Date of Filing:06/04/2011

        Date of Order:13/06/2011

BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE -  20

Dated:  13^th DAY OF JUNE 2011

PRESENT

SRI.H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO,B.SC.,B.L., PRESIDENT

SRI.KESHAV RAO PATIL, B.COM., M.A., LL.B., PGDPR, MEMBER

SMT.NIVEDITHA .J, B.SC.,LLB., MEMBER

COMPLAINT NO. 670 OF 2011

S. Palani,

R/at: 336, 10^th Cross,

MSR Nagar,

Bangalore-560 054.                                                            ….  Complainant.

V/s

1. ICICI Bank Limited,

P.B. No.10054, GPO.,

MUMBAI-400001.

Rep. by M.D. & CEO.

2. Branch Head Kishore,

ICICI Bank Limited,

47, 5^th Cross, Malleswaram,

Bangalore-560 003.

3. Mr. Sathyanarayana,

ICICI Bank Credit cards,

1^st Floor, West wing, Bommanahalli,

Bangalore.                                                                    …. Opposite Parties.

BY SRI. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO, PRESIDENT

-: ORDER:-

The brief antecedents that lead to the filing of the complainant U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.4,037.05 paise, are necessary:-

          The complainant is the credit card holder bearing No.4477468114734002 of the opposite parties.  He had purchased the saree worth Rs.740/- in January-2008.  This was claimed by the opposite parties in the following months.  The complainant used to clear the amount regularly.  The opposite party through phone was threatening the complainant to pay the amount.  Almost after about three years a computer generated letter was received from the opposite party stating that they have lien over the SB account of the complainant No.007801006493 and the complainant is due Rs.5,345.05 and even before he could take action they have taken that amount from S.B. Account.  The complainant contacted Sri. Sathyanarayanan of the opposite party, in mobile phone No. 8971809176 and requested for settlement, who asked him to pay Rs.1,308.00 and they will waive the rest of the amount and directed the complainant to pay it immediately.  Since the transactions were blocked the complainant could not pay this amount immediately and hence the said Sathyanarayanan could not do anything, further the complainant contacted Mr. Seethal, the Senior Executive of the opposite party, mobile No.9845578000, of Hyderabad who pleaded his helplessness.  The complainant is a senior citizen.  Hence the complainant has prayed to direct the opposite parties to receive only Rs.1,308/- that is Rs.740/- with 24% interest and recredit the balance.

2.       In brief the version of the opposite parties are:-

          The complainant is not a consumer.  The complainant is a credit card holder, but he is irregular in payment of the amount.  He was not due only Rs.740/-.  During the transaction from 23.12.2007 to 15.01.2008 he has made different transactions and he had to pay Rs.1,319/- as per the statement dated: 19.01.2008 out of which he had paid only Rs.394/- on 09.02.2008 the balance has not been paid and as per the rules and agreement he has to pay this amount along with penal interest etc.,.  From 19.12.2008 the credit card was not operated at all.  As per the statement of accounts the complainant was due Rs.5,345.02 paise as on 19.09.2009.  As this was not paid a letter was issued to her as Under Section 171 of the Indian contract Act.  The amount was taken from her S.B. Account.  This is the law laid down in IV (2006) CPJ 1 (NC), (1992) 2 SCC 330, II (2001) CPJ 19 (NC).  Hence the complaint may be dismissed.

3.       To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits along with documents.  The opposite party had filed the written arguments.  The arguments were heard.

4.        The points that arise for our consideration are:-

:- POINTS:-

1. Whether there is deficiency in service?
2. What Order?

5.       Our findings are:-

Point (A & B):           As per the final Order

                             for the following:- 

-:REASONS:-

Point A & B:-

6.       Reading the pleadings in conjunction with the affidavits and documents on record, it is an admitted that the complainant was born on 20.10.1942, he is aged about 69 years and is a credit card holder of the opposite party bearing No. 4477468114734002 having a mobile No.9845208108 since 06.04.2004 of the opposite party (vide Annexure-A1).

7.       According to the complainant he has purchased a saree for Rs.740/- under the credit card, this was claimed by the opposite party on the following month.  As per the regular practice and within the period he has paid the amount and on the ground of non-payment the opposite party is harassing him.  This has been specifically denied by the opposite party.  The complainant never stated on what date and where he had purchased the saree and when he has received the bill and when he had paid this amount; this he has not stated at all.  Per contra the opposite parties have clearly stated as per the statement of accounts dated: 19.01.2008 between 23.12.2007 and 15.01.2008 the complainant had done different sale transactions and he was due Rs.1,319.14 paise which he should have paid on or before 19.02.2008, but he had paid only Rs.394/- on 09.02.2008 and the balance was not paid and subsequently the complainant stopped doing transactions in the credit card from 19.12.2008.  This is fully corroborated by the statement of accounts produced by the opposite parties.  That means as on 19.01.2008 the complainant was due Rs.1,319.14 paise, which he should have paid on or before 08.02.2008.  But as per the statement of accounts dated: 19.02.2008 the complainant had transacted on 21.01.2008 with Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore; on 27.01.2008 at Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore, on 29.01.2008 at Santosh Service Station, Bangalore and on 05.02.2008 at Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore, on 09.02.2008 at Trinethra Super Market, Bangalore, on 13.02.2008 at MSIL HP Auto Care, Bangalore, he made certain transactions and he had not paid that money and he was bound to pay certain charges late payment charges etc., and he was due as on that day Rs.2,155.35 paise. 

8.       Further it is seen from the statement of accounts dated: 19.03.2008 the complainant had transacted on 21.02.2008 at Santosh Service Station, Bangalore, on 24.02.2008 at M/s. Royal Ventures, Bangalore, on 29.02.2008 at Santosh Service Station, Bangalore, and he paid little amount and he was due Rs.1,768.35 paise. Further it is seen from the statement of accounts dated: 19.04.2008 the complainant transacted on 07.04.2008 with Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore and he paid certain amount and still he was due Rs.1,336.23 paise.          The complainant as per the statement of accounts of 19.05.2008 the complainant transacted on 10.05.2008 with Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore, he had paid certain amount and still he was due Rs.1,392.89 paise.  As per the statement of accounts dated: 19.06.2008 the complainant transacted on 25.05.2008 with Sri Ganesh Electronics, Bangalore; on 08.06.2008 with Medplus, Bangalore; on 15.06.2008 with Maha Bazar, Bangalore; on 18.06.2008 with Medplus, Bangalore and he had paid only certain amount and he was due Rs.2,122.76 paise.  As per the statement of accounts dated: 19.07.2008 the complainant has transacted on 22.06.2008 with Gojer Service Station, Bangalore, and paid certain amount and at the end of the day he was due Rs.1,739.79 paise.  As per the statement of accounts dated: 19.08.2008 the complainant was due Rs.1,503.21paise.  As per the statement of accounts dated: 19.11.2008 the complainant was due Rs.1,394.12 paise.  As per the statement of accounts dated: 19.10.2008 the complainant transacted on 28.09.2008 with Gojer Service Station, Bangalore, and at the end of the day he was due Rs.1,830.92 paise.

10.     Further as per the statement of accounts dated: 19.09.2008 the complainant had transacted with Suhaas Fuels, Bangalore, on 24.08.2008 and paid certain amount at the end of the day he was due Rs.1,567.48 paise.  That is to say that the complainant has not paid the amount in time; hence the opposite parties have charged overdue interest, late fee charges as per the agreement entered in to between the parties.  Anyway according to the opposite parties subsequent to 09.12.2008 the complainant never transacted in the credit card.  The opposite parties or the complainant have not produced any statement of accounts as from 19.12.2008.  Only the statement that was produced is that of 19.11.2008.  According to this the complainant was due Rs.1,394.12 paise.  Thus the complainant has not paid at any point of time subsequently but this amount was due.

11.     The opposite parties have stated that as per their accounts as on 29.01.2011 the complainant was due Rs.5,344.02 paise.  Even if we take this Rs.1,394.12 paise as principal as on 19.11.2008 even if it is doubled it comes to Rs.2,788.24 paise.  The principles of dam dupat applies.  That means interest should not exceed the principal amount.  Even if we take this then the complainant is due only Rs.3,949.9 paise.  But the opposite parties have claimed Rs.5,345/- without marking a lean on the account of the complainant, they have withdrawn the entire amount of Rs.5,345.12 paise from the SB account of the complainant.  This is against the tenor and mandate of Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act.

12.     Further the complainant has clearly stated that Mr. Sathyanarayana of the opposite parties in mobile No.8971809176 had assured the complainant to pay only Rs.1,308.00 towards the satisfaction of the credit card loan and he will see that the rest of the amount is waived.  This has not been specifically denied by the opposite party nor that Mr. Sathyanarayana has filed any affidavit.  Hence an adverse inference had to be drawn against the opposite party.  Further the complainant has stated that since all his transactions were blocked he could not pay the amount but when he was able to pay he contacted Mr. Sathyanarayana; he was helpless, hence he contacted Mr. Seethal the Senior Executive through mobile No.9845578000 who stated he could not do anything.  Hence under these circumstances as the opposite parties have exceeded in their limits of realizing more amount then what is due it is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.  When Mr. Sathyanarayanan has promised the complainant to pay only Rs.1,390/- they should have struck to that amount even that has not been done.  Hence action of the opposite parties is nothing but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

13.     How Rs.1,390/- could become more than Rs.5,345.02 paise in two years? can never be imagined that too when the complainant has not transacted in that two years period.  The opposite party has issued notice to the complainant on 07.02.2011, but before the complainant could take action they had recovered the entire amount that too giving only seven days time to answer.  This is nothing but an unfair trade practice.  Keeping quite for two years and waking up after two years giving only seven days time in the notice by not giving reasonable time to complainant to wake-up from the sleep recovering the entire amount is nothing but deficiency in service.

14.     The decisions citied by the opposite parties is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case, though there is no dispute between the proposition of law stated there in.  The detailed judgment is not produced by any of the parties before this Forum.  Discussing and quoting the entire judgment is against the mandate of Regulation of Section 18(3) of the Consumer Protection Regulation 2005.  Hence under these circumstances if we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,662.66 paise we think that will meet the ends of justice.  The opposite parties are also have to be directed to pay the costs of this litigation.  Hence we hold the above points accordingly and proceed to pass the following:-

-: ORDER:-

1. The Complaint is Allowed-in-part.
2. The loan account of the credit card of the complainant with respect to the credit card bearing No. 4477468114734002 is fully satisfied and noting is due. 
3. The opposite parties shall issue No Due Certificate to the complainant and shall cancel the credit card. 
4. The opposite parties shall pay Rs.2,662.66 paise to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order.
5. The opposite parties are also directed to pay Rs.2,000/- to the complainant towards cost of this litigation.
6. The opposite parties are directed to send the amount as ordered at Serial Nos.4 & 5 above through DD and send the certificate at No.3 above by registered post acknowledgment due to the complainant and submit the compliance report to this Forum with necessary documents within 75 days.
7. Return the extra sets filed by the parties to the concerned as under Regulation 20(3) of the Consumer’s Protection Regulation 2005.
8. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of costs, immediately.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Forum on this the 13^th Day of June 2011)

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                                   PRESIDENT