BEFORE THE  A.P STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION AT HYDERABAD

F.A.NO.400 OF 2012 AGAINST   C.C.NO.547 OF 2010 DISTRICT FORUM-II HYDERABAD 

Between:

Madhuri Chandak W/o R.K.Chandak
Aged 28 years, R/o Flat No.B-106
H.No.7-1-621, Sree Sai Datta Apts
Sreenivas Colony (East) Ameerpet
Hyderabad, Occ: Business                                            
                                                        Appellant/complainant

        A N D

ICICI Bank Ltd., 
Branch Office at Khairtabad Circle
Adj to Vishweshwarayya Statue rep.by
its Manager, Credit Cards & Personal Loans

                                                        Respondent/opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant                      M/s  Rakesh Sanghi

Counsel for the Respondent                   M/s P.Ramachandran

QUORUM:  

          SRI  THOTA ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER

AND

 SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE  MEMBER

            MONDAY THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JUNE

                                TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN

Oral Order (As per Sri Thota Ashok Kumar, Hon’ble Member)

***

1.               The unsuccessful complainant is the appellant.   For convenience sake the parties as arrayed in the complaint are referred to hereunder.

2.              The brief facts of the complaint are that complainant is the A/c holder bearing No.LPHYD 00009260438 and having credit card   bearing Nos.4477 4742 9314 8006 and 4477 4699 4250 9004 and 4477 4785 4579 2008.  The complainant had remitted substantial sums to the opposite party bank and also to its authorized bill collector in the year 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 by way of ad-hoc payment.  Despite such payments the opposite party bank again malafidelydemanding an outstanding amount of 1,00,000/- on the credit card and a separate sum of 1,00,000/- on the personal loan vide its demand notices dated 6.3.2009, 21.01.2010 and 3.02.2010 being the due amount and payable by the complainant under the said credit cards and personal loan account without furnishing the details of transactions and copies of bank statement etc.    The complainant further submitted that the interest being charged by the opposite party Bank under various onerable and innocuous prefixes amounting to a grant total of around 5% to 6% per month towards interest, totalling to around 70% per annum which is grossly usurious and excessive and thereby violated the banking license terms and conditions issued by the RBI.  The complainant called upon the opposite party Bank to furnish to the complainant the plethora of documents signed by him at the inception for grant of the aforesaid personal loan along with the comprehensive Bank statement showing in detail the entire transaction and also for proving each and every entry debited to the aforesaid personal loan account as the same do not appear to have furnished at the time of execution and the opposite party obstinately refused to furnish the documents.  Hence the complaint to direct the opposite party to render accounts to the complainant in respect of the personal loan  and the credit cards and for payment of costs etc.

3.             The opposite party resisted the case contending that the complainant has availed 3 credit cards and one personal loan and utilized the same for her personal benefits.  On the complainant’s request and application credit cards bearing Nos. 4477 4742 9314 8006 and 4477 4699 4250 9004 and 4477 4785 4579 2008 with credit limits of 50,000/-, 23,000/- and 20,000/- each were issued to her on 28.2.2007, 28.5.2006 and 26.3.2007 respectively and also she availed one personal loan vide Loan No.LPHYD00009260438 on 20.01.2007 for an amount of 3,76,000/- to be repair in 48 EMIs @ 11,045/- and since then the complainant has been utilizing the said facility to her utmost satisfaction.  As a credit card holder the complainant is well aware that a card member who utilizes the credit card is ultimately liable to pay the Bank the entire amount that falls due on the utilization of the credit card to the Bank.  If the card member pays the said amount within the dues dates he/she is not required to pay any amount other than the actual amount incurred by him/her while using the credit card.  But if the credit card member fails and neglects to pay the said overdue amount within specified due dates the credit card member is liable to pay interest and other charges applicable thereon on the said unpaid amount. 

4.             The opposite party further contended that at the time of availing the personal loan the complainant is fully aware of rate of interest, tenure of the loan equated monthly instalments of the loan along with other details as the same were clearly explained to the complainant besides being part of the loan agreement. In terms of the loan agreement, the complainant has agreed to make timely and regular repayments of loan instalments which are the essence of the contract. The complainant has failed to pay the outstanding dues on the credit cards within the due dates which can be clearly seen from the statement of accounts.  As the complainant never cleared interest and other charges accrued on the aforesaid credit cards and personal loan the present outstanding as per the statement dated 22.9.2010 on the aforesaid credit cards is shown as 1,34,762.41 and on personal loan outstanding is 1,36,602.86.   In spite of repeated reminders the complainant failed and neglected to make payment of outstanding dues and thus prayed to dismiss the complaint. 

5.             Both side filed evidence affidavit reiterating their respective stands aforesaid.  Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on behalf of the complainant and no documents were marked on behalf of the opposite parties. 

6.             Having heard both side and considering the material on record, the District Forum dismissed the complaint vide its order dated 1.2.2012 on the ground that the matter involves settlement of accounts and sanction of accounting procedure adopted by the opposite party, the remedy lies elsewhere.    

7.             Feeling aggrieved with the said dismissal the unsuccessful complainant filed this appeal mainly contending that as per Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and as per the ratio of the judgement reported in AIR 1967 SC at page No.1058, the opposite party Bank was duty bound to produce the evidence for proving each and every debit entry in the complainant’s account.  As per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 2001 SC page No.3095 a duty has been imposed upon all Banks to furnish a comprehensive statement of accounts disclosing the rate of interest charged and the period etc.  The dispute is not complicatedone  and it is a simple in nature regarding charging of usurious interest. 

8.             Heard counsel for the complainant and no arguments advanced by the opposite party. 

9.             Now the point for consideration is whether the order of the District Forum is vitiated either in law or on facts?

10.            There is no dispute that the complainant had obtained credit card bearing No.4477 4742 9314 8006 and also additional two credits bearing Nos. 4477 4699 4250 9004 and 4477 4785 4579 2008 with credit limits of 50,000/-, 23,000/- and 20,000/- each was issued to the complainant on 28.2.2007, 28.5.2006 and 26.3.2007 respectively and also availed one personal loan vide Loan No.LPHYD00009260438 on 20.01.2007 for an amount of 3,76,000/- to be repair in 48 EMIs @ 11,045/-   from the opposite party bank i.e., ICICI Bank Ltd.,  When he obtained such credit cards naturally he enjoys the facility of purchasing various goods availing the services.  In such circumstances the opposite party bank would be under obligation to make payments in respect of transactions made by the complainant basing on the credit cards. 

11.            According to the opposite parties the complainant did not pay the entire amount due on credit cards in time and that paid only minimum amount in connection with usage of credit card.  It is also contended by the opposite party that the complainant failed to pay 13 instalments on his personal loan and that the total amount due towards credit cards is 1,34,762.40 and personal loan amounting to 1,36,602.86 and that in spite of demands and reminders the complainant failed to make payments.

12.            The complainant vehemently argued that without rendering any accounts and explaining as to how the opposite party claimed the said outstanding due.  He further submitted that the complainant   also requested the bank to furnish details of the account to her so as to satisfy herself that whether she is really due of any amount or not but for reasons best known to the opposite party did not furnish any such details of the accounts bills and other documents and that Exs.A1 to A3 accounts do not disclose the details and that not furnishing such details etc amount to deficiency in service.  It is also contended by the complainant that without caring the guidelines and circular issued by RBI the opposite party charged interest and other charges onerously and usuriously.   Even though the opposite party contended that the complainant signed the terms and conditions of the agreement and also aware of the same pertaining to the credit card is bound by such an agreement.

13.            Admittedly no documents were filed by the opposite party including agreement and terms and conditions pertaining to the said credit card and also the documents relating to the personal loan.  In the absence of any such documents it is impossible to come to a conclusion that whether the rate of interest and other amounts claimed by the opposite party were in fact agreed upon by the complainant or not so as to hold that the complainant is due of the said amounts as contended by the opposite party.  In the absence of such important documents it is difficult to come to a conclusion that the details mentioned in Exs.A1 to A3 statement of account are true and correct basing on provision of Sec.21A of Banking Regulation Act.  The opposite party even did not choose to file such documents in this appeal as additional evidence.  In such circumstances the contention of the opposite party basing on the decision of Jayaram Nayak Vs ICICI Bank in Appeal No.298 of 2010 of Karnataka State Commission that forums cannot go into the question of reasonableness of interest rates charged by the bank could not be appreciated in its favour. 

14.            When the complainant alleged that the bank has charged excessive interest it is the duty of the bank to say that as per such and such circulars, guidelines issued by RBI and also the documents executed by complainant it charged the interest and other charges correctly we cannot expect such documents from the complainant.  The complainant submitted a copy of circular/notification bearing No.DBOD No.DIR/BC.93/13300/2006-2007 dated 7.05.2007 RBI/2006-2007/377 wherein the RBI directed  all the branches to place ceiling on interest rates.  Basing on the said circular the complainant also contended that the opposite party bank is violating the said circular by refusing to place a ceiling on interest rates.  Unless the documents evidencing the rate of interest being claimed by the opposite party from the complainant are placed on record it is difficult to come to a definite conclusion that opposite party bank violated the circulars issued by the RBI.  The learned counsel for the complainant submitted a decision reported in AIR 2004 SC at page 2615 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India prohibited the banks from collecting interest tax components from its customers.  The learned counsel for the complainant also contended that to frustrate the said judgement continuously the opposite party is collecting the tax illegally from its customers by amalgamating the said amount in the interest component and the said aspect also can be appreciated only when the details of the rate of interest etc., being collected by the opposite party from the complainant are furnished.  The complainant’s counsel also submitted another decisions reported in 1967 SC at 1058 and 1990(1)ANWR-6 and contended that basing on the said judgements mere entries in the statement of accounts are not sufficient to charge any person with liability as per the provisions contained in sec.34 of the Indian Evidence Act. He further submitted a decision reported in AIR 2001 SC page 3095 and contended that commercial and speculative  claim against the complainant qua the aforesaid credit cards and personal loan etc., not furnishing the statement of accounts pertaining to the entire credit cards is not justified and that opposite party cannot make commercial and speculative claims with regard to the said credits cards and personal loans.  In the absence of any such detailed statements it cannot be said that the opposite party collected the interest usuriously violating the directions of RBI and also it cannot be held that it amounts to unfair trade practice and restrictive trade practice.  Hence, in the circumstances of the case one thing is clear that   not furnishing such details of the transactions of subject credits cards and the details of interest said to have been agreed by the complainant and charged by the opposite party bank certainly  amount to deficiency in service and therefore order under appeal is liable to be set aside and a direction need to be given to the opposite party to furnish the details of credit card transactions, the rate of interest said to have been agreed by the complainant and also charged by the opposite party so also to pay a compensation of 5,000/- for such lapse as it caused mental agony to the complainant.  However, the complainant is at liberty to pursue her grievance if any after receiving the documents directed to be furnished by the opposite party to her so also the opposite party. 

15.            In the result the appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned order.  Consequently the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to furnish the details of credit card transactions pertaining to the credit cards and the copies of documents said to have been executed by the complainant in its favour pertaining to credit cards and personal loan evidencing the rate of interest agreed to be paid by the complainant and also the copies of guidelines issued by the RBI with regard to rate of interest and also pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and costs of 3,000/- throughout.  Time for compliance four weeks from the date of receipt of the order copy. 

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                        MEMBER

                                                                    Dt.30.06.2014

KMK*