DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

1.                 Sh. Charan Pal Singh, Proprietor M/s Jassi Tele Services, Booth No.35, Sector 40-C, Chandigarh.

2.                 Sh. Charan Pal Singh s/o late S. Inderjit Singh resident of H.No.77, Phase II, Sector 65, Mohali.

                                      ---Complainants.

Versus

1.                 HDFC Bank Ltd., 224-225, Sector 40-D, Chandigarh through Sh. Surinder Chawla its Head-Retail Liabilities Product Group, HDFC Bank Ltd

2.                 HDFC Bank Credit Card Division, SCF 50-51, 1^st Floor, Phase 3B-2, Mohali-160059, Punjab.

---Opposite Parties.

BEFORE:  SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Vinay Bhandari, Counsel for complainant

                        Sh.Sameer Kaushik, proxy counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER

1.                           In brief, the case of the complainants is that on 24.9.2011, complainant No.1 got opened an account (No.1556000000369) with opposite party No.1 in the name of the firm M/s Jassi Tele Services. According to the complainants, opposite party No.2 had also issued an HDFC credit card to complainant No.2 in his individual capacity long before the opening of the account.  The said credit card was suspended/ closed by complainant No.2 in the year 2008 after paying the entire due amount.  However, on 23.4.2012, without sending any notice to the complainant, opposite party No.2 placed a “Hold on Funds” in the account of the firm of the complainant by fastening the liability of the credit card. The complainant wrote letter dated 8.5.2012 to opposite party No.2 in this regard but to no avail.  According to the complainants, on 8.5.2012, without supplying statement of account, the opposite parties fraudulently withdrew an amount of Rs.24,971.68 from the account of the complainant to satisfy the alleged dues of complainant No.2 towards the credit card though no amount was due towards the said credit card.   Opposite party No.2 also put the name of the complainant in the list of defaulters without giving any prior intimation due to which complainant No.2 could not seek loan from ICICI Bank on account of poor CIBIL score.   According to the complainants, the aforesaid acts of the opposite parties caused them a lot of mental and physical harassment. Hence this complaint. 

2.                           In their written statement the opposite parties did not dispute that the account in question was opened with them. It has been averred that the complainant continued to utilise the credit card and it continued to accrue overdue, late payment and finance charges.  According to the opposite parties, an amount of Rs.9,158.99 was due as on 23.1.2009 out of which only Rs.2,758/- was paid. It has been averred that the complainant was called upon to clear the dues but he failed to do so due to which, lien was rightly imposed.    It has further been averred that the amount was rightly debited from one account and credited into another account of the complainant.  It has been denied that any fraud had been played upon the complainants.  It has been pleaded that there is no difference between the proprietor of the firm and the person.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on their part, prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.

3.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

4.                           Complainant No.2 was a subscriber of the opposite parties since earlier occasion and he had also got issued HDFC credit card against account No.5243681000068448 and had been using this card regularly.  Complainant No.2 claims that in the year 2008, the said credit card was suspended/closed by him after having made all the payments due against it.  Complainant No.2 has claimed that he was not supplied with any account statement and details of the amount spent by him through the said credit card after having made the entire payment against it then. 

5.                           Complainant No.2 opened an enterprise under the name and style of M/s Jassi Tele Services, under sole proprietorship, and again opened a fresh account bearing No.1556000000369.   Complainant No.2 is aggrieved against the actions of the opposite parties in marking a lien/hold on his new account and thereafter transferring an amount of Rs.24,971.68 from the said account in order to satisfy the outstanding of his previous credit card account. 

6.                           The complainants have alleged an act of deficiency in service on two grounds. Firstly, having raised an outstanding  against the credit card facility that had been duly paid and was closed way back in the year 2009; and secondly of the action of the opposite parties of having marked a lien/hold on the second account and thereafter deducting and transferring of Rs.24,971.68 towards his credit card account.

7.                           While considering the first action of the opposite parties, claiming the outstanding amount against the credit card issued to the complainant, we have gone through the documents (Annexure R-1 colly.) tendered by the opposite parties.  From page 14 of Annexure R-1 colly. dated 3.5.200, it is revealed that an amount of Rs.7,811.17 was outstanding against the complainant which simultaneously added to Rs.12,080.61 on 31.10.2009  and on not paying this amount, interest kept on adding every month till the same was realized from the account of complainant No.1 by the opposite parties.  The complainant in order to rebut this evidence of the opposite parties has not placed on record any such document from where it could be ascertained that the entire outstanding against the credit card account was duly paid in the year 2009 itself.  In the absence of any evidence from the side of the complainants, to rebut the reply which is supported by the credit card statement (Annexure R-2 colly.), the first allegation of the complainant runs out of force.

8.                           While dealing with the second objection of the complainants about the qualification of the opposite parties in creating a lien/hold against the account of opposite party No.1 and thereafter deducting Rs.24,971.68 from the account of complainant No.1, though the opposite parties while filing their version/written statement  in the very opening lines have claimed that it is their right to mark lien/hold as well as withdraw money from any account that the complainant may have with them and that they have not committed any deficiency in service nor indulged in any unfair trade practice by exercising such an option.  The opposite parties while mentioning such right in their reply did not bring on record any document to substantiate as to from what source their such rights flow.  At the same time, we have perused Annexure R-3 (at page 70) tendered by the opposite parties which is the customer undertaking for opening a regular/premium current account. There is a clause which mentions that the complainant is in the possession of and has read the terms and conditions booklet which details the rules governing account operations and schedule of service charges, which specifies the charges applicable for various services.  Though the complainants have not tendered any such document, alongwith his complaint, but at the same time, even the opposite parties have failed to bring on record as to what were the contents of the terms and conditions booklet provided by them to complainants.  The complainant having alleged deficiency in service, against the opposite parties were required to satisfy their allegations by bringing on record such documents which supported their contentions.  In the absence of any such evidence, we have no other alternative but to believe the version of the opposite parties through which they have claimed that it was their right to set off the liability of the complainant towards them by marking a lien/hold on the account of the complainant maintained with them and also apportion the amount due towards them. 

9.                           In the light of above observations, we do not find any merit in the present complaint as no ground for deficiency in service is made out against the opposite parties.  Accordingly, the present complaint is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

10.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

11.7.2013.

Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER