BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 31/12/2008
Date of Order : 03/11/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 516/2008
Between
Chakrapani. K.R., | :: | Complainant |
S/o. Late K.K. Raghavan, Kaniankattu House, Club Road, Girinagar, Kadavanthra, Kochi – 682 020. |
| (By Adv. George Cherian, Karippaparambil Associates Advocates, H.B. 48, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi - 36) |
And
ICICI Bank Ltd., | :: | Opposite party |
ICICI Bank Credit Card Division, M.G. Road, Padma Junction, Ernakulam. |
| (By Adv. Shaijan C. George, Edassery Building (Blue Mount), Banerji Road, Ernakulam, Cochin – 682 031) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The facts of the complainant's case are as follows :
The complainant availed himself of a credit card from the opposite party in September 2004. The opposite party without the consent of the complainant has issued an add on card in the name of his wife and has been debiting charges though the card was returned in 2004 itself. The opposite party without the consent of the complainant subscribed in an insurance scheme and they have been debiting the premium charges in the account. During 2005-2006, the complainant purchased gold ornaments from Alukkas, Cochin for Rs. 10,000/-. The opposite party had credited an amount of Rs. 20,000/- as loan in 2006. The total payments made by the complainant would come to Rs. 50,265/-. On 10-10-2008, the complainant caused a letter to the opposite party requesting to refund the policy premium amount, but in vain. On the very same day, the complainant issued another letter requesting the opposite party to issue a statement of account, but they have not complied with the request. At that juncture, the opposite party issued a lawyer notice dated 13-10-2008 showing the outstanding due as Rs. 35,813/-. On 29-10-2008 and on 29-12-2008, the opposite party through its hired gundas threatened the complainant to pay the above sum. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs against the opposite party :
To set aside the demand dated 13-10-2008 for Rs. 35,813/-.
To pay a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and to pay Rs. 5,000/- being the costs of the proceedings.
2. Version of the opposite party :
The complainant was issued with a credit card and subsequently an add on card. Add on card purchase will be reflected on the statement of parent card. The complainant has consented to issue ICICI Lombard insurance and the same was issued him by the said company. The said company had made the claim to the opposite party from the credit card account. Each months purchase and remittance of the amount will be reflected in the monthly statement. There is no remittance of Rs. 12,000/-. Since the complainant was a chronic defaulter in paying the monthly payment, the opposite party has forced to charge penal interest, late fee and other charges. The complainant withdrew a total sum of Rs. 21,000/- through ATM and he had already taken loan of Rs. 20,000/- through credit card. The opposite party had not sent any hired goondas to the house of the complainant. The complaint is bad for non -joinder of Lombard Insurance Company in the party array. The opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A3 were marked on his side. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Ext. B1 series was marked on their side. Heard the counsel for the parties.
4. The points that arose for consideration are :-
Whether the complainant is liable to pay Rs. 35,813/- as demanded b y the opposite party in his credit card account?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?
5. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- At the outset on 10-10-2008 as per Ext. A1 letter, the complainant requested the opposite party to refund the policy premium of Rs. 7,563/- and family policy amount of Rs. 8,772/-. Since he has not consented to join in the above insurance policies. Admittedly, both the policies belong to ICICI Lombard Company. According to the opposite party, the complainant joined in the scheme of ICICI Lombard and the opposite party paid the amounts for and on behalf of the complainant. Has ICICI Lombard Company proved beyond doubt that the complainant had joined in the scheme at his choice or voluntarily is not proved before us, per contra the opposite party has the case against the same contention. Though the complainant highlighted various anomalies in the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party, the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate or adduce evidence to the same. His contentions hence cannot be upheld squarely. Apart from the averments in the complaint, the complainant could not challenge the veracity of Ext. B1 service documents veritably. The ICICI Lombard company is a necessary party to this complaint, so far the complaint proceeds. However, in spite of the above observation on the part of the opposite party, the complainant did not take steps to implead them in the party array which amounts to non-joinder of a necessary party which law does not allow.
6. In the above circumstances, there is no reason before to set aside the demand of the opposite party as per Ext. A3. This complaint is only to be dismissed for reasons stated above. Ordered accordingly.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 3rd day of November 2011.
Sd/- A. Rajesh,President.
Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.
Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
Forwarded/By order.
Senior Superintendent.
A P P E N D I X
Complainant's Exhibits :-
Exhibit A1 | :: | A letter issued by the complainant |
“ A2 | :: | A letter issued by the complainant |
“ A3 | :: | A lawyer notice dt. 13-10-2008 |
Opposite party's Exhibits :-
Exhibit B1 series | :: | Copy of Card statements |
Depositions :- | | |
PW1 | :: | Chakrapani. K.R. - complainant |
DW1 | :: | Joseph Sajith. T.A. - Power of Attorney Holder of the op.pty bank. |
=========
