<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 30.01.2009<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 18th MARCH 2009<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> SRI.A.MUNIYAPPA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.278/2009<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT Pushpa MD/o Muthuraj MNo.17, 3rd Cross,2nd Main, Valmlikinagar,Mysore Road,Bangalore – 560 026.Advocate – Sri.C.V.DhruvakumarV/s.<br /> OPPOSITE PARTY The Manager,HDFC BANK Limited,Thippasandra Branch,Bangalore.Advocate – Sri.Suresh V.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to release her salary amount through her account and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant had the salary account and savings bank account at OP. Complainant’s employer disburses the salary through OP Bank to her. For the month of December 2008 she was not allowed to withdraw the salary amount, which has been credited to her account by her employer by the OP. On enquiry she came to know that there is no balance of amount at her account as she is in due of certain amount to the OP Bank. The arbitrary act of the OP has caused her both mental agony and financial loss. She issued the notice to OP on 05.01.2009 to compensate her but it went in futile. Balance shown in her account is contradictory and against to the records maintained by her. Due to the negligence of the OP, complainant is unable to meet out her day to day expenses as she is mainly depending upon her monthly salary to maintain her family. Thus she felt deficiency in service. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant had availed the credit card facility from them. She become the chronic defaulter in repayment of the utilized amount under the credit card. The repeated requests and demands made by the OP went in futile. As per the banking norms they have got the “General Lien” on the savings account which complainant had at OP Bank. So under the General Lien they have adjusted the said amount to the out standing dues with respect to the transaction done under the credit card and they blocked the withdrawal of the salary to an extent of Rs.7,775/- on 02.01.2009. The lien and right to set-off the terms and conditions are well within the knowledge of the complainant. She herself violated and floated the said terms and conditions. When the complainant is the defaulter she can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. Though complainant is aware of the credit card transaction she has suppressed to mention the same in her complaint. Approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. Complaint is devoid of merits. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Negative<br /> Point No.2:- Negative<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant has got the salary account and savings account at OP Bank. It is also not at dispute that her employer disburses the salary through OP Bank. It is the grievance of the complainant that when she intended to draw the salary for the month of December 2008 it was blocked by the OP and the balance was shown as ‘zero’. Though she is entitled to draw Rs.7,775/- for the said month. Her repeated requests and demands made to OP went in futile. She even got issued notice on 05.01.2009. Again there was no response. The balance shown in the ATM counter and actual account statement are self contradictory.<br /> <br /> 7. As against this it is specifically contended by the OP that the complainant is the credit card holder of OP bank. Unfortunately complainant has not mentioned this fact in her complaint nor she denied it after the version being filed. According to OP she is the chronic defaulter in repayment of the utilized amount under the credit card facility. This fact is also not denied or disputed by the complainant. So whether complainant herself is a defaulter she can’t allege the deficiency in service against the OP. It is further contended by the OP that the complainant having understood the terms and conditions of the credit card facility and OP’s legal right to exercise general lien on any of the deposits including the savings account amount of the complainant she agreed to avail the credit card facility.<br /> <br /> 8. When complainant became the defaulter OP invoked its rights to lien and right to set-off. We find the action initiated by the OP is well within the purview of the terms and conditions of the general lien and the contract entered into between complainant and the OP. Hence OP blocked Rs.7,775/-. That act of the OP can’t be termed as deficiency in service.<br /> <br /> 9. In view of the discussions made by us in the above said paras approach of the complainant does not appear to be as fair and honest. When complainant has readily agreed for the general lien right to set-off now she can’t agitate the present complaint alleging deficiency in service. When she become the defaulter OP has got a right to proceed against her in terms of the credit card agreement. Under such circumstances we don’t find substance in the allegations of the complainant. There is no proof of deficiency in service. Hence complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> (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 18th day of March 2009.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Vln* <br /> <br /> <br />