Delhi

StateCommission

FA/926/2013

GOPAL KRISHAN SOOD - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Jan 2017

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : DELHI

                            (Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)             

                                                        Date of Decision :    02.01.2017      

 

First Appeal No. 926/2013

 

(Arising out of the order dated 2.7.13 passed in Complaint Case No.667/08 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate Delhi.)

In the matter of

SH. GOPAL KRISHAN SOOD

S/O LATE SH. R.M. SOOD,

R/O C-207, SUSHANT LOK,

PHASE-I, PARK HOTEL,

GURGAON (HARYANA)

 

OFFICE AT:

 

UNIVERSAL MANAGEMET CONSULTANT,

146, SOMDUTT CHAMBERS-II

6, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,

NEW DELHI-110066

……APPELLANT/COMPLAINANT

 

Versus

THE GENERAL MANAGER,

ICICI BANK LTD.,

VIDEOCON TOWER,

JHANDEWALAN EXTN.,

KAROL BAGH,

NEW DELHI

 

..…RESPONDENT/OP

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

1.         Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.         To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

 

 

 

Justice Veena Birbal, President

1.             This is an appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (in short, ‘the Act’) wherein challenge is made to order dated 2.7.13  passed by the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate (in short, the District Forum’) whereby the complaint case i.e. CC No.667/08  of the respondent No.1/complainant has been dismissed.
2.             Briefly the facts relevant for disposal of the present appeal are as under:-

            A complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short ‘the Act’) was filed by the appellant herein i.e. complainant before the District Forum alleging therein that the appellant/complainant had received a demand notice dated 12.5.08 of Rs.1,42,467.26 from respondent/OP. It was alleged that manipulated accounts were stated in the said notice. It was alleged that the respondent/OP bank did not apprise any documents to appellant/OP showing the rate of interest, hidden charges or any other charges which the respondent/OP  had charged in respect of amount in question till the receiving of the notice.   It was stated that there was an agreement between the parties that the respondent/OP would apprise him of all the hidden charges, Commission charges, Interest charges, pick up charges and debit interest etc. prior to every transaction. However, the respondent/OP bank failed to do so despite writing several letters by the appellant/complainant to respondent/OP bank. It was alleged that the bank never provided correct statement to him. It was alleged that the credit limit of the appellant/complainant was Rs.88,000/- and the respondent/OP could not have increased the limit of utilization nor could have allowed the appellant/complainant to use the credit facilities beyond Rs.88,000/-. It was alleged that by doing so the respondent/OP bank had violated the terms and conditions of the agreement between the parties. It was stated that the appellant/complainant had sent a notice dated 5.9.08 by registered post but no response was received by him. It was alleged that acts and omissions on the part of respondent/OP have caused deficiency in service due to which appellant/complainant had suffered harassment, pain and mental agony. The appellant/complainant had prayed that the respondent/OP bank be directed to reverse all debit charges, interest etc. with interest @ 24% p.a. He had further prayed that be respondent/OP bank be directed to pay him Rs.14,00,000/- as compensation towards deficiency in service and Rs. 20,000/- towards litigations costs.

            The complaint was contested by the respondent/OP bank by filing written statement wherein it was denied that it had caused deficiency in service as was alleged. It was stated that the respondent/OP was issued a credit card to appellant/complainant alongwith personal identification number (APIN). APIN provides access to the credit account and card member accepts the sole responsibility for use, confidentiality and protection of the APIN etc. It was alleged that the APIN can be changed by the card member later on. It was stated that the transactions on the credit card conducted with the help of APIN were the responsibility of the credit card holder. The charges were levied as per terms and conditions of the credit card agreement. It was stated that the interest etc. was levied for non payment of charges of credit card as per agreement between the parties. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant had failed to pay the payment of charges of credit card. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant had failed to pay the amount of the statement of the credit card, sent to him and as such the charges etc. as agreed were levied and payable amount was increased to Rs.1,42,467.26. It was alleged that the appellant/complainant did not make the payment despite sending statement to him showing the details of payment.

3.             The appellant/complainant had filed replication wherein he had reiterated the facts as pleaded in the complaint case.
4.             Both the parties had filed evidence by way of affidavits before the Ld. District Forum. The appellant/complainant had filed his own affidavit and relied upon the document Ex. CW-1/1 to Ex. CW-1/7 as referred in the affidavit. The respondent/OP had filed  evidence in the form of affidavit of Sh. Sanjay Sharma, Senior Officer (Legal) alongwith statement of the credit card account of the appellant/complainant for the relevant period i.e. from 11.5.07 to 5.11.08.
5.             On hearing the appellant/complainant and Ld. Counsel for the respondent/OP, the Ld. District Forum had held that the appellant/complainant had failed to place on record any document or account showing that any particular amount of the statement of account was not payable. It was held that the credit card and its APIN number remained with him and it was not his case that he had misplaced the card and had asked the bank for stoppage of the card. Ld. District Forum had held that in the circumstances of the case there was no deficiency in service in issuing statement of account which the appellant/ complainant had referred as notice dated 12.5.08. The Ld. District Forum had rejected the complaint vide impugned order dated 2.7.13 by observing that there was no merits in the case.
6.             Aggrieved with the aforesaid order present appeal is filed by the appellant/complainant.
7.             Appellant/complainant has argued in person  and has submitted that the Ld. District Forum did not consider the material before it while deciding the complaint case. It is contended that the respondent/OP never gave any proof as to how the payment of Rs.93,532.43 was due against the appellant/complainant. It is contended that RBI guidelines are violated in the present case. It is contended that the respondent/OP bank ought to have disclosed the rate of interest, default interest and penalty charges to the appellant/complainant before imposing the same upon appellant/complainant. It is contended that respondent/OP bank ought to have calculated the aforesaid charges separately before adding the same to the pending amount. It is contended that same is not done in the present case.  It is contended that no notice was given to the appellant/complainant that he had crossed the limit of Rs.88,000/-. In these circumstances there is deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP and the impugned order dated 2.7.13 is liable to be set aside.
8.             On the other side Ld. Counsel for the respondent/OP has contended that the Ld. District Forum has decided the complaint case after considering the entire material on record and there is no violation of any guidelines of RBI as has been alleged. It is stated that the statement of account of the appellant/ complainant depicts the payment due as well as other charges which have been levied upon him and the charges have been levied as per the agreement between the parties when the appellant/complainant had taken the credit card from it.
9.             We have considered the submissions made by the parties and have perused the material on record.

 

10.             It is own case of the appellant/complainant that he was allotted a credit card by the respondent/OP bank. It is stated that the limit of credit card was Rs.88,000/-. The contention of the appellant/complainant is that the respondent/OP bank had allowed him to use the credit card beyond the limit of Rs.88,000 and the respondent/OP bank has sent him a statement dated 12.5.08 vide which the appellant/complainant was asked to pay Rs.1,42,467.26 (Ex. CW-1/2) which was alleged deficiency as per him. We have perused the said statement. The said statement is payment due on account of the transactions being done by the appellant/complainant and it also includes the interest and other charges due to delay in making the payment. It is not denied by the appellant/complainant that he has entered into an agreement with the respondent/OP and has agreed to terms and conditions governing the usage of the credit card. The usage of credit card for different transactions is also not denied by the appellant/complainant. It is not the case of appellant/complainant that the credit card was lost and the alleged transactions were not made by him. The APIN was also allotted to him which remained within his exclusive knowledge. The credit card also remained in his possession throughout and the APIN was also within his exclusive knowledge. It is not denied by appellant/complainant that the benefits of credit card were not availed by him. No particular transaction has been mentioned in the entire complaint which is alleged to be not done by him. Appellant/complainant had been getting the statement of account from time to time from the respondent/OP. The appellant/complainant has neither pointed out that  any transaction for which he was billed was not done by him.  In between he had made payments also to respondent/OP. If the respondent/OP bank in its discretion has allowed the appellant/complainant to use the card beyond the credit limit of Rs.88,000/-, it can’t be said that it was a case of deficiency in service on the part of respondent/OP bank.
11.             We find no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent/OP bank. Ld. District Forum was right in dismissing the complaint. There is no merits in the appeal and accordingly the same stands dismissed.
12.             A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to this parties free of charge and also to the District Forum (Central), Kashmere Gate for information alongwith the record of the District Forum.

 

            File be consigned to Record Room.

 (Justice Veena Birbal)

President

 

 

(Salma Noor)

Member