Complainant Davinder Singh through the present complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, ‘the Act’) has sought issuance of necessary directions to the opposite party to refund Rs.15,910.64 deducted by the bank. Opposite party be also directed to pay Rs.70,000/- as compensation on account of injuries and suffering alongwith Rs.6,000/- as litigation expenses to him, in the interest of justice.  

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he has opened his account bearing No.50100002347136 in the month of May 2014 and its customer ID is 34914124. Before opening his account, opposite party assured him that each and every banking transaction form is to be done with transparency and only with the consent of the account holder. He was required to maintain a sum of rupees Rs.5,000/- as minimum balance amount in his account. He deposited Rs.3,60,000/- in his bank. On 3.6.2014, he was to make the payment of Rs.3,54,979.99 for his Australian VISA  from his abovesaid account and at that time he was not able to make the payment for his VISA fee. Opposite party informed him that a sum of Rs.15,910/64 get blocked/hold on funds from the main balance, latter on same was deducted. He deposited Rs.11,000/- more in his account. On blocking Rs.3,54,979.99 from his account, no prior intimation or notice was sent to him by the opposite party and no reason was explained to him. Due to this negligent act on part of opposite party he gets harassed mentally, physically and financially also. Thus there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

3.       Upon notice, the opposite party appeared and filed its written reply through the counsel taking the preliminary  objections that the present complaint is not maintainable as the complainant has suppressed material facts from this Hon'ble Forum and has relied on false documents and has relied on a false version and have also took other objections.  On merits, it was admitted that a sum of Rs.15,910.64 was placed on hold and the same were later on deducted. The said amount was put on hold and thus deducted on account of the outstanding balance against Credit Card bearing no.4346 7860 0149 0787 issued in the name of Davinder Singh complainant in the present case. The said credit card is being issued to the complainant since 13.12.2010. Further no payment has been made by the complainant despite receipt of demand legal notices issued by the opposite party on 8.2.2013, 9.1.2013, 14.05.2013, 11.09.2013 & 12.02.2014. The last payment received was a sum of Rs.15,738.83 on 17.6.2014 by way of Banker' Lien and Right of Set-Off Notice dated 02/06/2014 on complainant Bank Account #50100002347136 against the outstanding balance of Rs.15,910.64 due on aforesaid card. Prior to that complainant had paid an amount of Rs.10,491/- on 13.7.2012 All other averments made in the complaint have been vehementally denied and lastly the present complaint has been prayed to be dismissed with costs.       

4.       Counsel for the complainant tendered into evidence affidavit of complainant Ex.C1, alongwith other documents Ex.C2 and Ex.C3 and closed the evidence.

5.       Opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Sh.Amit Mahajan D.M. Ex.OP-1, alongwith other documents Ex.OP2 to Ex.OP-23 and closed the evidence.

6.       Both the parties have produced/filed their respective affidavits and other related documents in evidence to support their pleadings/objections on record and the learned counsels for the litigants have duly put forth their respective arguments. We have carefully considered and perused all the available material while adjudicating the present complaint.

7.       We have critically examined the available evidence on the record file so as to interpret the meaning and purpose of each document and also the scope of adverse inference for some documents ignored to be produced by the OP Bank. We observe that the present dispute pertains to ‘recovery’ of an NPA amount (outstanding in the Credit Card account of the complainant pertaining to the year 2010-11 & 2011-12) from the Savings Bank account (opened in May’ 2014) of the complainant in which the amount of Rs.3.50 Lac was deposited for a categorical different purpose (payment of Visa Fees) i.e., default occurring much earlier in point of time to the date of the ‘complained’ account. The prime defense argued by the OP Bank has been the Bankers’ Special Right of General Lien coupled with the Right to set off the balances in different accounts but under the same title. The OP Bank has also cited the superior Court’s Judgments upholding the Bankers’ Special Rights as above, with which we respectfully concur. However, the Bank has failed to follow the prescribed lawful procedure while exercising its special rights. Firstly, the OP Bank has failed to prove that the Credit Card in default had any Tie-up arrangement with the complained SB A/c and secondly it has also not contested the complainants’ categorical assertion that the said SB A/c was opened for the special purpose of Visa fee payment amounting to ‘admittance’ of ‘special-purposed’ account and in that case the ‘recovery’ could not have been ‘valid’ hence deficiency in service. Moreover, the Bank has also failed to produce on record the ‘receipt’ or even ‘dispatch’ of the alleged ‘pre-deduction notice’ and/ or ‘post-deduction intimation’ and thus exposing the complainant to the risk ‘of payment of visa fee’ well, in time. On the other hand, it was material to disclose the credit card’s amount in default but somehow the complainant ignored to disclose this material fact (legal liability) in his complaint and we take a serious note of the same. The complainant shall not be eligible to claim the ‘recovered’ amount from the Bank that he was legally liable to pay. However, the Bank shall be liable to suitably compensate the complainant for the exhibited deficiency in service for having not adopted the legally prescribed procedure to enforce its otherwise a legal right. The OP Bank was duty bound (also as per its collateral obligation to customer service) to have followed the legally prescribed procedure of ‘pre-notice’ and ‘post-intimation’ etc and non-deduction from the one categorical ‘deposit-amount’ etc. We do not approve of the same and categorize this act/omission (of the OP Bank) in line with the ‘deficiency in service’ under the Act. Perhaps the OP Bank branch and its officials little realize the present day importance of consumer-rights and the bank's obligations towards its customers. Time is ripe to learn it now and learn it fast.

8.       In the light of the all above, while partly allowing the present complaint we hold the OP Bank as guilty of deficiency in service and thus ORDER them to pay Rs.3,000/- as compensation (for apprehending risk-exposure) besides another Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation to the complainant; within 30 days of the receipt of the copy of these orders otherwise the aggregate awarded amount shall attract interest @ 9% P.A. from the date of the orders till actually paid.

9.       Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to records.

                                                                     (Naveen Puri)

                                                                                President                                                                                                    

ANNOUNCED:                                           (Jagdeep Kaur)

May 08, 2015                                                        Member

*MK*