COMPLAINT FILED ON: 26.03.2009
DISPOED ON: 10.03.2011
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)
10TH MARCH 2011
PRESENT:- SRI. B. S. REDDY PRESIDENT
SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER
SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER
COMPLAINT No.718/2009
Complainant OPPOSITE PARTIES | Ms. Uma Thambusetty, D/o Sri Thambusetty, Aged about 34 years, R/o # 56, Sirivardhani, 2nd Cross Road, Venkateshwara Layout, Vijayanagar, Bangalore - 570 060. Advocate: Sri. B.B. Bajentri V/s. 1. Sri. Harshil Mehta, Nodal Officer, ICICI Bank Limited, C-Serv, Phone Banking, 5th Floor, Md. Illyas Khan Estatem, Above Music World Road No.1, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad – 500 034. 2. Manager, ICICI Bank, Koramangala Branch, Bangalore – 560 034. Advocate: Sri. G.C. Mahabaleshwar |
O R D E R S
SRI. B.S. REDDY, PRESIDENT
The complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the CP Act 1986, seeking direction against the Opposite Parties (herein after called as O.Ps) to refund sum of Rs.70,635.48/- with interest at 24% p.a. and to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on the allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
2. In the complaint it is stated that the complainant was having savings account in OP-2 bank. The credit card with credit limit of Rs.1,03,000/- and cash limit of Rs.20,600/- was issued to her she has submitted a requisition slip for auto debit of her savings account, which came to be rejected. She was paying her dues as and when she received the bill before due date every month. In the month of August – 2006 a cheque payment was made for Rs.3,677=60 towards credit card payment. The same was returned by the bank though there was sufficient balance in her savings account. On return of the cheque the August – 2006 statement showed a debit of Rs.800=02 being the extra service tax, cheque return payment fee, late fee, interest charges. However on a complaint made to OP-2, it was noticed that the cheque was returned for signature mismatch and the additional service charges levied was re-credited to her account. On receipt of statement of account for the month of April – 2007 showing an outstanding payment of Rs.56,225/-; the complainant submitted a cheque for Rs.55,800/- and the same was presented to her bank account on 09.04.2007. On that date the balance in her account was Rs.72,220=97, but the said transaction was reversed on the ground that the bank returned the cheque. The reversal entry was shown in the statement on 16.04.2007 and a debit of additional service charge to the extent of Rs.4,739=94 was also made. The complainant was not informed about the return of the cheque immediately nor she has received the returned cheque so far. On 09.05.2007 she made a payment of Rs.27,500/- being the amount of credit card dues for the month of April – 2007. As on the date of presentation of cheque the balance in her account was Rs.87,802=97. The said cheque was also returned on 11.05.2007 and it was reflected its credit card statement for the month of May – 2007. Again the OP-1 debited a sum of Rs.3,892=75 being the additional charges for return of the cheque. The complainant who was out of country could not get the information immediately from the OPs regarding the return of cheque nor they returned the two cheques. Thereafter OPs have been debiting a sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as additional charges. On 03.07.2007 after noticing the two cheques have been returned and on contacting the representative of the OPs; the complainant remitted sum of Rs.40,000/- immediately and requested for the reasons for return of the cheque. OP-2 in October – 2007 informed the complainant over e-mail that the two cheques have been returned due to signature mismatch. Thereafter OP has been debited her account with a sum of Rs.4,500/- every month. It is the duty of the OPs to inform the complainant the reasons for return of the cheque and forward the return cheque. Had she been informed in time regarding the reasons for return of cheques she would have approached the OP-2 to rectify the signature by furnishing fresh signature. The OPs could have debited her savings account immediately; since it was a credit card payment and the amount was very much available in the savings account to avoid the additional burden. OPs intending to have wrongful gain from negligence of the complainant did not debit the account purposely. Due to negligence and inefficiency of OPs and having failed to return the cheques under intimation to the complainant; OPs have failed in their duty to inform her in time. Subsequently without her instructions a sum of Rs.34,635=48 has been debited to her account towards the adjustment of the credit card dues, which could have been done in April – 2007 itself to avoid the additional debit of Rs.34,635=48 to her account. The complainant got issued legal notice on 16.09.2008 to pay sum of Rs.70,635=48 together with interest at 24% p.a. from 16.06.2008 being the illegal debit made to her savings account without any authority and to pay damages to extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. OPs neither complied the said demand nor replied for the notice. Due to deficiency in services rendered by the OPs and their unfair trade practices; the complainant had to undergo undue hardship, mental agony, suffering inconvenience and harassment. Hence the complaint seeking above stated reliefs.
3. On appearance, OPs – 1 and 2 filed joint version contending that the complaint filed by the complainant is misconceived, false, and frivolous; the same is liable to be dismissed. The complainant has utilized the credit card issued by OP-2 and towards the same, the complainant was due. As per the terms and conditions governing the credit card transactions, in the event of delay in payment, the complainant is required to pay the late payment charges, interest and other incidental charges. The complainant’s payment of Rs.3,677/- through cheque towards credit card has been returned unpaid for the reason Funds Insufficient. Hence as per the terms and conditions, appropriate charges have been levied on the said card. However on the specific request of the complainant irrespective of the return cheque, OP has reversed the charges levied as service gesture though the payment was not received towards the dues. The payments made on 08.12.2006, 09.01.2007 and 09.02.2007 for Rs.552/-, Rs.1,350/- and Rs.3,062/- respectively have been received by OP-2 and credited to the complainant’s card account. With regard to payment of Rs.55,800/- made during April – 2007 is concerned; the said cheque was also returned unpaid a sum of Rs.27,500/- paid during May – 2007 by way of cheque also returned unpaid. On return of these cheques; OPs have levied necessary charges on the card account of the complainant. OPs are in receipt of cash payment of Rs.40,000/- and the same has been credited to the card account of the complainant on 03.07.2007. The cheuqes have been issued against the outstanding and as the cheques have been returned; original cueques were with the OPs. The said dishonour was reflected in the statement of account pertaining to the said account of which cheques have been issued. Admittedly the complainant is due to the OPs. The OPs have general right of lien on all the accounts of the customers who owe to the OPs. Hence as a matter of right, OPs have exercised their right of lien on the account of the complainant and hence, a sum of Rs.34,635=48 was debited on 16.06.2008. It is denied that the OPs have debited more than the amount outstanding. Rather the OP had reversed the charges of Rs.9,135=45 along with applicable service charges thereon and zeroed the card account of the complainant. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed affidavit evidence and produced documents. The official of OP-2 filed affidavit evidence in support of the defence version and produced documents.
5. Both parties filed written arguments. Arguments heard on both sides. Points for consideration are:
Point No.1:- Whether the complainant proved the
deficiency in service on the part of
the OPs?
Point No.2:- Whether the complainant is entitled for
the reliefs claimed?
Point No.3:- What Order?
6. We record our findings on the above points:
Point No.1:- Affirmative.
Point No.2:- Affirmative in part.
Point No.3:- As per final Order.
R E A S O N S
7. OP-1 ICICI bank ltd., is a company dealing with banking and financial services, OP-2 is the branch of OP-1 at Bangalore. The complainant was a savings account holder in OP-2, the account bearing No.004 701 512 837. She was issued a credit card bearing No.5176 5382 2140 0001 with a credit limit of Rs.1,03,000/- and cash limit of Rs.20,600/-. The complainant claims that in the month of August – 2006 a cheque payment was made for Rs.3,677.60 towards credit card payment. The cheque was returned by the bank, statement of account showed debit of Rs.800.02 being the extra service tax, cheque return payment fee, late fee, interest charges. On a complaint made to OP-2, it was noticed that the cheque was returned for signature mismatch and additional service charges levied was re-credited to complainant’s account.
It may be noted that the cheque issued for Rs.3,677.60 was returned by the bank on the ground that signature differs, but OPs have taken the contention that the said cheque was returned as insufficient funds. That statement of OPs cannot be accepted as OPs with their version produced copy of the cheque dated 07.08.2006 and cheque return memo which clearly goes to show that the cheque was returned on account of drawers signature differs. The statement of account relating to the credit card of the complainant reveals that the amounts debited towards returned cheque payment fee, service tax, late payment fee, interest charges were subsequently credited to the account on 30.08.2006.
8. The complainant on receipt of statement of account of the credit card for the month of April – 2007 showing on outstanding payment of Rs.56,225/-, submitted a cheque of Rs.55,800/- and the same was presented to her savings bank account on 09.04.2007, the said transaction was reversed on the ground that the bank returned to the cheque and the reversal entry was shown in the statement on 16.04.2007 and debit of additional service charges to the extent of Rs.4,739.94 was also made. Similarly on 09.05.2007, the complainant made payment of Rs.27,500/- through cheque towards the credit card dues and the bank also returned said cheque and OP debited a sum of Rs.3,892.75 being the additional charges for the return of the cheque. On both these accessions of returning the cheques, complainant was not informed and the cheques were not returned to her. After return of these two cheques OPs debited sum of Rs.4,500/- per month as additional charges. On 03.07.2007 the complainant after noticing that the said two cheques have been returned; she remitted sum of Rs.40,000/- with a request to furnish the reasons for return of the cheques. OP-2 informed the complainant in the month of October – 2007 over e-mail that the two cheques have been returned due to signature mismatch and there after OP has been debiting to her account with a sum of Rs.4,500/- every month.
9. The complainant with written arguments filed statement of account showing the details of additional charges levied by OP-2, the total amount of additional charges is shown at Rs.37,026.05. The learned counsel for the complainant contended that OPs are duty bound the furnish information regarding return of the cheques and cheques ought to have been returned to the complainant to take immediate steps in the matter to rectify in the signature. Due to negligence of OPs she has been made to pay interest for the delayed period, the late payment charges and other additional charges to the extent of Rs.37,026.05 from April – 2007 to 16.06.2008. Further it is contended that OPs without instruction from the complainant debited sum of Rs.34,635.48 to her account towards the adjustment of credit dues which they could have been done in April – 2007 itself to avoid the additional debit of Rs.34,635.48 to her account. Thus it is contended that the acts of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service as such the complainant is entitled for the refund of the amount collected by OPs.
10. The learned counsel for the OPs contended that two cheques issued in the month of April and May – 2007 one for Rs.55,800/- and another for Rs.27,500/- were returned as drawers signature differs. In view of the same as per the terms and conditions governing the credit card transactions OP has charged late payment charges, interest and other incidental charges. OPs have exercised their right of lien on the savings account of the complainant, hence a sum of Rs.34,635.48 was debited on 16.06.2008. OPs reversed the charges of Rs.9,135.45 along with applicable service charges thereon and zeroed card account of the complainant. There is no any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
11. It is pertinent to note that the savings account and credit card account of the complainant were in the same OP-2 bank. The request of the complainant for auto debit facility for payment of credit card dues appears to have not been considered by OP-2. Two cheques one for Rs.55,800/- issued in the month of April – 2007 and another for Rs.27,500/- issued in the month of May – 2007 towards payment of credit card dues were returned on the ground that the drawer’s signature differs. The complainant had maintained sufficient balance in her S.B. account at the time when she had issued those two cheques. OP-2 bank has not bothered to inform the complainant immediately about the cheques being not honoured on the ground of signature mismatching and failed to return those cheques to the complainant furnishing the reasons. Had OP-2 informed the complainant and returned the cheques immediately, she could have approached OP-2 and rectified the defects if any in her signatures for the cheques. It was the duty of the OP-2 to inform the complainant the reasons for return of the cheques and to forward the returned cheques. In the version and affidavit evidence no were it is pleaded that the complainant was informed about the return of the cheques. Under these circumstances we are of the view that on account of gross negligence and inefficiency of OPs in not returning cheques and informing the complainant, made the complainant to pay additional charges levied by OPs totally amounting to Rs.37,026.05 as shown in the statement of account’s furnished by the complainant along with written arguments. OPs have not produced the terms and conditions governing the credit card transactions in support of entries made levying additional charges in the account’s statement. OPs have reversed the charges to an extent of Rs.9,135.45. After debiting the sum of Rs.34,635.48 of the savings account of the complainant on 16.06.2008 zeroed the card account of the complainant. OPs have exercised the right of lien on the savings account while debiting the said amount, the same cannot be considered as unfair trade practice or deficiency in service. The act of OPs in not informing the complainant immediately with regard to return of the two cheques stated above and returning the cheques amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. An amount of Rs.34,635.48 debited on the savings account of the complainant was for credit card dues and the said dues were only additional charges levied by OPs in the credit card account. On account of deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant cannot be made to pay the additional charges levied. Under these circumstances we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled for refund of an amount of Rs.34,635/- which was debited to her savings account towards the credit card account dues reflecting the additional charges levied by OP-2. Accordingly we proceed to pass the following:
O R D E R
The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part. OPs are directed to refund an amount of Rs.34,635/- and pay litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- to the complainant, within four weeks from the date of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 10th day of March – 2011.)
PRESIDENT
MEMBER MEMBER
Snm:
