Delhi

North East

CC/246/2018

Gurpreet Kaur - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

26 May 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No. 246/18

 

 

In the matter of:

 

 

	Smt. Gurpreet Kaur W/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh Bajwa R/o B-18/1, Loni Road, Near Durgapuri Chowk, West Jyoti Nagar, Shahdara, Delhi-110094	Complainant
	Versus
	HDFC Bank Ltd. Through Director/Managing Director/ Branch Manager etc. B-26, East Jyoti Nagar, Main Loni Road, Shahdara, Delhi	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:        JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                           DATE OF ORDER:

28.11.18 04.01.23 26.05.23

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 22.03.16 Complainant purchase a mobile phone for a sum of Rs. 51,000/- from her credit card provided by Opposite Party vide account no. XXXX7150 and card no. 1060. At the time of purchasing, Complainant was offered a scheme to pay Rs. 2,976/- for 24 EMIs which was total Rs. 71,242/- for mobile value of Rs. 51,000/-. The Complainant came to know that Opposite Party has deducted Rs. 1,07,000/- on account of EMIs from her account without intimation to Complainant. The Complainant had also sent email dated 26.08.18 to Opposite Party mentioning all the details. The Complainant stated that as per her bank statement initially two EMIs has been deducted from her account automatically and thereafter that service has been deactivated without informing the Complainant and Opposite Party bank has charged various taxes like late fee etc. The Complainant stated that in month of June 2018 Opposite Party was claiming Rs. 68,000/- towards the said mobile and in April 18 Opposite Party had settled all its claim for Rs. 9,000/-  which was duly paid by Complainant but Opposite Party is still claiming more amount from Complainant. The Complainant stated she visited Delhi office of Opposite Party and enquired the status of returning the amount to Complainant but officials of Opposite Party refuse to give correct status of return of amount to Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to return the excess amount deducted from the bank account of the Complainant i.e. 36,000/- with interest @ 24 % from March 2016 till date of realization and for Rs. 3,00,000/- on account of deficiency of service on behalf of Opposite Party. She further prayed for litigation expenses.     

Case of the Opposite Party

2. The case of the Opposite Party is that on 22.03.16 the Complainant utilized her credit card to purchase the i-phone from Vashno Electronic Pvt. Ltd. worth Rs. 52,530/- from the credit card bearing No. 4893XXXXXXXX106. It is further submitted that initially, at the time of purchasing the i-phone, Complainant requested the Opposite Party that she wanted to repay the outstanding amount against the purchase of the i-phone by converting the mode of repayment as EMIs instead of one lump sum payment. The Opposite Party accepted the request of the Complainant and the Complainant was then required to repay the outstanding payment of Rs. 56,396/- in 24 EMIs of Rs. 2,686.47/- each. That the Complainant had opted for payment of minimum amount by autopay deduction from her account for her credit card usage.  Then on 02.12.16, the Complainant requested for deactivation of auto debit facility through net banking. That the Opposite Party accepted the request of the Complainant under the belief that the Complainant would make regular and timely payments. However, since the deactivation of the autopay, Complainant became irregular in payment of her outstanding dues. The Complainant used to make payments as per her whims and fancies, completely disregarding the bills generated from time to time by the Opposite Party. It is submitted that the Complainant completely failed to adhere to the repayments and only part payments were made towards the outstanding amount.
3. That the Hon’ble National Commission in the case of Canara Bank Vs. C.D Patel reported as II (2001) CPJ 19 NC held that Bank can exercise its power of general lien if there is a default by the customer in discharging liabilities.
4. In the view of the above case laws as per the Card Member Agreement, it was agreed by the Complainant that Opposite Party will have a lien and right to set-off on the amount deposited with the Opposite Party bank, belonging to the Card holder to adjust towards the dues on the Credit Card Account. It is therefore, submitted that the present complaint against the Opposite Party is not maintainable and should be dismissed at the threshold.
5.  It is also submitted that the Complainant has filed the present complaint for the alleged defective services provided by the Opposite Party but has concealed his own defaults in the payment of dues towards the services provided by the Opposite Party. It would not be out of place to submit the repayment pattern which was to be adhered to by the Complainant in terms of the CMA and MITC. Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissal on the ground of bad in the eye of law. 
6. That it may be noted by the Ld. Forum that since the Complainant was irregular in payment of amounts despite repeated reminders the Opposite Party marked “Hold on Funds” in the account maintained by the Complainant with the Opposite Party by exercising the “Bankers lien and Right of Set off” option to the extent of outstanding balance on the credit card account. The Opposite Party has rightly marked lien for an amount of Rs. 7,064/- against outstanding of Rs. 64,877.76/- on the account of the Complainant bearing no. 1566XXXXXX7150 on 01.09.18, however, the Complainant did not paid any heed towards the said notice. That the Opposite Party again sends a lien notice on 05.01.19 to inform the Complainant that there is an outstanding due of      Rs. 76,166.46/- against the said outstanding the Opposite Party has rightly marked lien for an amount Rs. 3,080/- vide lien notice letter dated 05.01.19.
7. It is submitted that there was a total outstanding of Rs. 91,099/- due against the account of credit card used by the Complainant as on date.

Evidence of the Complainant

8. The Complainant in support of her complaint filed her affidavit wherein she has supported the averments made in the complaint.

Evidence of the Opposite Party

9. In order to prove its case, Opposite Party has filed affidavit of Ms. Riya Brahmachari, Legal Manager and Authorized Officer of Opposite Party, wherein the averments made in the written statement of Opposite Party have been supported.

Arguments & Conclusion

10. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The case of the Complainant is that she has purchased a mobile phone by using a credit card provided by Opposite Party. At the time of purchasing, Complainant was offered a scheme to pay Rs. 2,976/- for 24 EMIs which was total Rs. 71,242/-. The Complainant came to know that Opposite Party has deducted Rs. 1,07,000/- on account of EMIs from her account without intimation to her. As per her Complainant’s bank statement initially two EMIs has been deducted from her account automatically and thereafter that service has been deactivated without informing the Complainant and Opposite Party has charged various taxes like late fee etc.  Hence, this shows deficiency on the part of Opposite Party.  
11. The case of Opposite Party is that the Complainant utilized her credit card for purchase the i-phone worth Rs. 52,530/- from her credit card and requested the Opposite Party that she wanted to repay the amount against the purchase of mobile phone by the mode of EMI. The Opposite Party accepted the request of the Complainant and fixed 24 EMIs of Rs. 2,686.47/- each. It is further submitted by Opposite Party that the Complainant opted for payment of minimum amount by autopay deduction from her account for her credit card usage.  Then on 02.12.16, the Complainant requested for deactivation of auto pay facility through net banking. The Opposite Party accepted the request of the Complainant under the belief that the Complainant would make regular and timely payments. However, the deactivation of the autopay Complainant became irregular in payment of her outstanding dues.  The Complainant completely failed to adhere to the repayments and only part payments were made towards the outstanding amount. As per Card Member Agreement, it was agreed by the Complainant that Opposite Party will have a lien and right to set-off on the amount deposited with the Opposite Party bank, belonging to the Card holder to adjust towards the dues on the Credit Card Account. Hence, the present complaint against the Opposite Party is not maintainable and should be dismissed.
12. It is clear from the facts of the case, Opposite Party has to deducted EMI by autopay deduction. It is also admitted by the Opposite Party that they had deducted two EMIs by autopay deduction from the account of the Complainant. It is alleged by the Opposite Party that on 02.12.16, Complainant requested for deactivation of auto deduction facility which is denied by the Complainant. Opposite Party failed to produce any material on record regarding Complainant request for deactivation of auto debit facility and also any intimation or notice given to Complainant regarding discontinuation of auto pay deduction facility. In our opinion, this shows deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
13. In view of the above discussion, the complaint is allowed. Opposite Party is directed to pay Rs. 35,576/- [Rs. 2,976/- × 24 EMIs = 71,424/-(Total Due amount), Rs. 1,07,000/-(total deducted amount) - Rs. 71,424/-(total due amount) = Rs. 35,576/-(excess deducted amount)] to the Complainant which was charged more than due on account of EMI to be paid by the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- on account of mental harassment and Rs. 10,000/- towards litigation expenses to the Complainant along with interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
14. Order announced on 26.05.23.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President