PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. Sh. Partha Sarathi Sinha, the complainant was having two Bank accounts with the ICICI Bank Ltd.-OP-1 and their branches as OPs-2 & 3. The first account was in the solitary name of the complainant and the second was a joint account with his wife. The complainant admitted that he had obtained three credit cards and paid a huge amount for issuing the same. The complainant himself admits that he was not even aware of the mode of use of the credit cards but the Bank charged him wrongly on account of the said credit cards. The complainant used to make payments in terms of monthly statements raised by the OPs. There was no default in any manner. 2. It is transpired that the cheques issued by the complainant were deliberately produced at a later stage so that the complainant can be charged for delayed payments and also interest and penalty may be imposed on him. However, no evidence was adduced by the complainant. This is a bare assertion made by the complainant, which is not bolstered by any evidence. It is alleged that the complainant was wrongly charged interest on account of the Ops. The complainant had already made an excess amount of Rs. 12,000/-. The money was paid in ease but no receipt saw the light of the day. 3. The District Forum allowed the complaint but the State Commission reversed the order passed by the District Forum. The District Forum observed that it was stated by the Ops in the evidence on affidavit that the complainant neglected to make payment of his dues under the credit cards despite regular issuance of the statements in respect thereof. The State Commission also observed that on the perusal of the questionnaire put by the complainant to the OPs, it appears that no specific question was put to the OPs in respect of the statement of account was not regularly sent to the complainant. Consequently, the State Commission rightly assumed that the allegation made by the complainant that the statements were not supplied regularly, was incorrect. It is thus clear that the complainant has been economical with the truth. He could have lodged the complaint within prescribed 21 days or even thereafter. Production of such evidence could have turned the corner. The undated letters without proof of receipt carry exiguous value. 4. It also transpired that the OPs attached the amount from the joint account of the petitioner. The State Commission has placed reliance on the authority reported in the case of “Bank of Baroda Vs. Ranjit Singh 2012 (4) CPR 91 (NC)”. The OPs have exercised the right of lien over the account maintained in the same branch and therefore, the set up was within the competence of the OPs. People are interesting to have the credit cards without knowing its implications. The petitioner has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. The complainant has no bone to pluck with the OPs, therefore, the same is dismissed. | 
