Delhi

East Delhi

CC/29/2016

ISHPAL SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK - Opp.Party(s)

15 Feb 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

 

C.C. NO. 29/16

 

SH. ISHPAL SINGH

S/o SH. ISHWAR SINGH

R/O 85 RAM NAGAR,

NEAR KRISHNA NAGAR,

Delhi – 110 051                                                       ….Complainant

 

Vs.   

HDFC BANK LTD

THROUGH IT’S A.R/MANAGER

BRANCH OFFICE AT D-153 NEW RAJINDER NAGAR

1.  

                                                                                    …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 19.01.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 15.02.2019

Judgement Passed on: 18.02.2019

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

JUDGEMENT

The present complaint has been filed by Shri Ishpal Singh, the complainant against HDFC Bank Ltd., (OP) with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

 2.      The facts in brief are that the complainant was issued credit card bearing no. 15681050017924 by OP. In the month of October there was an outstanding amount of Rs. 50,000/- and the official/ executive of OP requested the complainant to deposit Rs. 2,500/- monthly and in that event the complainant was assured that the bank will not impose any charges except interest @18% per annum on the outstanding amount only. On the assurance the complainant had been paying Rs. 2,500/- per month to OP, but was shocked to see the charges in his monthly credit card statement for which he filed several complainant to the officials/ customer care of  OP. It has been further stated that the OP suspended the credit card and account of the complainant without any notice despite the fact that the complainant had been making regular payments. It has been stated by the complainant that the credit limit was reduced despite making regular payments and some official of OP threatened the complainant with dire consequences in case of default in clearing the outstanding amount which has resulted in humiliation and insult of the complainant in the society. The complainant has further stated that OP freezed the saving account no. 15631050017924 arbitrarily and without notice and an amount of Rs. 91,700/- which had been credited by the PF department on 01.12.2015 was debited by the OP with the remarks “Hold on funds”. Stating this deduction of funds by OP to be violative of Consumer Protection Act, the complainant has prayed for discretions to OP to pay sum of Rs. 91,700/- i.e. the PF amount of the complainant, Rs. 1,00,000/- of mental agony pain and torture and Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses. The complainant has annexed notice dated 03.03.2014 by OP, copy of legal notice dated 10.03.2014, account statement, copy of the passbook of saving bank account no. 15631050017924, acknowledgement receipts by EPF, notice by OP of date 07.12.2015 with the complaint.

          Reply was filed by OP upon service of the summons in the present complaint wherein they have taken several pleas in their defence such as initially the complainant had been issued credit card bearing no. 4346781010523041, which was subsequently replaced on 06.11.2010 with card bearing no. 4617863006045247 and outstanding of the previous card account had been transferred to the said card account; the complainant was bound by terms and conditions of the card member agreement. It was submitted that the complainant was very irregular in making payments despite several reminders and requests, thus, the charges as per terms and conditions were levied on the complainant, which included finance charges, interest late payment fee etc. It was further submitted that as per Card Member Agreement (CMA) and also under Section 171 of the India Contract Act, 1872, the OP had right of lien and right of set off on the account deposited with the bank belonging to the complainant to adjust towards the due on the credit card account. Notice dated 03.03.2014 was sent to the complainant wherein the complainant was requested to clear the outstanding within 7 days else the OP would exercise the “Bankers lien and right of set off” on complainant bank account no. 15631050017924, which was neither replied nor complied by the complainant, therefore, the OP created bank lien and set off for an amount of Rs. 10,332/- on 18.03.2014 and since the complainant continued to default in making payment Rs. 88,645.65/- were again debited on 22.12.2015 after giving a notice to the complainant dated 07.12.2015. It was submitted that there was no arrangement ever by OP, wherein the complainant was requested to pay Rs. 2,500/- monthly. Rest of the contents have also been denied.

          Rejoinder to the written statement was filed by the complainant, where the signing of the CMA was denied, it was also submitted that the notice sent by OP of date 03.03.2014 was duly replied on 10.03.2014. Rest of the contents of the written statement have been denied and those of the complaint have been reaffirmed.

          Shri Ishpal Singh, the complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has deposed on oath the contents of the complaint and has also placed reliance on annexure annexed with the complaint along with monthly payment receipts from 31.10.2012 to 31.05.2014 as Ex. CW1/1(Colly.).

          OP has got examined Ms. Jyoti Rani, Authorized Representative, who has also deposed on oath the submission made by them in their written statement. She has got exhibited the copy of General Power of Attorney as Ex. RW1/A, copy of CMA as Ex. RW1/B, terms and conditions as Ex. RW1/C (Colly.),  copies of the credit card statement as Ex. RW1/D (Colly.) and copy of lien notice dated 03.03.2014 and 07.12.2015 as Ex. RW1/E and Ex. RW1/F respectively.

          We have heard Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and Ld. Counsel for the OP. Perusal of the record reveals that the complainant is aggrieved by set off of Rs.  88,253/- by OP from his savings bank account bearing no. 15631050017924 against the payment  outstanding in his credit card account. It has been argued by the counsel for complainant that OP could not attach the funds received by the complainant from Employee Provident Fund Organization. To decide this controversy a look is to be made to the statement of account filed by the complainant, where a sum of Rs. 91,700/- have been credited in the saving bank account of the complainant on 01.12.2015 and amount of Rs.88,253.53 have been debited on 08.12.2015. This argument of counsel for complainant does not hold ground as per Section 60 (ka), the Code of Civil Procedure, which deals with property liable to attachment and sale and execution of decree-

(1) The following property is liable to attachment and sale in execution of a decree, namely, lands, houses or other buildings, goods, money, bank notes, cheques, bills of exchange, hundis, promissory notes, Government securities, bonds or other securities for money, debts, shares in a corporation and, save as hereinafter mentioned, all other saleable property, movable or immovable, belonging to the judgment-debtor, or over which, or the profits of which, he has a disposing power which he may exercise for his own benefit, whether the same be held in the name of the judgment-debtor or by another person in trust for him or on his behalf:

Provided that the following properties shall not be liable to such attachment or sale, namely:-

Relevant clause is being reproduced hereunder:

(ka):- All deposits or other sums in or derived from any fund to which the Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 (23 of 1968), for time being applies, in so far as they are declared by the said Act as not to be liable to attachment:

 

This implies that the deposits or other sums to which Public Provident Fund Act, 1968 is not liable to attachment, but in the instant case it is a saving bank account from where the outstanding dues have been adjusted. Once, the amount has been credited in the savings bank account of the complainant, it is immaterial as to what was the source of the funds and the amount cannot be segregated. Even as per terms and conditions of card member agreement, no notice was required to be given to the complainant in case of lien and set off, further, the complainant has not even placed any document in support of his averment that there was some arrangement, where the complainant was allowed to deposit Rs. 2,500/- per month in lieu of the amount outstanding against his credit card. Therefore, no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice can be attributed on the part of OP. Hence, the present complaint is dismissed being devoid of merits without order to cost.

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                             (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                                                   Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                   President