Complainant through Lrd. Adv. Kulkarni
Opponents through Lrd. Adv. Dhakane
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*--
Per : Mr. V. P. Utpat, President Place : PUNE
// J U D G M E N T //
(15/05/2014)
This complaint is filed by the consumer against the service provider for deficiency in service under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts are as follows,
1] The complainant is a resident of Sahakar Nagar No. 2, Parvati, Pune - 9, the opponent no. 1 is branch office of HDFC bank located at Shankar Shet Road, Pune – 37 and the opponent no. 2 is its card division. The complainant had obtained credit card facility from the opponent and he was paying charges regularly to the opponent till 2009. In the year 2009 due to some unavoidable reason, he missed one of the date of his credit card payment, which he managed to pay immediately after due date. It is the case of the complainant that even though he had paid entire amount, the opponent has started to debit late fee and finance charges from his account. This fact was brought to the notice of the opponent, who had assured to reverse the charges. Hence, the complainant continued to use the said card and made payment in respect of purchases. But complainant came to know that the opponent has increased late fee charges and finance charges every time. He made enquiry with the branch manager and brought to his notice this fact. He had assured that he will make enquiry and reverse the entry in the account of the complainant. After meeting with the branch manager, there was no interaction with the persons from the credit card department and the matter was not resolved; hence on 6/11/2010 complainant had returned credit card to the opponent bank at its card division at Chennai and requested to discontinue with the services of the said card. Still the complainant is receiving statements including finance and late fee charges. Again he met with the Manager of the opponent bank, who had promised about the part reversal. But the complainant never received reversal till filing of the complaint.
2] In the month of January 2012, he has received legal notice from the opponent with false contentions and baseless allegations. According to the complainant, initially amount of finance charges and late fee charges was shown as Rs. 800/- and later on with intention to extract large amounts from him, that has been shown as Rs.22,850/-. The outstanding amount was shown as Rs. 22,850/-. In response to the legal notice, the complainant had brought to the notice this fact to the opponent and sent e-mail to them. However, the opponent had kept lien of Rs. 23,410/- on his saving account and informed that there is no outstanding balance amount towards card account. It is the case of the complainant that bank ought to have adjusted the said amount from his saving account when the complainant informed the opponents from time to time, but they have neglected with ulterior motive with intention to extract large amount from the complainant. This act of the opponent is malafide one and amount to deficiency in service; hence the opponents be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 23,410/- as well as compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony and damages to the goodwill of the complainant.
3] The opponent has resisted the complaint by filing written version. It has denied the contents of the complaint in toto. It is specifically denied that the opponent has caused deficiency in service. It is the case of the opponent that the complainant had agreed terms and conditions while accepting the facilities of credit card. He has not produced any evidence to show that he had paid entire amount. On the contrary, he had admitted that an amount of Rs. 800/- was due from him. In these circumstances, the opponent has rightly charged finance and late fee charges as per the terms and conditions between the parties. The opponent has also contended that the complainant has not produced statement of account, which was provided to him from time to time showing an amount of Rs. 22,850/- was due from him. It is the case of the opponent that it has right to place lien on due amount on any account of the complainant and that act of the opponent does not amount to deficiency in service. The opponent has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4] After scrutinizing the documentary evidence, which is produced before this Forum, hearing the arguments of both the counsels and considering pleadings, the following points arise for the determination of the Forum. The points, findings and the reasons thereon are as follows-
Sr.No. | POINTS | FINDINGS |
1. | Whether complainant has established that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opponents? | In the affirmative. |
2. | What order? | Complaint is partly allowed. |
REASONS :-
5] The undisputed facts between the parties are that the complainant has saving account with the opponent and he had obtained credit card facility. It is also not in dispute that the complainant has missed one transaction of Rs. 800/- and he has not produced any documentary evidence to show that he had paid that much amount to the opponent. It is the case of the complainant that even though he has communicated to the opponent for discontinuance of the facility of credit card, still the opponent had debited finance charges as well as late fee charges from his account. It reveals from the record that the opponent had placed lien on the saving account of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 23,410/-. The learned Advocate for the opponent strongly relied upon the terms and conditions, which are annexed along with list and which are showing that the opponents are bound to pay various charges, such as finance charges, late fee charges, interest, service tax etc. for the use of credit card facility. This fact is not seriously disputed by the complainant. But it is the case of the complainant that when the opponent was entitled to place lien on the balance amount from the saving account of the complainant, why it has not placed lien immediately when the said amount was due. It reveals from the record that since 2010 there was no transaction made by the complainant by using credit card and the opponent has increased outstanding amount in the account of the complainant by adding finance charges and late fee charges. The opponent has not satisfactorily explained as to why they have waited for increasing balance from Rs. 800/- to Rs. 23,410/-. It is the opinion of the Forum that this attitude of the opponent is nothing but the deficiency in service. The financial institutes and the banking institutes are not expected to exploit the customer by using the harsh remedy. But it is the duty of the banks to co-operate with the customers and impart proper service. As the opponents have failed to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 800/- was not recovered from his saving account earlier, opponents are liable to compensate complainant. It reveals from the record that the complainant has saving account and he has never refused to pay the balance amount and bank has used its right to place lien after lapse of so many years, when the balance was increased. It is the considered opinion of the Forum that, the bank is entitled to receive Rs.800/- only and complainant is entitled to lift the lien on amount of Rs.23,410/- - Rs. 800/- = Rs. 22,610/- which is kept in saving account. The complainant is also entitled to receive an amount of Rs. 5,000/- for the mental and physical harassment as well as cost of the litigation. In the result the Forum answers the points accordingly and pass the following order.
** O R D E R **
1. The complaint is partly allowed.
2. The opponent no. 1 and 2 are directed to lift the lien on amount of Rs. 22,610/- (Rs. Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Ten only), which is kept in saving account of the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
3. The opponent No. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. Five Thousand only), as a compensation on the ground of mental and physical harassment and cost of the proceeding to the complainant within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
4. Copies of this order be furnished to
the parties free of cost.
5. Parties are directed to collect the sets, which were provided for Members within one month from the date of order, otherwise those will be destroyed.
Place – Pune
Date- 15/05/2014
