BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: AT HYDERABAD.
FA.No.134/2012 against C C.No.47/2011 District Forum-I, HYDERABAD.
Between
Mr.S.Venugopal
11-5-1(G-6) Mukarram Plaza,
Bazarghat road,
Hyderabad-4. ..Appellant/
Complainant And
HDFC Bank, Sayeeda Plaza,
Lakadi-ka-pool,
Hyderabad-4. Respondent/
Opp.party
For the Appellant : Mr.S.Venugopal, Party in person
For the Respondent : Respondent served.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT,
AND
SMT.M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER,
WEDNESDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE,
TWO THOUSAND TWELVE
Order (Per Smt.M.Shreesha, Hon’ble Member)
***
Aggrieved by the orders in C.C.No.47/2011 on the file of District Forum-I, Hyderabad, the complainant preferred this appeal.
The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant has opened an S.B.Account No.00211300000036 on 29-1-1999 with the opposite party, Lakdi-ka-pool branch. He submitted that the opposite party has issued a credit card bearing No.5243 6811 0033 329. He submitted that due to meltdown of business from October, 2008, he could not make the credit card payments from April, 2009 to September, 2009. Meanwhile the opposite party bank informed him that unless he start paying credit card payments, his S.B. account will be freezed and it will be defreezed only on payment of 1st instalment as on 30-9-2009. The complainant submitted that his S.B. account is necessary for payment of interest on O.D amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs availed from him on monthly basis and he had no alternative except to pay the 1st intalment and therefore paid Rs.14,000/- on 30-9-2009, Rs.2,000/- on 09-11-2009, Rs.16,350/- on 04-11-2009 and another sum of Rs.3,000/- on 22-1-2010. The complainant submitted that on the next day, the opposite party bank collected an additional amount of Rs.12,000/-. The complainant submitted on 07-10-2009 the opposite party bank recovered an amount of Rs.16,350/- from his S.B. account without his permission and again on December, 2009, it recovered an amount of Rs.60,124.47 without any intimation. The complainant submitted that he came to know about this only after payment of January, 2010 instalment to the opposite party bank. The complainant submitted that in the month of February, 2010, the opposite party again approached him for payment and when he questioned the recovery of Rs.60,124.47 from his S.B.Account and informed the bank that unless the above amounts are recredited to his S.B.Account, he will not pay further amounts, the opposite party bank recovered Rs.2,07,608.38 on 12-8-2010 from his S.B.account and thereafter Rs.87,037/- on 31-8-2010 and as a last resort recovered an amount of Rs.3,274/- without leaving any balance in his S.B.account which is contrary to Banking rules. The complainant submitted that altogether these amounts come to Rs.3,74,484-49 excluding the amounts paid by him under receipts. He submitted that he could not close his S.B.account as it is mandatory account i) for credit of dividends ii) for refund of IPOs etc., and iii) for fixed deposit overdrafts and besides this, the account is used for crediting interest on my overdraft of Rs.20.00 lakhs every month to his current account bearing No.00212100009787 and due to recovery of the entire amount in his S.B. account to credit credit, he was unable to feed the interest payable to O.D. obtained from last 5-6 months. Therefore, he had surrendered two fixed deposits of Rs.35,000/- totalling to Rs.70,000/- for a meager amount of Rs.31,000/- as the opposite party bank was already showing due balance towards credit cards. He submitted that the opposite party bank has looted his fixed deposit O.D. 5 times, minimum balance of Rs.10,000/- under S.B.account and also looted I.P.O refunds amounting to Rs.1,49,635-50. The complainant submitted that he approached the Ombudsman, Reserve Bank of India who advised him to come into an agreement with the opposite party by letter dated 27-10-2010. Accordingly the complainant approached the opposite party bank through registered letter dated 27-10-2010 and to his surprise, it issued a fresh notice for recovery of balance due on credit card on 09-11-2010 and requested him to maintain minimum balance by letter dated 15-10-2010. The complainant submitted that credit cards come under unsecured amounts category as the interest is calculated at 40% to 50% p.a. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite party to pay the entire amount recovered from his account with interest, penal interest along with compensation.
Opposite party filed version denying the allegations made in the complaint. It submitted that the complaint is not maintainable for non joinder of parties and the complainant has not made credit card division as a necessary party from whom the complainant has availed credit card facility. Opposite party further stated that the complainant had filed a false case against them and submitted that they had not indulged in unfair trade practice or deficiency in service and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A7 and B1 to B7 and the pleadings put forward, the District Forum dismissed the complaint.
Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal.
Heard party in person. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that he was issued a credit card by opposite party bank as he had an SB account in the same branch and he admits that he could not pay the credit card dues from April, 2009 to September, 2009. It is also not in dispute that in September, 2009 the bank informed the complainant that unless he pays first instalment by 30-9-2009, the savings bank account will be frozen. Therefore the appellant/complainant submitted that he had paid an amount of Rs.14,000/- on 30-9-2009 and some other amounts, but the opposite party did not issue any settlement letter but instead credit card division drew an amount of Rs.16,350/- on 07-10-2009 and again an amount of Rs.60,124.47 from his SB account in December, 2009. He submits that he was having an over draft facility of Rs.20.00 lakhs with opposite party bank and because of the opposite party exercising lien on his SB account to a tune of Rs.3.75 lakhs approximately, the complainant was forced to borrow from others to pay interest on the current account.
It is the opposite party’s case that when admittedly there are dues, they can exercise lien over the SB account and that they issued several demand notices to the complainant to pay the dues. Exs.B1 to B5 are the copies of these notices which evidence that the opposite party indeed sent these notices and moreover the complainant has not denied the receipt of the same. The complainant had not taken any steps to clear the outstanding dues and moreover the credit card rules also specify that the bank can at any time with or without notice has the lien and the right to set off all the monies belonging to the card member, if the balance amount on the card is not paid. Ex.B5 is the copy of the legal notice got issued by the opposite party to the complainant to pay the balance dues of Rs.2,37,641.88. Ex.B6 is the terms and conditions filed by the opposite party in which condition No.6 reads as follows:
The bank, at any time and without notice, will have 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 the prescribed time.
From the aforementioned condition, it is clear that the bank has every right to exercise its lien if they are any outstanding amounts and exfacie it is clear that the complainant has received several demand notices (Exs.B1 to B5) but did not avail the opportunity of clearing his outstanding dues. When admittedly there are dues, and condition 6 of the terms of the credit card agreement empowers the opposite party bank to exercise lien over the savings bank account, we are of the considered view that there is no deficiency in service on behalf of the opposite party and therefore we confirm the order of the district Forum.
In the result this appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM 06-6-2012
