Complaint filed on: 28-09-2010
Disposed on: 18-02-2011
BEFORE THE BANGALORE IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT, NO.8, SAHAKARA BHAVAN, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 052
C.C.No.2225/2010
DATED THIS THE 18th FEBRUARY 2011
PRESENT
SRI.D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT
SRI.GANGANARASAIAH, MEMBER
SMT. ANITA SHIVAKUMAR. K, MEMBER
Complainant: -
Mr.Vivek.S.Patil,
Aged-33, Occ: Private Service,
R/o. No.18/A, 2nd Floor,
6th A Main, 11th Cross, JP Nagar,
3rd Phase, Bangalore -78
V/s
Opposite parties: -
1. ICICI Bank Ltd, ICICI bank Towers, 1, Commissariat Road, Ground floor, Bangalore – 25 Reptd. by Manager,
2. ICICI Bank Ltd, Mytree centre, 4/10, Hosur Road, Next to Oxford College of Engineering, Bommanahalli, Bangalore – 68 Reptd. by Manager
O R D E R
SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT.,
The grievance of the complainant against the opposite parties [herein after called as Ops] in brief is, that on 15-3-2006 influenced by the statement of country club’s officials, he enquired about the features of the club membership, and at that time had given the credit card impression to them. He then suspecting the bonafide of this official using of the credit card impression, on the same day at 10 P.M. informed Ops through phone to block the dealings of the credit card immediately. He had also requested the Op’s phone banking division not to allow any transaction under the credit card until his written instructions. At that time he was told that the outstanding amount was Rs.2900/- under the credit card. That inspite of specific information from him, he found an amount of Rs.8,333/- was disbursed from his account and he contacted the Ops but they did not give any solution. Further contending that despite request for stopping transaction, the Ops have caused loss by releasing the amount and again on 19-1-2007, the Ops have debited Rs.17,161/- to his account and thereby caused loss to him and attributing serious laps to the OP has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.25,494/- with interest at 15% per annum and to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- and to award cost.
2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable, that transaction of disbursement of Rs.8333/- from his credit had taken place on 16-3-2006 is barred by limitation. That the complainant has not filed this complaint within two years from 16-3-2006 and the complaint is field on 27-8-2010, is hit by section 24A of Consumer Protection Act. The complainant has not impleaded the country club to whom he had given the credit card impression who is a necessary party. The complainant who is excepted to maintain the credit card secretly, admittedly given the credit card impression to an official of country club by signing the manual charge slip to withdraw the amount of Rs.40,000/- on 15-3-2006 towards fee of club member. In view of the authorization given by the complainant, they had honoured the transaction and stated the debit of Rs.17,161/- from the account of the complainant is towards the outstanding amount of the credit card and they being trustee of the public fund exercised their right of general lien under section 171 of Contract Act and therefore denying the allegations of deficiency in their service have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and the Legal Manger of the OPs have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The complainant alongwith the complaint has produced copies of letters he had addressed to the Ops, copy of e-mail he had sent and copy of a legal notice he got issued to the Ops. The Ops have produced copies of terms and conditions which govern the credit card facilities. The counsel for the complainant has filed written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Ops and perused the records.
4. On the above contentions following points for determination arise.
1) Whether the complainant proves that the complaint so far as the transaction dated 15-3-2006 is not barred by limitation and that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in debiting of Rs.17,161/- to his account on 19-1-2007?
2) To what reliefs, the complainant is entitled to?
5. Our findings are as under:
Point no.1: In the Negative
Point no.2: See the final Order
REASONS
6. Answer on Point No.1: As clear from the grievance of the complainant, the complainant has raised two issues, one regarding disbursing of Rs.8333/- in favour of the country club and debiting of Rs.17,161/- to his account. The complainant has alleged that he was carried away by the appeasements of official of the country club to make him a member of club and he had given credit card impression to them. It is his further allegation that on the same day, he informed the Ops at 10 P.M. to block dealing under his credit card, but despite that the Ops have disbursed Rs.8333/- to the country club from out of his account. Thus the transaction complained is of March 2006 and the complaint is now filed on 27-8-2010, is highly barred by limitation. The complainant has not filed any application for condonation of delay and the complaint is therefore on that account is liable to be dismissed. Further it could be seen, he alleged to had given instruction to block the credit card transaction at 10 PM on the day of transaction, it looks that transaction had already been done, in the course of the day therefore on this ground also the complaint is to be dismissed.
7. Coming to the second allegation of debiting of Rs.17,161/- to his account on 19-1-2007, the complainant has stated that without any information to him, arbitrarily the Ops have debited that amount and caused financial loss to him. The complainant himself has admitted as on 15-3-2006, he was informed by the Ops that he was due of Rs.2900/- under the credit card. The Ops by referring to this transaction admitted to have debited that amount to the credit of the complainant but contended that debit has been done by them towards outstanding amount under his credit card account by exercising their general lien as per section 171 of Indian Contract Act. The complainant has not denied the amounts due by him in respect of certain transactions he did under the credit card. Therefore when the complainant under the credit card become over due and the Ops had found amount in the credit of the complainant in the account maintained in their branch, they have right to debit that amount to adjust towards outstanding amount by exercising their lien, which act cannot be termed as deficient or arbitratory. The complainant as evident from his affidavit evidence has not denied or challenged this statement of the Ops therefore debiting that amount towards the amount dues to the Ops cannot be held as resulted in financial loss to the complainant. The complainant has not made out any act of the Ops resulting in deficiency in their service or denial of their service. The complainant has not also specifically pointed out to any transactions done by the Ops in releasing any other amount from his account to any one else ignoring the stop payment or blocking account after instruction given by him. Examining the grievance of the complainant from any angle, we fail to appreciate the allegations of the complainant as such the complaint in our view lacks merit.
8. The counsel for the complainant has referred to two decisions of the Hon’ble National Commission reported in I (2008) CPJ 31 and then I (2005) CPJ 528 and 180, on facts the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the complainant are not applicable, as such we answer point No.1 in the Negative and pass the following order:
ORDER
Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Got it transcribed and corrected, Pronounced on the Open Forum on this 18th February 2011.
Member Member President
