DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Consumer Complaint Case No: 68 of 2012] -------------------------------- Date of Institution : 03.02.2012 Date of Decision : 31.07.2012 -------------------------------- R.D. Verma s/o Sh. Dhani Ram Verma, R/o H.No. 146/2, Sector 55-A, CHB Flats, Chandigarh. ---Complainant VERSUS ICICI Bank, SCO No. 9-10-11, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh, through its Manager. ---Opposite Party BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: Complainant in person. Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for Opposite Party. PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER 1. Complainant has filed the present complaint, against the Opposite Party on the grounds that, the Complainant is an account holder of the Opposite Party Bank and a credit card no. 5176537006231003 was issued to him about 07 years ago, but the Complainant had not used the card at any point of time whatsoever, even then the Opposite Party started insisting the Complainant for making certain payments in respect of some health insurance policy which was never purchased by him. The Complainant further claims that he was not made aware of any terms & conditions of this insurance, nor he had ever signed an application for issuance of such a policy. The Complainant also states that he had never furnished any document for getting the insurance policy issued and nor any payment was made by him. The Complainant promptly informed the Opposite Party that he had never purchased such an insurance policy, thus, he was not liable for any payments on account of the same. Despite the aforesaid development, the Opposite Party started sending certain statements in respect of the user of the credit card, depicting Complainant’s liability, which according to the Complainant was completely false and baseless. The Complainant further claims that the statements issued by the Opposite Party showed entries about purchases, late payment fee, service tax, interest charges etc. which according to him were totally malafide as the Complainant had never used the credit card. The Complainant claims that an intimation dated 23/7/07 for the cancellation of any such vague policy was not attended to by the Bank. After about four years, the Bank conveyed that the sum of Rs.21695/- is payable by the Complainant which according to the Complainant was patently wrong and there was no such liability towards him. The Opposite Party issued a notice to the Complainant to appear before the Lok Adalat on 21/12/2008, wherein the Complainant claims to have expressly stated before the Hon’ble Judge that since he had never used the credit card, at any time, thus, there was no question of any liability for the payment of any amount. The Hon’ble Court asked the Bank about the document, but the bank failed to produce any document. As such, no such could be made out against him. Inspite of that the Bank did not delete Complainant’s liabilities from their records and kept on harassing without any costs. Complainant claims that he is still being harassed through threatening calls made by an Advocate at Tees Hazari Courts, New Delhi, asking him to make payments to the Bank, immediately, or else proper warrants would be issued against him. Apart from this, even the collection agents of the Opposite Party are visiting his house, in his absence, and threatening his family members with dire consequences. The Complainant thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, has prayed for the following relief: - [a] To take necessary legal action against the Opposite Party and to direct it not to harass the Complainant any further and restraining it from framing false bills when the credit card was never used by the Complainant. [b] To pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony; The complaint of the complainant is supported by his detailed affidavit, which is duly verified. 2. The Opposite Party has contested the claim of the complainant by filing their reply, taking preliminary objections to the effect that the present complaint is barred by limitation; Secondly, on having been offered a settlement offer from the side of the Opposite Party, Complainant failed to address to the said settlement offer; hence, in these circumstances, according to the Opposite Party, the present complaint deserves no merit. On merits, the Opposite Party has repeated their preliminary objections, while replying to the each averments of the present complaint, in their para-wise reply. In reply to Para 1 the issuance of credit card is admitted being matter of record which was issued to the Complainant on his application. However, the Opposite Party has contested that the denial of the Complainant about the use of the said credit card is false. The issuance of an insurance policy is also in the knowledge of the Complainant; and as the Complainant had got the insurance policy subscribed in his name in the year 2007, Opposite Party claims that the Complainant has concocted a story after 05 years of the happening of the event, simply to avoid his liabilities. Opposite Party has also denied having received any communication dated 23/7/07 from the side of the Complainant. The Opposite Party claims to have raised the demand of the outstanding dues from time to time, which the Complainant failed to address. Even the Complainant failed to appear in the court and hence, the matter could not be settled. The fact with regard to the collection calls for the recovery of the dues which are permitted were being made, however, the mention of threatening calls is claimed to be wrong and denied. Furthermore, the demand of dues by a creditor as such does not amounts to harassment or threat and the Complainant is required to be put to strict proof for the same. It is also mentioned that the Opposite Party has not raised any false bills and cannot be restrained from collecting its dues. Thus, claiming no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, the Opposite Party has prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The reply of the Opposite Party is supported by affidavit of Sh. Himendra Pal Singh, Manager, which is not specifically verified. 3. Having gone through the entire complaint, version of the Opposite Party, the evidence of the parties and with the able assistance of the Complainant and learned counsel for the Opposite Party, we have come to the following conclusions. 4. The Complainant through his present complaint has specifically alleged that though a credit was issued to him by the Opposite Party, but he has never used the said credit card at any point of time whatsoever. The Complainant never subscribed for any insurance policy, through the said credit card, and as the Complainant had never purchased any insurance policy, thus, was not liable to make any payment on account of the same. The Opposite Party while replying to the para 1 of the present complaint has only categorically admitted the existence of the credit card; whereas, their categorical stand that the card was never used by the Complainant is wrong and was denied. The Opposite Party while contesting the claim of the Complainant has failed to bring on record any such evidence that could prove that the Complainant had ever used the credit card in question, for any purchases, leave alone the issuance of the insurance policy in question against it. The Opposite Party has mentioned a few details while submitting its written arguments, which only mentions a singular inward entry of the amount received by it from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, Mumbai. However, the Opposite Party has failed to bring on record the date and the manner in which the premium amount was released by it towards the said insurance policy which was later on got canceled by the Complainant, when he came to know of its existence. The Opposite Party has altogether failed to establish the on whose instructions the said money was released in favour of the ICICI Lombard Insurance Company as the allegations of the Complainant that he had never subscribed for any such policy. Thus the opposite party fails to prove as on what grounds it released the premium amount to the insurance company without satisfying itself of the bonafide genuineness of such demand. 5. We feel that the Opposite Party should have ascertained about the happening of a transaction between the insurance company as well as the Complainant before releasing the premium towards such a policy. In the present circumstances, the allegations of the Complainant have gone unrebutted. The Opposite Party has failed to bring on record any document in support of its defence or to fortify their reply. 6. The claim of the Opposite Party that a settlement offer was made to the Complainant which he preferred to ignore is also bad in taste, as the very basis of the demand of such a settlement has been contested by the Complainant. We fell that no settlement is of any meaning, if the very issue on which the demand of money is being challenged by the Complainant. Further more the opposite party having converted the debit entry of Premium amount into a loan and started claim the same in EMIs have only multiplied the vows of the complainant. 7. As the allegations of the Complainant with regard to the subscription of the policy has gone unrebutted; the reply of the Opposite Party is totally devoid of any merit and we feel that an illegal demand raised by the Opposite Party has been multiplied to an exorbitant level and the same is still alive, thus, the same amounts to a continuous cause of action. In these circumstances, the claim of the Opposite Party that the present complaint is barred by limitation too is ignored. 8. In the light of above observations, we find a definite deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party on the ground that the Opposite Party had released the payment to the insurance company without verifying the legality and authenticity of the demand from the side of the insurance company. The opposite party has failed in being a good custodian of the complainants money. The present complaint of the Complainant succeeds against the Opposite Party and the same is allowed. Hence, the Opposite Party is directed:- [a] To pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment and mental agony to the Complainant; 9. The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by Opposite Party; thereafter, Opposite Party shall be liable for an interest @18% per annum on the amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/-, from the date of institution of the complaint, till it is paid. 10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 31st July, 2012 Sd/-(LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER ‘Dutt’
| | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MR. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU, MEMBER | | 
