Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/247/2007

Vijaya Ebenezar Dainik Bhaskar - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

A.Vivekanandhan

14 Feb 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   24.05.2007

                                                                        Date of Order :   14.02.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. S. PANDIAN, B.Sc., L.L.M.                       : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

            DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II          

C.C.NO.247/2007

TUESDAY THIS  14^TH  DAY OF FEBRUARY  2017

Vijay Ebenezar Dainik Bhaskar,

Tripti Building,

No.102/3, Narshalls Road,

Egmore, Chennai 600 008.                            .. Complainant.                                                                                                                                                                                                                

                        ..Vs..

1.  The Branch Manager,

M/s. HDFC Bank Ltd.,

795 Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.

 

2. The Manager,

Debt Management and legal,

Support – Credit Card,

M/s. HDFC Bank Cards Division,

Prince Khusal Towers,

96 Anna Salai,

Chennai 600 002.                                            ..Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for the Complainant           : M/s. A.Vivekanandhan  

Counsel for the opposite parties      : M/s. Deepa Hari Govind

 

ORDER

THIRU. S. PANDIAN, PRESIDENT

          This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite parties under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to  pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and to pay cost of the complaint.

1. The averment of the complaint are brief as follows:

     The complainant having saving bank account No.0041200023851 with the first opposite party and availed credit card from the 2^nd opposite party to an limit of Rs.36,000/- during the month of March 2006 vide card No.4346771005431623 and the complainant made purchase through the said credit card to an extent of Rs.21,000/- towards credit card account. Whileso the 2^nd opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.24,000/- further due and payable by the complainant and as already an amount of Rs.20,000/- was paid as against the purchase of Rs.21,000/-.  The complainant sought for break up details from the bank and thereafter, the said card was deactivated. 

2.     Immediately, the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and enquired in this regard and when he sought for break up details the 2^nd opposite party made an proposal to settle the matter amicably and asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- as against their demand of Rs.24,000/- and asked the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- towards full and final settlement and when the complainant still insisted for accounting statement, and demanding the settlement offer in writing the staff from the 2^nd opposite party bank did not turn up.   

3.    The complainant had issued two cheques to different  parties i.e. bearing No.530878 dt. 10.11.2006 and No.530925 dated 10.11.2006 and surprisingly the said two cheques were returned dishonoured on 10.11.2006 by the first opposite party.   When verified the accounting statement, he found that even though there was sufficient fund in his savings account, the 1sst opposite party returned the two cheques.  When he enquired the 1^st opposite party in this regard, he was asked by the 1^st opposite party to contact the 2^nd opposite party.  Then he again contacted the 2^nd opposite party, there was no proper reply from the 2^nd opposite party and subsequently, the complainant received letter dated 8.11.2006 from the 2^nd opposite party which was received by the complainant only on 17.11.2006 which was posted in 13.11.2006 by stating that fund of Rs.22,590.88 was withhold on 8.11.2006, but per contra the entry were made to that effect only on 23.11.2008.

4.     The  complainant states that without any proper intimation, the 1^st opposite party debited the fund in the account of the 2^nd opposite party on 23.11.2006 and returned the cheques and subsequently, wantonly and deliberately sent a lette dated 8.11.2006 belatedly which was received by the complainant only on 23.11.2006.   If he would have been duly informed earlier, he would have made alternative arrangement to honour the two cheques dated 10.11.2006 issued to different parties and since it was dishonourned, the complainant’s image and creditability was severely damaged.  

5.     The 1^st opposite party returned the two cheques, even though there was sufficient fund and submitting transfer to the 2^nd opposite party, without any proper intimation, in connivance with the 2^nd opposite party, is illegal and negligent and deficiency in service.  Hence the complaint.

6. Written Version of  opposite parties are  in brief as follows:

       The opposite party denies all the allegations except such facts that are specifically admitted herein.   It is not correct for the complainant  to the card account.   The request for the complainant to provide break up is uncalled for, as the complainant as a credit card holder was aware of his dues to the bank, just in order to purchase time, he had sought for a break up which anyway would be available in the statement of account sent to him every month.  

7.     Though the complainant was not making payment legitimately due on this card account, the bank offered him with an “one time settlement” option wherein he was required to pay only Rs.10,000/- as against the demand of Rs.24,000/-.  However for strange reasons, the complainant did not come forward to grab the offer  and again insisted for break up of the charges, which is uncalled for as already it was a settlement offer made to him.    Despite of the reminder by the bank, the complainant was not making the payment  either towards the dues or for the one time offer for settlement.   This attitude of the complainant clearly shows that he had no intentions to pay the card dues to the bank.

8.     As per the term and conditions, the bank exercising their right of lien over the savings account held by the complainant had to safeguard their interest for the balance outstanding and thus a lien was marked and the amount was set off from his savings account for the dues on the card account.   In this regard the card member agreement states that 

… the bank, at any time and without notice, will have a lien and right of set off on all monies belonging to the card member standing to their credit in any account whatsoever with the bank or in the possession or custody of the bank… “ 

Thus the allegations made by the complainant that the bank had not issued any prior notice before debiting his savings account is in correct.

9.     As regards the dishonor of two cheques of the complainant is force and no supporting documents have been filed  to substantiate the same and even otherwise the complainant as a credit card holder ought to possess enough funds in his account and so also it is not the case that he was not aware of his dues on the card account, thus the entire complaint is of his own making.   As per the right of general lien available to the bankers and in this case the opposite party had clearly done their legitimate duty of applying the right of lien which is not per illegal or unfair.   The other allegations made in the complaint are repetitive and unwarranted and devoid of merits.    In the absence of such proof the claim cannot be sustained and has to be rejected  totally with cost. 

10.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11 marked.  

11.   At this juncture, the point for the consideration before this

        Forum is:  

 

1.  Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the 

     Opposite parties as alleged in the complaint?

 

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief as prayed for?

12. Point No.1:-

        In spite of sufficient time and opportunity given to the opposite parties they have not come forward to file proof affidavit on their side as his evidence and not filed written arguments and hence the same are closed by this forum.  

13.    According to the case of the complainant is that when the complainant asked for break up details in respect of his credit card account, the opposite party has not complied the demand of  the complainant and also without any proper intimation, the opposite party-1 debited the fund in the account of the 2^nd opposite party on 23.11.2016 and returned the cheques.   Even though there was sufficient fund in his account the act  of the opposite party which clearly amounts for deficiency of service.

14.    While being so, as per the version of the opposite parties are contended that the break up details sought for by the complainant would be available in the statement of account sent to in every month and despite of reminder by the bank the complainant was not making the payment either towards the dues or for the one time offer for settlement.   It is further contended that the bank exercising their right of lien over the savings account held by the complainant and regarding the dishonor of two cheques of the complainant is false and therefore thus the bank has acted according to the right of the general lien available to the banks and therefore there is no deficiency in service.

15.    At this juncture, it is needless to say that the complainant having bounden duty to prove the allegation made in the complaint again the opposite parties.   First of all on going through the evidence, it is learnt that  while so the 2^nd opposite party claimed a sum of Rs.24,000/- further due and the same payable by the complainant and when the complainant sought for details and subsequently the card was deactivated.   It is further seen that  the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant to pay Rs.12,000/- towards full and final settlement.   At that time also, the complainant demanded for break up details but the same has not been compiled by the opposite parties.

16.    It is further learnt that every month the salary of the complainant would be credited to the savings bank account of the opposite party-1 and while so the salary for the month of October 2006 Rs.25,874/- has been credited on 3.11.2006 and thereafter two cheques were issued to different parties bearing No.530878, datd 10.11.2006 and No.530925 dated 10.11.2006, were returned as dishonoured on 10.11.2006 by the 1^st opposite party though there was sufficient fund and in this regard the intimation letter received by the complainant belatedly, only on 17.11.2006 by stating that fund of Rs.22,590.88 was withhold on 8.11.2006 but actually the entries were made to that effect only on 23.11.2006.  The statement of account is marked as Ex.A1.  The letter dated 8.11.2006 from the opposite party is marked as Ex.A5 and the cover for the same is Ex.A6.   It is further stated by the complainant the act of the opposite party clearly amounts for deficiency of service and therefore the legal notice dated 1.12.2006 was issued to the opposite parties which is marked as Ex.A2 and the acknowledgement card for the receipt of the same by opposite parties 1 & 2 are marked as Ex.A3 & Ex.A4.  The cheques issued by the opposite party   which are marked as Ex.A7 & Ex.A9 and the Return Memo for his above said cheques are marked as Ex.A8 & Ex.A10.   The entry sources about the available fund on 10.11.2006 and 13.11.2006 has been placed through Ex.A11 Net banking statement.

17.    From the foregoing evidence and the documents, it is crystal clear that the opposite party has failed to furnish the break up details has demanded by the complainant.  Further, though the fund available on 10.11.2006  as per Ex.A11 the opposite party has dishonoured by the opposite party-1 the cheque and returned the cheques by means of Ex.A8 & Ex.A10.   Moreover regarding fund of Rs.22,590.88 was withhold on 8.11.2016, the intimation letter dated 8.11.2006 was received by the complainant only on 17.11.2006 which was posted on 13.11.2006 is completely belated one.   In furtherance, regarding the act that the opposite party-1 debited fund in the account of 2^nd opposite party on 23.11.2006 is not been intimated properly.   The explanation given by the opposite party in their written version that as per the right of the general lien available to the banker the alleged amount has been debited and therefore there is no need to inform the complainant then and there.  In such circumstances, the complainant has placed his proof affidavit as well as his evidence in order to prove the deficiency of service against the opposite party.   Whereas, the opposite party has not come forward neither to produce their evidence by means of proof affidavit nor produce any document to disprove the case of the complainant.  Therefore, there is no contra evidence to the complainant’s evidence.   Hence this forum can easily be drawn an adverse inference against the opposite parties.  At the outset mere filing of written version is not sufficient to disprove the allegation made in the complaint and the same should be brought into evidence.  Then only it became evidentiary value.

18.    In the light of the above facts and circumstances the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties has been proved by the complainant with acceptable evidence.  Thus the Point No.1 is answered accordingly.

19.    POINT No.2 :-

As per decision arrived in point-1 this  Forum can easily come to the conclusion without any hesitation that the complainant is entitled for reasonable compensation for causing mental agony to the complainant due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties along with cost.  Thus the point No.2 is answered accordingly.

        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part.   Accordingly the opposite parties  1 and 2 are jointly and severally directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for causing mental agony and hardship due to deficiency of service on the part of them  and also to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) towards cost to the complainant. 

The above amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a till the date of payment.        

         Dictated by the President to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  14^th  day  of  February  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1-         -       - Copy of accounting statement.

Ex.A2- 1.12.2006  - Copy of notice by the counsel for complainant to the

                              Opposite parties with postal receipts.

 

Ex.A3-         -       - Copy of Ack. card

Ex.A4-         -       - Copy of Ack. Card.

Ex.A5- 8.11.2006  - Copy of letter sent by the 2^nd opposite party.

Ex.A6-         -       - Copy of cover.

Ex.A7- 4.11.2006  - Copy of cheque dated 4.11.2006.

Ex.A8-         -       - Copy of return Memo.

Ex.A9- 10.11.2006         - Copy of cheque dt. 10.11.2006

Ex.A10-       -       - Copy of return memo.

Ex.A11-       -       - Copy of net banking statement.

 

Opposite parties’ side document: -   .. Nil..

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                              PRESIDENT.