Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal is directed against the order dated 8.7.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, U.T. Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as the District Forum only), vide which it accepted the complaint and directed the OPs(now respondents) to overhaul the credit card account of the complainant (now appellant) treating the payment of Rs.8846/- having been received on 5.12.2007. It was also directed that the complainant would be given credit in the penalty, interest or late payment within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, failing which the OP was liable to pay the aforesaid amount, alongwith compensation of Rs.5000/-. 2. The complainant was holding a saving bank account with the OPs. The OPs had also issued a credit card to him, through which certain purchases for Rs.8846/- were made by him, during the period 6.10.2007 to 5.11.2007 . The complainant deposited the credit card payment with the OPs vide cheque bearing no. 153493 dated 27.11.2007 for Rs.8846/-. He was shocked, when he received the statement for the period 6.11.2007 to 5.12.2007, wherein the amount of Rs.8846/- was shown as ‘unpaid’ under the heading “Opening Balance”. A letter was written to the OPs regarding the above fact, in response whereto, the OPs vide letter dated 31.01.2008 demanded a copy of the bank statement indicating the debit and a copy of the cheque to trace the payment. The required documents were submitted to the OPs vide letter dated 18.02.2008. It was further stated that despite a number of written requests and reminders to the OPs, nothing was done by them. It was further stated that the dispute with regard to the payment of Rs.8846/- was raised by the complainant, in January 2008. Though the dispute was pending with the OPs, they further deducted a sum of Rs.13,000.40, for the period 18.12.2008 to 29.10.2009 from his saving bank account, without his consent. The complainant received the credit card statement for the period 6.02.2009 to 5.03.2009, wherein the payment of Rs.8846/-, had been shown as received. The complainant again received a letter dated 31.10.2009 from the OPs, wherein Rs.9,35,704 had been shown as minimum payment due towards him. The payment of Rs.8846/- was made by him on 27.11.2007 and was debited to his account on 5.12.2007, yet, the OPs multiplied the amount to the extent of Rs.9,35,704/-. The complainant was also informed vide the said letter that the information to the Credit Information Bureau of India Limited(CIBIL) had already been sent. It was stated that the OPs were deficient, in rendering service, and also indulged into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainants, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986(hereinafter to be called as the Act only) was filed by him . 3. The OPs, in their written reply, admitted the factual matrix of the case. It was stated that they were not negligent in raising the bills and demanding the amount due. It was further stated that, as per the documents produced by the complainant, in special reference to cheque no. 153493 dated 27.11.2007, the account number of the credit card of the complainant was 5549 3700 0830 1058 whereas, it was wrongly mentioned by the complainant as 5549 3700 0830. It was further stated that the complainant was at fault by not writing the correct credit card number on the cheque, in question. It was further stated that it was, under these circumstances, that the credit of the amount of the aforesaid cheque could not be given to the complainant. It was further stated that the complainant was requested vide various communications to provide a copy of the cheque. However, he provided only the account statement and not copy of the cheque, as evidently there was a mistake, on his part, in recording the incorrect number of credit card. It was further stated that from November, 2007 onwards, the amounts were not paid by the complainant, in full on due dates. It was further stated that, under these circumstances, the complainant was liable to pay for late payment and overdue/finance charges. It was further stated that , therefore, the OPs had the right to lien/set off, in respect of any amounts, lying with the bank, in any account of the complainant, and, accordingly, the minimum amounts due against the credit card were adjusted through the savings bank account of the complainant, to keep the credit card account alive. It was admitted that Rs.935,704/- were wrongly reflected, on account of some typographical mistake. It was further stated that there was neither deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs, nor they indulged into unfair trade practice. 4. The parties led evidence, in support of their case. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence,on record, the District Forum, accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of this order. 6 Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal was filed, by the appellant/complainant. 7. We have heard the Counsel for the parties , and have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 8. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the respondents/OPs had no authority to deduct any amount from the saving bank account of the appellant to satisfy the outstanding dues, against the credit card amount as the appellant had never given consent in regard thereto. He further submitted that any deviation from the terms and conditions of the agreement executed, between the parties, when the credit card facility commenced, in favour of the complainant, could not be unilaterally made by the respondents/OPs. He further submitted that the respondents illegally deducted a sum of Rs.13,000.40p from the saving bank account of the appellant, and he was entitled to the refund of the same. He further submitted that even the compensation was not granted by the District Forum, for the harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant, at the hands of the OPs. He further submitted that the appellant had to face harassment, as the respondents had supplied wrong information to CIBIL, due to which, he was unable to take loan from any financial institution. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum was, thus, liable to be modified 9. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents/OPs, submitted that, the District Forum, took the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, in entirety, and thereafter, came to the conclusion, that it was on account of negligence, on the part of the complainant, in mentioning the incorrect number of the credit card, on the cheque, in question, for a sum of Rs.8846/-, that this amount could not be credited to his account. He further submitted that the District Forum was also right, in holding that when the payments of amounts due against the credit card were not made by the complainant, the bank had a lien, over his any other account, of the same bank, to debit that amount to the same. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum has already been complied with, by the OPs. He further submitted that the order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, does not deserve any modification. 10. After giving our thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the record, we are of the considered opinion, that the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons, to be recorded hereinafter. There is, no dispute, about the factum, that the complainant was availing of the credit card facility, from the OPs. From C-1 credit card statement for the period 6.10.2007 to 5.11.2007, it is evident that the complainant was required to pay a sum of Rs.8846/- by 22.11.2007. No doubt, the complainant claimed that he paid the said amount, through cheque C-2. The question arises, as to whether, on cheque C-2, the correct number of the credit card was written by the complainant or not ? The perusal of annexure C-1, reveals that the credit card number of the complainant was 5548 3700 0830 1058 and his account No. was 203 054069 606. However, payment was not made from any these accounts. The credit card number which was mentioned on C-2 cheque was 5548 3700 0830 and not 5548 3700 0830 1058. This number which was mentioned by the complainant, on cheque C-2, was neither his account number, nor his credit card number. It was, under these circumstances, that when the cheque was put in the drop box, its proceeds could not be credited, to the credit card account of the complainant. It was the sheer negligence of the complainant that he did not mention the correct credit card number on cheque C-2. When the complainant reported to the OPs about the amount of Rs.8846/- having not been credited, to his account, the OPs vide C-4 asked him to send a copy of the cheque, but the same was not sent by him. On the other hand, he had been sending the statement of account to the OPs. It was, on account of such attitude, which was adopted by the complainant, that the matter continued to be dragged on and unnecessary long time was taken to trace the amount. It was, under these circumstances, that the District Forum was right, in coming to the conclusion, that the OPs were justified in withdrawing the amount from the account of the complainant, to satisfy their dues. There was no necessity, on the part of the complainant, to give a separate consent, to withdraw the amount, from his saving bank account, if there was anything outstanding against his credit card amount. As per banking Rules and Regulations and the agreement which was executed between the parties, such an exercise could be undertaken, by the bank of its own, by creating a lien on any other account of the borrower/complainant for satisfying the dues outstanding against him, in a particular account. On 29.10.2009, still an amount of Rs.1643/-, remained to be paid by the complainant. The District Forum was, thus, right in coming to the conclusion, that there was no deficiency, in service, on the part of the OPs. 11. The amount of Rs.8846/- vide cheque dated 27.11.2007 annexure C-2 was credited to the saving bank account of the complainant on 5.12.2007. The amount, thereafter, remained with the OPs. Under these circumstances, the OPs were required to overhaul the account of the complainant w.e.f. 5.12.2007 when the payment of the cheque was actually received by them. The District Forum was, thus, right in holding that despite negligence on the part of the complainant, in mentioning incorrect credit card number on C-2, once the amount was credited to the saving bank account of the complainant on 5.12.2007, its credit should have been given by the OPs, to him, from that date. The District Forum was also right, in holding, that as the amount of cheque having been credited on 5.12.2007, the penalty or interest would not have been leviable on the complainant. The findings of the District Forum, in this regard, being correct, are affirmed. 12. The order rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission. 13. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, with no order as to costs. It is, however, made clear that the respondents shall intimate the CIBIL to delete the name of the appellant from the list of defaulters, if nothing is due against him. The order of the District Forum is upheld. 14. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. 15. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
