BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD                                        :  PRESIDENT

SMT. R. SATHI                                         :  MEMBER

SMT. LIJU B. NAIR                                  : MEMBER

C.C. No. 270/2012 Filed on 13.08.2012

Dated: 31.07.2014

Complainant:

K.T. George, S/o K.V. Thomas, Kariyil House, T.C. No. 55/2466(1), Behind St. Mary’s School, Kaimanam, Pappanamcode P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

                             (By adv. P.K. Padmakumar)

Opposite parties:

1. ICICI Bank Ltd., represented by its Manager, Maharana Prathap Nagar, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462 011.

          (By adv. N. Binu)

2. Central Bank of India, represented by its Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, 9-Arera Hills, Jail Road, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh-462 011.

3. The Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Branch, M.G. Road, Pulimoodu Junction, Thiruvananthapuram-695 001.

This C.C having been heard on 23.07.2014, the Forum on 31.07.2014 delivered the following:

ORDER

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD:  PRESIDENT

The facts leading to filing of the complaint are that complainant is presently working as Steno Officer in the office of the 3^rd opposite party, the Manager, Central Bank of India Main Branch, Pulimoodu since November 2008 and before that complainant was working in the office of the 2^nd opposite party Central Bank of India, represented by Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Bhopal, that while complainant was working at Bhopal he availed credit card facility at the 1^st opposite party ICICI Bank, Bhopal in November 2001 with credit card account No. 4477460197125000, that complainant availed the said facility only upto June 2005 and no purchase was made and no credit card facility was availed thereafter, that complainant was constrained to close the account and a full and final settlement was arrived with credit card department of the 1^st opposite party and as per which complainant had given 4 numbers of post dated cheques bearing Nos. 11851, 11852, 11853 and 11854 for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each drawn on Central Bank of India, Bhopal in addition to the payments made earlier, that the said cheques were encashed, that subsequently an executive of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and demanded another amount of Rs. 5,000/- and cheque bearing No. 11856 for the said amount was given to him which was also encashed by the 1^st opposite party, that again complainant remitted Rs. 10,000/- as demanded by 1^st opposite party in December 2006 itself, that in January 2007 an amount of Rs. 5,000/- was also remitted as final settlement as demanded by 1^st opposite party, that the said amounts were given by the complainant in order to avoid the harassment of the 1^st opposite party and from causing nuisance in the place of work of the complainant.  Thereafter complainant was transferred to the office of the 3^rd opposite party at Thiruvananthapuram in November 2008, that after 22 months of the settlement there was no demand or notice from the 1^st opposite party with respect to the closed credit card facility.  But all on a sudden to an utter dismay and shock to the complainant, complainant received a recovery notice in June 2012 from 1^st opposite party, allegedly issued by Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate Tehsil Huzur, District Bhopal directing the 2^nd opposite party to deduct ¾ amount from the gross salary of the complainant to a total amount of Rs. 34,641/- in addition to the interest, proceeding and legal charges, that the said notice was issued exactly after 5 years and 6 months of settlement, that the said illegal notice was initiated by 1^st opposite party with an ulterior motive to tarnish the image of the complainant among his co-workers and superior officers in opposite parties 2 & 3, that on receiving the said notice complainant has made an e-mail request to the credit card division of 1^st opposite party on 18.06.2012 and 19.06.2012 to furnish the details of the credit card statement of the complainant, that complainant received a statement of account from the 1^st opposite party during the period from November 2001 to April 2007.  But in the statement the details of transaction and payments made by the complainant during the period from July 2005 to March 2007 are malafide missed, that again complainant sent e-mail requests on 21.06.2012, 22.12.2012, 23.12.2012 and 25.12.2012 requesting the 1^st opposite party to furnish the details of the statement of account during the period from July 2005 to March 2007 and 1^st opposite party informed the complainant vide its e-mail reply dated 26.06.2012 that the details of the statement during the period from July 2005 to March 2007 were missing.  Again complainant applied under Right to Information Act, that on 13.07.2012 1^st opposite party had sent an e-mail reply along with payment details informing that complainant had not made any purchase during the period from July 2005 to March 2007.  From the said payment details it is clear that from July 2006 to December 2006 amounts were paid by the complainant by way of cheques and that in February 2005 the outstanding due was only Rs. 49,861/- and no purchase made thereafter, but complainant was compelled to remit a total amount of Rs. 66,315/- against the outstanding due amount of Rs. 49,861/-.  The act of the 1^st opposite party charging unreasonable, excess and exorbitant amount that too in a closed account is illegal tantamount to restrictive trade practice.  The proceedings in pursuance of the recovery order dated 05.06.2012 which was on the basis of a fabricated and bogus statement of account of 1^st opposite party is legally not sustainable.  Hence this complaint to restrain the 3^rd opposite party from deducting any amount from the salary of the complainant, to set aside the recovery order dated 05.06.2001 and to stop all proceedings in pursuance of the said order, to direct 1^st opposite party to close the credit card facility of the complainant and not to claim any amount, and to direct 1^st opposite party to pay an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and cost to the complainant. 

1^st opposite party, on being served, entered appearance and filed version.  Opposite parties 2 & 3 did not turn up nor did they file version.  Opposite parties 2 &3 remain exparte.  1^st opposite party’s version contends that complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  Complainant is not a consumer, that complainant had availed a credit card facility as mentioned in the complaint while he was working in Bhopal, that complainant had utilized the credit card till June 2005, that there has been outstanding dues which he alleges to have settled.  Though complainant alleges that he had settled all dues, the complaint is vague about the settlement date and the quantified amount at which the settlement was arrived at, that the bank on various occasions had requested the complainant to clear the outstanding towards the credit card following which he had issued various cheques towards payment of dues which was accounted.  Complainant is put to strict proof with regard the settlement of accounts.  The proceedings were initiated under RRC, the right to proceed against any defaulting customer is a statutory right of the opposite party, that credit card accounts can only be closed after the complainant pays back the balance dues towards the credit card facility availed by him.  A perusal of the transaction statement of account of the customer shows that customer has not honoured the repayment in time resulting in accumulation of dues and several transactions and several cheques were all dishonoured.  Complainant is not entitled to compensation.  There is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties.  Hence 1^st opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 

The points that arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the recovery order dated 05.06.2012 cancelled?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get an order directing the 1^st opposite party to close the credit card account facility?

3. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?

4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation and costs?

In support of the complaint, complainant has filed proof affidavit and has marked Exts. P1 to P10.  1^st opposite party has not filed proof affidavit or any documents. 

Points (i) to (iv):- Admittedly complainant had availed credit card facility of the 1^st opposite party vide credit card No. 4477460197125000 on November 2001 while he was working in Bhopal.  The very case of the complainant is that he had utilized the said credit card till June 2005 and no purchase was made and no credit card facility was availed thereafter.  It has been the case of the complainant that he was constrained to close the said account and full and final settlement was arrived with 1^st opposite party and as per which he had given 4 numbers of post dated cheques bearing Nos. 11851, 11852, 11853 and 11854 for an amount of Rs. 5,000/- each drawn on Central Bank of India, Bhopal in addition to the payments made earlier.  According to complainant the aforesaid cheques were encashed by the 1^st opposite party.  Thereafter an executive of the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant and demanded another amount of Rs. 5,000/- by way of cheque No. 11856 and the same was encashed by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext. P1 is the copy of the statement of account issued by complainant’s bank.  A perusal of Ext. P1 shows that 2^nd opposite party had transferred Rs. 5,000/- to ICICI Bank credit card on 26.07.2006, Rs. 5,000/- on 26.08.2006, Rs. 5,000/- on 27.09.2006, Rs. 5,000/- on 02.11.2006 and Rs. 5,000/- on 08.12.2006.  Further it is contended by the complainant that he had remitted Rs. 10,000/- by cash to the 1^st opposite party in December 2006, another Rs. 5,000/- in January 2007 as final settlement as demanded by the 1^st opposite party.  Ext. P2 is the recovery order dated 05.06.2012 issued by Tahsildar, Tahsil Huzur, Bhopal. Ext. P3 is the letter issued by 2^nd opposite party along with Ext. P2 recovery order to the regional Office, Thiruvananthapuram to deduct ¾ amount from the gross salary of the complainant till further instructions and remitted the same by D.D favouring ICICI.  Ext. P4 is the e-mail request made by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party on 18.06.2012 and 19.06.2012 to furnish the details of the credit card transaction for the whole period.  Ext. P5 is the statement of account summary issued by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  On perusal of Ext. P5 series it is seen that in the statement, the details of transactions and payments made by the complainant during the period from July 2005 to March 2007 were missed.  Ext. P6 is the copy of various requests made by the complainant to the 1^st opposite party to furnish the statement for the period from July 2005 to March 2007.  Ext. P7 is the e-mail reply dated 26.06.2012 sent by 1^st opposite party to the complainant.  As per Ext. P7 1^st opposite party informed the complainant that the statements requested by the complainant pertains to old records and they are in the process of retrieving the same.  It is pertinent to note that 1^st opposite party had already furnished the transaction details of the complainant from November 2001 to April 2007.  On referring the same complainant submits missing statements for the period from July 2005 to March 2007 which the 1^st opposite party treated as old records.  Ext. P8 series is the card statement issued by the 1^st opposite party.  According to complainant the said statement is a confusing one and opposite party informed that few statements had been purged off.  Ext. P9 series are copies of e-mail requests made by the complainant on 30.06.2012, 09.07.2012 and 11.07.2012 to 1^st opposite party to furnish the statement or else to guide him as to whom and at what address should he approach for getting remaining statement under the Right to Information Act.  According to complainant 1^st opposite party did not give the address of the officials to be contacted nor furnished the further statement.  According to complainant on 13.07.2012 1^st opposite party had sent e-mail reply along with payment details informing that complainant did not make any purchase during the period from July 2005 to March 2007.  1^st opposite party had also furnished payment details.  As per Ext. P10 complainant had remitted Rs. 66,315/-.  As per Ext. P5 statement of account issued by 1^st opposite party as on 02.04.2005 the outstanding due was Rs. 49,244.89.  1^st opposite party had already informed that no purchase made by the complainant during July 2005 to March 2007.  If that be so, it has to be concluded that complainant had remitted an amount of Rs. 66,315/- against the outstanding due of Rs. 49,244.89.  The very case of the complainant is that 1^st opposite party is demanding exorbitant amount without any basis or reason.  Opposite party has not led evidence, oral or documentary nor has opposite party cross examined the complainant, to controvert the proof affidavit filed by the complainant, thereby the proof affidavit of the complainant remains uncontroverted.  The burden is on the part of the opposite party to show that they are entitled to get additional amount from the complainant by producing cogent and convincing documents.  In the absence of evidence to substantiate the version we find the claim of the 1^st opposite party to collect additional amount from the complainant is illegal.  On perusal of Ext. P10 complainant had remitted Rs. 66,315/- till January 2007 against the outstanding due of Rs. 49,244.89 as claimed by 1^st opposite party as on 2^nd April 2005.  There is no material on record to issue additional demand to the complainant.  In view of the evidence available on records, we are of the view that issuance of recovery order dated 05.06.2012 on the basis of the request of the 1^st opposite party deserves to be cancelled.  Complainant is entitled to get the credit card account closed.  1^st opposite party is directed not to claim any amount from the complainant in connection with the said credit card account.  This Forum already directed the 3^rd opposite party vide order dated 14.08.2012 in I.A No. 284/2012 not to deduct any amount from the salary of the complainant in pursuance of the recovery order dated 05.06.2012 issued by Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Bhopal District until further order.  Issuance of additional demand by the 1^st opposite party without issuing correct statement of account amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the 1^st opposite party for which complainant is entitled to compensation which we fix at Rs. 10,000/-. 

In the result, complaint is allowed.  The recovery order dated 05.06.2012 issued by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Bhopal District at the instance of 1^st opposite party is cancelled.  The credit card account facility of the complainant will stand closed.  1^st opposite party shall not claim any amount in connection with the said credit card (No. 4477460197125000) account.  2^nd and 3^rd opposite party shall not deduct any amount from the salary of the complainant in pursuance of the recovery order dated 05.06.2012 issued by Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, Bhopal District.  1^st opposite party shall pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.  Parties shall bear and suffer their respective costs.  

A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. 

          Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2014.

 

Sd/-

G. SIVAPRASAD                   : PRESIDENT

 

          Sd/-

R. SATHI                      : MEMBER

 

          Sd/-

                                                                        LIJU B. NAIR                : MEMBER

 

 

jb

 

 

 

 

 

C.C. No. 270/2012

APPENDIX

  I      COMPLAINANT’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 II      COMPLAINANT’S DOCUMENTS:

          P1     - Copy of statement of account issued by complainant’s bank.

P2     - Recovery order dated 05.06.2012 issued by Tahsildar.

P2(a) - Lr. No. 240/Tech/Recovery/2012 dated 05.06.2012

P3     - Lr dated 17.05.12 of Asst. General Manager, Central Bank of India.

P4     - Letter dated 18.06.2012 issued by complainant.

P5     - Statement of account summary issued by 1^st O.P to complainant.

P6     - Copy of requests made by the complainant to 1^st opposite party.

P7     - e-mail reply dated 26.06.2012 sent by 1^st O.P to complainant.

P8     - Credit card statement issued by 1^st opposite party.

P9     - Copies of e-mail requests made by complainant.

P10   - Lr. dated 13.07.2012 by Customer Service Executive, ICICI Bank.

P10(a)- Lr. dated 13.07.2012 by Customer Service Executive, ICICI Bank.

 

III      OPPOSITE PARTY’S WITNESS:

                             NIL

 IV     OPPOSITE PARTY’S DOCUMENTS:

NIL

                                                                                                     Sd/-

PRESIDENT

jb