Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party is a banking company and it had issued a credit card to the Complainant. According to the Complainant, his credit card account was overdue for an amount in sum of Rs.49,000/- and he made a request for settlement and the Opposite Party – Bank; asked him to pay an amount in sum of Rs.46,500/- under six Equated Monthly Installments (EMI). During the period of one year, the Complainant paid the entire amount in sum of Rs.46,500/-, as per the settlement. The Complainant was under an impression that his arrears were wiped off and he was not required to pay an amount. However, suddenly on 17/10/2008, he received a telephone call from the Opposite Party – Bank; and was informed that his savings bank account with the Opposite Party – Bank; having balance amount in sum of Rs.29,700/- was blocked. Thereafter, the Complainant received a notice from the Opposite Party – Bank; making allegations of default on his part. According to the Complainant, he was not in arrears of any amount under the credit card account and the action on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; to block his savings bank account was arbitrary and thus, there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank. [2] The Opposite Party – Bank; contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and explained that the Complainant was given an offer to pay the outstanding balance in a particular manner, but the Complainant did not regularly pay the installments and there was a default on his part. As regards blocking of savings bank account of the Complainant, the Opposite Party – Bank; referred to provisions contained in Section-171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and referred to right to banker’s lien. Thus, the Opposite Party – Bank; justified its action. [3] Parties to the complaint proceeding have filed their respective affidavits of evidence as well as copies of relevant documents. The Opposite Party – Bank; also filed its written notes of arguments. [4] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents filed by the parties as well as written notes of arguments filed by the Opposite Party – Bank. [5] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party – Bank; is guilty of deficiency in service on account of blocking of his savings bank account? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to seek any relief as against the Opposite Party – Bank? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [6] In the complaint as filed, there is an admission on the part of the Complainant as regards the fact that he was issued a credit car by the Opposite Party – Bank; and he was in arrears of an amount in sum of Rs.49,000/- against the credit card account. The Complainant then, referred to the settlement offer, as given by the Opposite Party – Bank. [7] Alongwith its written notes of arguments, the Opposite Party – Bank; has produced on the record a copy of the settlement offer and copy of the terms & conditions as applicable to the credit card account. On going through the same, it is seen that the Opposite Party – Bank; had permitted the Complainant to pay an amount in sum of Rs.46,500/- as against the total outstanding balance amount in sum of Rs.49,000/- in 06 EMIs, each for an amount in sum of Rs.7,750/-, commencing from 11/6/2007. In the settlement offer letter itself, it was mentioned that failure to honour commitment, as detailed in the payment schedule, would result in immediate cancellation of the offer. [8] Now, turning to the payment details as reflected in the copies of the statement, as produced on the record by the Complainant, we find that the Complainant deposited an amount in sum of Rs.3,000/-, vide a statement dtd.15/6/2007. At that time, outstanding balance amount was in sum of Rs.44,996/-, say around Rs.45,000/-. The Complainant, vide a statement dtd.15/7/2007, deposited an amount in sum of Rs.2,500/-. He also deposited an amount in sum of Rs.4,000/-, vide a statement dtd.15/8/2007 and further deposited an amount in sum of Rs.4,000/-, vide a statement dtd.15/9/2007. The Complainant also deposited an amount in sum of Rs.10,000/-, vide a statement dtd.15/10/2007 and Rs.Nil, vide a statement dtd.15/11/2007. [9] All these payment details reveal that the Complainant did not follow the payment schedule as given in the settlement offer dtd.9/6/2007. The Complainant was expected to make the payment of an amount in sum of Rs.7,750/- per month commencing from 11/6/2007. The Complainant did not reach the target of payment of EMI in sum of Rs.7,750/- and the amount deposited by the Complainant was always short of EMI. Naturally, therefore, as explained in the Settlement Offer, the Opposite Party – Bank; treated the settlement offer as revoked or cancelled. In the meantime, the Complainant continued to make use of credit card. There were certain debit items, which further put burden on the credit card account, which had already become overdue. Ultimately, the balance went up to an amount in sum of Rs.53,000/-, as reflected in the statement dtd.15/11/2007. [10] It appears that the Opposite Party – Bank; then invoked banker’s lien, as contemplated under Section-171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; and blocked the savings bank account of the Complainant. There is a provision in the agreement to that effect. In addition to that in absence of specific agreement, a banker has got right to lien as contemplated under Section-171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In view of purport & spirit of the said provision, we find that action taken by the Opposite Party – Bank; in freezing the savings bank account of the Complainant was not arbitrary or without any right. Having held so, we find that the Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | |
