BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KARNAL.

                                                                 Complaint No.333 of 2013

                                                               Date of instt.: 29.07.2013

                                                                 Date of decision: 30.05.2017

Sham Singh son of Shri Fateh Singh resident of House no.15, ward no.6 villatge Raipur Roran PO. Arjaheri Tehsil Nilokheri District Karnal.

.                                                                                       ……..Complainant.

                                                Versus.

1. HDFC Bank Ltd. through its Manager, A-65, Neel Nagar, Nilokheri District Karnal.

2. HDFC Bank Ltd. HDFC Bank House, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-4000013.

                                                                   ………… Opposite Parties.

                     Complaint u/s 12  of the Consumer Protection Act.

Before        Sh.K.C.Sharma……….President.

                   Ms. Veena Rani…….Member

                   Sh.Anil Sharma…….Member.

Present:-     Sh. Rajbir Sharma Advocate for complainant.

                    Sh. Vineet Rathore Advocate for opposite parties.

 ORDER:

                   This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act 1986, on the averments that he was having account no.50100000297231 with the opposite party no.1 and a cheque book was also issued to him regarding the said account. He wanted to withdraw an amount of Rs.50,000/- from his account. When he presented the cheque for collection, the same was returned by opposite party no.1 with endorsement that “All stamps are cancelled on 23.5.2013 due to funds are on hold.” The opposite party no.1 put on hold the funds without any intimation and without any reason. He approached the opposite party no.1 and requested for encashment of the cheque, but no heed was paid to his request. Thus, act and conduct of opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, due to which he suffered mental pain and agony.

2.                Notice of the complaint was given to the opposite parties, who appeared and filed written statement controverting the claim of the complainant. Objections have been raised that the complainant has not approached this Forum with clean hands; that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate the present complaint; that the complaint is baseless and flagrant abuse of process of law and has been filed just to harass and blackmail the opposite parties; that the complainant is estopped from filing the complaint by his own acts and conduct and that the complainant is wholly misconceived.

                   On merits, it has been submitted that the complainant had availed a credit card facility bearing credit card no.4346785000488271 type (VISA GOLD PREFERRED) w.e.f. 19.5.2008. At the time of submission of the application form the complainant annexed the copy of documents showing that he was bonafide customer. Terms and conditions governing the usage of the credit card were made clear to him. The details as to payment of “Fees and Service Charges” and “Interest are explained on page 19 of the Card Member Agreement.” Details as to payment and monthly repayments to card member’s card account are given at page no.20, the statement of Accounts are explained on page 18  and Lien and right of set-off are also explained on page no.26 of the Card Member Agreement. Thus, the complainant was aware of payments schedule stipulated in the Card Member Agreement. For better understanding, the charges referred in the Card Member Agreement were extracted and notified separately to the complainant under the head ”Most Important Terms and Conditions (MITC)”. The said document was sent to the complainant alongwith Credit Card & Card Member Agreement. Thus, the complainant was aware of the charges applicable to him in respect of the Credit Card for not making payment in the schedule time. It has further been pleaded that the complainant had not paid all the dues outstanding against him. He kept on changing his address, evading the payment of monthly credit card bill despite the fact that the credit card statements were being sent regularly on the address mentioned in the application form. Ultimately, notice dated 23.5.2013 was sent to him and as per Card Member Agreement credit card of the complainant was suspended and the Bank placed a “Hold on Funds” in the captioned HDFC Bank account of the complainant by exercising the “Bankers lien and Right of Set off” option to the extent of the outstanding balance as on 23.5.2013 i.e.Rs.6,28,876.84 and the Extent of Hold on Funds was Rs.99,987.64. The bank would debit the said amount put on hold towards the bill raised due to usage of the credit card by the complainant, by exercising its legal and contractual right of lien and setoff. The other allegations made in the complaint have been denied.

3.                In evidence of the complainant, his affidavit Ex.C1 and documents Ex.C2 to C4 have been tendered.

4.                On the other hand, in evidence of the opposite parties, affidavit of Saurabh Kumar Bhatia Ex.O1 and documents Ex.RW/A to Ex.RW/I have been tendered.

5.                We have appraised the evidence on record, the material circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

6.                There is no dispute between the parties that the complainant was having account no.50100000297231 with the opposite party no.1 and for withdrawal of an amount of Rs.50,000/- from the said account, he presented cheque Ex.C2, but the same was returned with the remarks “All stamps are cancelled on 23.5.2013 due to funds are on hold”. The opposite parties have submitted that the complainant was availing credit card facility and he had not paid the amount due against him despite notice, therefore, his account was put on hold and the bank can exercise right of lien and setoff as per Card Management Agreement and the extract was given in the document ”Most Important Terms and Conditions”.

7.                The opposite parties have produced the copy of the Card Usage Guide and Most Important Terms and Conditions Ex.RW/D and Ex.RW/E respectively. In the Card Member Agreement there is provision for lien and right to set-off which is reproduced as under:-

“It is agreed that the Bank, at any time and without notice, will have a lien and right of set-off on all monies belonging to the Cardmember and/or Add on Cardmember standing to their credit in any account whatsoever with the Bank or in the possession or custody of the Bank. If upon demand by the Bank, the balance outstanding on the Card Account is not repaid within the prescribed time, such credit balance in any account including fixed deposit accounts and any properties of the Cardmember and/or Add on Cardmember in the possession or custody of the Bank whether for safe keeping or otherwise, including but not limited to dematerialized shares or other securities of the Cardmember and/or Add on Cardmember held by the Bank as a Depository Participant, may be adjusted towards dues under the Card Account. In case of any deficit, the deficit amount may be recovered by the Bank from the Cardmember and/or Add on Cardmember.”

          In Most Important Terms and Conditions, which is extract of the Card Member Agreement it has been clarified at condition no.6 that the Bank at any time and without notice will have the lien and right to set-off on all monies belonging to the Cardmember and/or Add on Cardmember standing to their credit in any account/custody of the Bank, if, upon demand by the Bank the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within prescribed time.

8.                A bare reading of the said condition of the Card Member Agreement makes it quite clear that the Bank has a right to setoff against any account of the cardmember, if the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within the stipulated time. The opposite parties have produced the copy of the notice Ex.RW/I wherein the card credit balance on 23.5.2013 was shown as Rs.6,28,876.84 and on that date in the account of the complainant an amount of Rs.99,987.64 was the balance. Therefore, as per the terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement the Bank was entitled to have a lien/right of setoff as the due amount was not paid by the complainant despite notice. Under such facts and circumstances, the action of the opposite parties putting on hold the account of the complainant cannot be termed as illegal or justified in any manner. Consequently, no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties is established.

9.                As a sequel to the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in the present complaint. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Announced

Dated:30.5.2017

                                                                                      (K.C.Sharma)

                                                                                         President,

                                                                             District Consumer Disputes

                                                                             Redressal Forum, Karnal.

                             ( Veena Rani)    (Anil Sharma)

                               Member               Member