Punjab

StateCommission

FA/250/2014

Manjit Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC Bank Ltd. & Anr. - Opp.Party(s)

Rajesh Bhatheja

02 Jun 2016

ORDER

                                                               FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH

 

STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL COMMISSION,   PUNJAB

          SECTOR 37-A, DAKSHIN MARG, CHANDIGARH.

                                     

                   First Appeal No.250  of 2014

 

                                                          Date of Institution: 13.03.2014    

                                                           Date of Decision:  06.06.2016

 

Manjit Singh s/o Joginder Singh, Proprietor Anand Manufacturing Company, G.T Road, Opposite Parkash Filling Station, Moga, resident of House No.301-B, Model Town Extension, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.

 

                                                                          Appellant/Complainant       

                Versus

 

1.      HDFC Bank Ltd., Model Town, Gulati Chowk, Ludhiana,          District Ludhiana.

2.      The Branch Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Model Town, Gulati    Chowk, Ludhiana, District Ludhiana.        

 

                                                               Respondents/Opposite parties

 

                                                         

First Appeal against order dated 28.01.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,  Ludhiana

Quorum:-

          Shri J. S. Klar, Presiding Judicial Member.

            Shri.J.S Gill, Member

Present:-

          For the appellant          : None.    

          For the respondents      : Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate.

          . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

 

         J.S KLAR, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER :-

         

          The appellant of this appeal (the complainant in the complaint) has directed this appeal against order dated 28.01.2014 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum Ludhiana dismissing the complaint of the complainant. The respondents of this appeal are the opposite parties in the complaint and appellant of this appeal is the complainant in the complaint and they be referred as such hereinafter for the sake of convenience. 

2.      The complainant has filed the complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, "the Act") against the OPs on the averments that he is proprietor of M/s Anand Manufacturing concern and has been maintaining a current account bearing no.13902020005969 with OP no.1. On 19.09.2012 a telephonic message was received from Rajiv Sharma by the complainant that police of New Delhi has been directed to arrest the complainant as an amount of Rs.59,200/- was outstanding from him on account of transaction of credit card issued to the complainant by HDFC Bank. The complainant has never availed any facility of credit card and no liability can be fastened upon him. Rajiv Sharma further informed that he could escape from the criminal liability in case he paid an amount of Rs.19,500/- by depositing it in HDFC Bank. The complainant deposited the said amount, vide receipt no.C29019811 dated 19.09.2012 issued by Varahi Credit Ludhiana. The complainant again received a telephonic call from Rajiv Sharma on 30.11.2012 that on deposit of Rs.3900/- ;the entire amount would be settled and hence under compulsion; the complainant again deposited Rs.3900/- vide receipt no. C 29559220 dated 30.11.2012 issued by Varahi Credits Ludhiana. Rajiv Sharma made several calls to the complainant from 19.09.2012 to 30.11.2012 and complainant maintained a record of the same. On 14.05.2013, the complainant visited HDFC Bank for withdrawal of the amount from the bank and it was intimated that current account has been seized on account of outstanding payment towards the complainant from the credit card. The said account is in the name of M/s Anand Manufacturing Company, whereas the liability has been created on complainant in his personal capacity. The complainant never applied for any credit card nor any credit card no.5289 4560 0185 7080 has been issued in the name of M/s Anand Manufacturing Company nor complainant transacted the same. It was revealed that said credit card has been used from 07.06.2012 to 15.06.2012 at filling station H.P Center Cheema Chowk Ludhiana. The complainant did not even own vehicle for consumption of fuel worth Rs.1,40,000/- within a span of eight days. The complainant never swapped any card nor carried on any transaction. The complainant has been approaching the OPs to release the current account no.13902020005969 of the complainant but it has not been done. The complainant has reasonable apprehension that OPs may forcibly withdraw the amount of Rs.1,92,268.48 lying in balance in his account. The complainant is not liable to make any payment to OPs and there is a gross negligence on the part of OPs. The complainant prayed for release of the outstanding balance amount of Rs.1,92,268.48 lying in the current account of the complainant and for quashing the demand of any outstanding bill towards credit card no.5289 4560 0185 7080. The complainant further prayed for compensation of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation.

3.      Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed written reply and contested the complaint of the complainant. It was averred in the preliminary objections that complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands and is not entitled to any such relief. The complainant has played a fraud upon OPs in connivance with HP Petrol Pump. He used his card by showing that he purchased petrol and diesel worth Rs.1,50,000/- within two days only and now the complainant has alleged that he is not owner of the vehicle. On merits, OPs controverted the averments of the complainant. It was denied that complainant was threatened by Rajiv Sharma. It was denied that complainant was informed to deposit Rs.3900/- as full and final payment. It was further pleaded that there is an outstanding balance of Rs.1,91,023/- payable by the complainant and as such banking lien was marked on the account of the complainant by OPs. It was denied that complainant has not applied for any credit card, he as well as, his son have been making payment of said credit card. It was denied that complainant has not swapped any card. It was denied that signs are not that of the complainant. OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      The complainant tendered in evidence, his affidavit Ex.C-A along with copies of documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-7. As against it; OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Tejinder Singh Authorized Signatory/Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd Ex.R-A along with copies of documents Ex.R-1 to Ex.R-10. On conclusion of evidence and arguments, the District Forum Ludhiana dismissed the complaint of the complainant by virtue of order dated 28.01.2014. Dissatisfied with the order of the District Forum Ludhiana dated 28.01.2014, the complainant now present appellant, carried this appeal against the same.

5.      We have heard learned counsel for the respondent in this appeal as none appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of arguments and we have also examined the evidence on the record of the case. Affidavit of complainant is Ex.C-A on the record. Ex.C-1 is statement of the complainant. This statement pertains to debit and credit entries. Ex.C-2 is Provisional Credit Card Payment Advise regarding deposit of the amount of Rs.19,500/- by the complainant. Ex.C-3 is Provisional Credit Card Payment Advise dated 30.11.2012 for Rs.3900/-. These documents Ex.C-2 and Ex.C-3 have proved that the complainant had deposited the amount of Rs.19,500/- and Rs.39,00/- in Provisional Credit Card Payment Advise. These documents belie the case of the complainant that he was not issued any credit card by the OPs and he has not used the same. What was the need of the complainant to deposit these amounts, if there was no credit card facility with him? Ex.C-5 is notice sent to complainant to the effect that Credit Card balance as on date Rs.191,023.26 and Extent of 'Holds on Funds' was Rs.191,023.26 on 14.05.2013. It was intimated that the balance available in the account should be debited to HDFC Bank account, vide the 'cross default' clause of the 'card member agreement' towards settlement of the said outstanding. Ex.C-6 is legal notice sent by the complainant through his counsel Sh. P.S Batra to OPs.

6.      The OPs tendered in evidence affidavit of Tejinder Singh Authorized Signatory/Manager of HDFC Bank Ltd Ex.R-A. Ex.R-1 is notice dated 14.05.2013 sent to complainant by the OPs. Ex.R-3 is terms and conditions of the Bank. Clause 6 confer Right of Lien on the Bank over balance amount of the cardholder in case it is not repaid within prescribed time. Ex.R-4 is the HDFC Bank Credit Card Application Form signed by the applicant M.S Anand and one Sanjeev Manrcy Branch Manager attested it. Ex.R-5 is declaration form signed by the complainant on 05.04.2010. Ex.R-6 is voter card of Manjit Singh. Ex.R-7  & Ex.C-8 is credit card statement. Ex.R-9 is letter from Blue Dart Express Limited to Govind M/s HDFC Bank to the effect that package has been delivered on 06.09.2010 at 1320 hrs received by Kulwinder Singh son of the complainant.

7.      From appraisal of above-referred evidence on the record, we find that District Forum has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant now appellant. The complainant has stated that he never applied for credit card and no credit card was issued to him by the OPs. The documents Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-4 issued by OPs prove this fact that complainant deposited Rs.19,500/- and Rs.39,00/- in his credit card account with OPs. We do not find any force in the allegation of the complainant that Rajiv Sharma threatened the complainant. It is easy to make any allegation, but at the same time, it is difficult to prove it.  The complainant is proprietor of M/s Anand Manufacturing Company. Proprietor is an individual and hence we do not find any difference between the complainant and his being proprietor of M/s Anand Manufacturing Company. In addition to that, the District Forum rightly relied upon Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, which provides lien over the amount of defaulter. The adequate amount is outstanding in the credit card account of the complainant and OPs rightly exercised the lien on the account of the complainant, under Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act. OPs claimed sufficient amount from the complainant, which was not paid by the complainant against his Credit Card Account and hence exercise of lien on the account of the complainant by the OPs is perfectly justified. We do not find any illegality or material infirmity in the order of the District Forum calling for any interference therein.

8.      As a result of our above discussion, we find no merit in the appeal and same is hereby dismissed.

9.      Arguments in this appeal were heard on 02.06.2016 and the order was reserved. Copies of the order be communicated to the parties as per rules.

9.      The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of court cases.

                                                                          (J. S. KLAR)

                                                          PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

                       

                                                         

                                                                             (J.S GILL)

                                                                              MEMBER

 

June 6,  2016                                                             

(ravi)