appellants/Opposite Parties submitted that the due outstanding against the respondent/complainant was Rs.3,02,246.50Ps and the due date for payment was May 15, 2014. He further submitted that RTGS/standing instructions had first bounced on account of insufficient funds and thereafter, the cheque issued by the respondent/complainant was returned on account of insufficient funds. He further submitted that when the payment was not cleared by the Bank, the respondent/complainant made payment of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on May 15,2014 and May 26, 2014. He further submitted that the appellants/Opposite Parties debited an auto debit return fee of Rs.6,044.93Ps and late payment charges of Rs.700/- were levied in the account of the respondent/complainant. He further submitted that when payment of Rs.3,00,000/- was not cleared due to insufficient funds on May 20, 2014, cheque bounce fee of Rs.6,044.93Ps was levied. He further submitted that the payment was received after the due date and since it was short of Rs.2,246/-, interest charges of Rs.14,395.95Ps were levied in customer’s card account. He further submitted that as per terms and conditions of ICICI Bank, interest is charged on the entire amount if total amount due is not paid, in full. He further submitted that in case of default, interest charges may increase up to maximum 3.50% per month (42% per annum). He further submitted that interest free grace period ranging from 18 to 48 days could vary depending upon the date of purchase and if total amount is not paid by payment due date then there will be no interest free period.

14.         The Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that the District Forum after minutely discussing the documents, on record, rightly allowed the complaint and directed the appellants/Opposite Parties, to refund Rs.22,967/- to the respondent/complainant, alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of its respective realization till it its actual payment. He further submitted that the District Forum vide the impugned order also rightly ordered for payment of compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service on the part of the appellants/Opposite Parties, besides payment of litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-. The Counsel prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

15.       The core question, that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the appellants/Opposite Parties could levy charges and debit to the account of the respondent/complainant towards auto-debit return fee, late payment fee, interest and cheque bouncing charges etc. Our answer to this question, is in the affirmative. The appellants/Opposite Parties, placed, on record, of the District Forum file, the terms and conditions under which such charges were levied. Clauses 4 and 6 of the said terms and conditions, being relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

         “4. Interest Charges:

1. Interest will be charged if the Total Amount Due is not paid by the payment due date.  Interest will be charged on the Total Amount Due and on all new transactions (from the transaction date) till such time as the previous outstanding amounts are paid in full.  Also, interest will be levied on all cash advances from the date of the transaction until the date of payment.
2. xxxxx
3. In case of default, interest charges may increase up to a maximum of 3.50% per month (42% per annum).

xxxxx

6.  Interest-Free (Grace) Period:

The grace period could range from 18 to 48 days.

Illustrative Example for the calculation of grace period: For a statement for the period from April 15,2009 to May 15, 2009 the payment due date would be June 2, 2009.  Assuming that you have paid your Total Amount Due of the previous month statement by the payment due date, the grace period would be:

 

1. For a purchase dated April 24, 2009, the interest-free grace period is from April 24, 2009 to June 2, 2009, i.e. 40 days.
2. For a purchase dated May 14, 2009, the interest-free grace period is from May 14, 2009 to June 2, 2009, i.e. 20 days…”

From perusal of the afore-extracted clauses, it is evident that the appellants/Opposite Parties, could charge interest, if the total amount due was not paid by the payment due date. It is also clear that interest was payable on the total amount due and on all new transactions (from the transaction date) till such time as the previous outstanding amounts were fully paid. It is also clear that interest was leviable on all cash advances from the date of the transaction until the date of payment and, in case of default, interest charges were to increase up to a maximum of 3.50% per month (42% per annum). Further as per Clause 6, the interest free grace period could range from 18 to 48 days.

16.       In the instant case, the respondent/complainant challenged levying of auto debit return fee, service tax, late payment fee, returned cheque payment fee, interest charges etc. The respondent/complainant himself admitted in Para 4 of the complaint that payment, which was due to be made by 15.05.2014, could not be made due to insufficient funds in his account, as a result whereof, auto debit return fee to the tune of Rs.6,044.93Ps was levied on 15.05.2014. No doubt, the auto debit fee was levied when the balance in the account of the complainant was found inadequate, due to which the standing instructions for RTGS could not be fulfilled. Since no instructions were given by the respondent/complainant to stop the standing instructions prior to the date of charge, the appellants/Opposite Parties were right in charging auto debit return fee.

17.       So far as the service tax, late payment fee, returned cheque payment fee, interest etc. are concerned, the same were rightly levied keeping in view the afore-extracted terms and conditions. Had the respondent/complainant, placed, on record, of the District Forum, any evidence/terms and conditions, in rebuttal to the afore-extracted terms and conditions, the matter would have been different. Admittedly, payment of the due amount was made by the respondent/complainant belatedly i.e. after expiry of the due date of paying the same. The respondent/ complainant also did not prefer to place, on record, his Bank Account Statement, which would have thrown more light on the allegations and counter-allegations of both the sides. 

18.       In so far as interest free grace period is concerned, as per Annexure C-1, i.e. Statement dated 28.04.2014 a sum of Rs.3,02,246.50Ps, was payable by the respondent/complainant, as per the following break-up:-

Sr. No	Date	Transaction Details	Amount (Rs.)
1.	04.04.2014	BOOKMYSHOW COM GURGAON IN	2,224.70
2.	13.04.2014	MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) P LTD. GURGAON IN	2,99,460.00
3.	14.04.2014	OVERLIMIT FEE	50.00
4.	14.04.2014	SERVICE TAX	61.80

Clearly, as per Annexure C-1, on 13.04.2014, the respondent/complainant made major purchase on the website i.e.‘MAKEMYTRIP (INDIA) P. LTD. GURGAON IN’ in the sum of Rs.2,99,460/-. As per Clause 6 of the terms and conditions, the interest free grace period could range from 18-48 days. Following the illustrative example for the calculation of grace period, under Clause 6 of the terms and conditions aforesaid, the grace period for the purchase made on 13.04.2014 by the respondent/complainant, in the sum of Rs.2,99,460/-, if calculated from the date of purchase up-to the payment due date i.e.15.05.2014, would be 32 days. This interest free grace period expired on 15.05.2015. However, the respondent/complainant, as per Annexure C-2, which is statement dated 28.05.2014, paid the amounts of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- vide cheques on 24.05.2014 and 26.05.2014 respectively i.e. after expiry of interest free grace period of 32 days. Therefore, the respondent/complainant was not entitled to interest free grace period. Thus, the appellants/Opposite Parties, rightly levied interest charges and service tax in the sum of Rs.14,395.95 and Rs.1,779.34Ps on 27.05.2014, apart from charging auto-debit return fee and late payment fee and returned cheque payment fee on 15.05.2014, 20.05.2014 and 20.05.2014 respectively plus service tax, as aforesaid, in accordance with the Credit Card terms and conditions. In this view of the matter, no deficiency, in rendering service or indulgence into unfair trade practice can be attributed to the appellants/Opposite Parties. The District Forum totally lost sight of the afore-extracted terms and conditions and gravely erred in allowing the complaint by directing the appellants/Opposite Parties, to refund  Rs.22,967/- to the respondent/complainant. Thus, the impugned order passed by the District Forum is liable to be set aside.

19.       No other point, was urged, by the Counsel for the parties.

20.       In view of the above discussion, it is held that the District Forum, erred in allowing the complaint and the order passed by it, suffers from illegality, warranting the interference of this Commission.

21.       For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, filed by the appellants/Opposite Parties, is accepted, with no order as to cost. The order of the District Forum is set aside. Consequently, the complaint stands dismissed with no order as to cost.

22.          Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.

23.          The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion

Pronounced.

August  12, 2015.                                            

 

Sd/-

 [JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

 (DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

Ad