Sri.D.Krishnappa,<br /> President<br /> <br /> 1. The Complainant has come up with this complaint with his grievance that he is a credit card holder issued by the Opposite party under which he purchased articles on 02.07.2004, 03.07.2004 worth Rs.4,050/- and purchased petrol of Rs.310/- on 03.07.2004 and some other articles on 23.07.2004 worth Rs.3,900/-, totaling to Rs.8,260/-. The statement of August 2004 given by the Opposite party disclosed that Rs.4,050/- is converted into loan and the Opposite party asked him to pay in Equal monthly installments (E.M.I.) in the month of March 2005. It is submitted that the statement issued for the month of December 2004 shown a sum of Rs.1,305/- was debited on 25.11.2004, even though he dropped cheque for Rs.8,037/- on 22.11.2004. The Opposite party has encashed the cheque one day later, even though the payment was made by him in time. That inspite of making regular payments and payment of renewal fee, the Opposite party is deducting amount towards loan and annual renewal fee. That the Opposite party through it’s letter dated 05.07.2006 intimated him showing the outstanding amount of Rs.16,375.89 and it is also debiting the amounts from his account maintained in the Opposite party’s branch without authority. In the statement given on 5th March 2005, Rs.13,000/- is shown towards loan account, which he has not at all taken. That the Opposite party has also deducted a sum of Rs.992/- from his account on the ground that he has not maintained minimum balance of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, has prayed for a direction to the Opposite party to maintain his account both of his Savings Bank and credit card properly and also to award damages of Rs.50,000/- for not maintaining the account properly.<br /> 2. The Opposite party in it’s version contended that the allegations of para 2 are not fully correct and stated that amount of Rs.4,250/- has been converted into equivalent monthly installments for 12 months as per the approved of the complainant for his promotion offer of E.M.I. on phone. That the complainant was receiving statement all through from August 2004. That the Opposite party has also taken a personal loan on 11.10.2003 of Rs.15,750/- on E.M.I. for 12 months. That the Opposite party has also given consent for auto debit as per his application, therefore both the payments are received and credited to the complainant card account in the same statement. Further, the Opposite party has called upon the complainant to prove the issue of cheque dated 22.11.2004 for Rs.8,037/- in time. As no amount was received on 25.11.2004, it had rightly debited Rs.1,305/- to auto debit. The Opposite party further denying other allegations, contended that the statement showing the outstanding amount of Rs.16,375.89 in respect of the complainant’s credit card was sent to him. That the complainant has also made purchases Jewelers of Rs.13,000/- at Jewelary Mandir, Mysore on 20.04.2005 and called it on 01.03.2005 for conversion of the same to E.M.I. and has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> 3. The complainant has filed his affidavit evidence. Similarly, the Branch Manager of Opposite party has filed his affidavit evidence. Both the parties have produced voluminous statement of accounts of the complainant maintained in the Opposite party branch. Both the parties in their affidavit evidence have reiterated what they have stated in their respective complaint and version. The counsel for the complainant has filed their written arguments. We have heard the counsel for the Opposite party and perused the records. <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> 1. Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite party has not maintained proper account of his Savings Bank account and credit card account, has not properly accounted the amounts, he has paid and thereby has caused deficiency in it’s service?<br /> 2. Whether the Complainant is entitled for relief as prayed for?<br /> 5. Our findings are as under:-<br /> Point no.1 : In the negative.<br /> Point no.2 : In the negative.<br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Points no. 1 & 2:- The fact that the complainant is having a savings Bank account and the facility of a credit card maintained in the Opposite party Bank is admitted. But, it is the grievance of the complainant that he had purchased articles worth Rs.8,260/- on different dates, issued a cheque for Rs.8,037/- on 22.11.2004. But, the Opposite party has converted Rs.4,050/- out of that amount as loan and asked him to pay E.M.I. It is his further allegation that the Opposite party has un-authorisedely auto debited Rs.1,305/- from his account and, though he has not obtained any loan from the Opposite party, the Opposite party further shown in it’s statement dated 05.03.2005 Rs.13,000/- as loan amount, though he has not at all taken the loan. But, the Opposite party has denied all these allegations and in the affidavit evidence filed on behalf of the Opposite party have stated that it was furnishing statement of accounts maintained in their branch to the complainant through out from August 2004. The witness has also sworn to in that affidavit, it is on the request of the complainant auto debiting was being made and that the complainant had obtained a loan of Rs.15,750/- on 11.12.2003 on E.M.I. for 12 months and has also purchased jewels worth Rs.13,000/- in Jewelary Mandir, Mysore and requested it to convert it has E.M.I. The complainant though has produced certain extracts of his accounts maintained by the Opposite party has not been able to lay his hands to any specific discrepancies in the accounts maintained by the Opposite party. The Opposite party on the other hand has produced the account extract of credit card of the complainant starting from 17.03.2003 to 05.01.2007 during which the Opposite party according to the complainant has not maintained proper account. Even in this account maintained and produced by the Opposite party, the complainant has not been able to point out to a specific discrepancy in the account details furnished by the Opposite party. As could be seen from this account dated 05.07.2004, the Opposite party has clearly shown the purchase of articles by the complainant through his credit card and that is not disputed by the complainant. Further it is found from the extract on 07.07.2004, the Opposite party converted Rs.4,050/- as E.M.I. The Opposite party has also shown the cheque issued by the complainant on 23.07.2004 for Rs.9,156/- has been taken into account and adjusted towards the dues of the complainant. Further the complainant has in his complaint and the affidavit has contended as if he has not obtained any loan from the Opposite party Bank. But, that has been refuted by the Opposite party by stating that the complainant had borrowed a loan of Rs.15,750/- on 11.12.2003 at 12 months E.M.I. that has not been controverted by the complainant. Further, the complainant in his complaint at para 7 has stated that he has not taken loan of Rs.13,000/- as shown in the statement on 05.03.2005. But, in the affidavit evidence, he has admitted that in the month of March 2005 he had purchased jewels amounting to Rs.13,000/- and that was converted into loan account and that was repayable with E.M.I. Therefore, it is evident from the conduct of the complainant that he has attempted to suppress certain facts regarding transactions he had with the Opposite party. Even in the E-mail correspondences both the parties have produced dated 05.07.2005, the complainant has admitted the amount of Rs.13,000/- due to the Opposite party which he had agreed to pay in E.M.I. Therefore, the contention of the complainant that he had not obtained loan of Rs.15,000/- from the Opposite party and he had not agreed for conversion of Rs.13,000/- due under the credit card in having purchased the jewels into E.M.I. is false to his own face.<br /> 7. The Opposite party has stated in the affidavit evidence that they were supplying account extract of the complainants through out has not been controverted by the complainant. Further, the account extract produced by the Opposite party from 17.03.2003 to 05.01.2007 has also not been challenged by the complainant regarding it’s correctness. The Opposite party it is found after adjusting all the amounts that the complainant has paid has shown the balance amount due by the complainant in a sum of Rs.16,375.89. The correctness of this account has not been challenged by the complainant by pointing out to any anomaly or by subjecting the Opposite party for cross-examination. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant that the Opposite party has not maintained accounts properly cannot be accepted in the absence of specifying the particular entry or omission, which according to him is improper. The E-mail correspondences found in the file also reveal that the complainant had authorised the Opposite party for auto debiting from his S.B.account to Credit card account. These materials placed before us prove that there is no substance in the allegation of the complainant.<br /> 8. Further it could be seen from the complainant allegations and affidavit, the complainant has contended as if the Opposite party has made unauthorized or wrong entries in his account maintained in the Opposite party branch. As already pointed out above by us he has stated as if he has not obtained any loan from the Opposite party and deductions shown by it from his account as E.M.I. is illegal or unauthorized one. The account extract produced by the Opposite party proves otherwise and points to the loan of Rs.15,750/- borrowed by the complainant requesting the Opposite party to treat as loan and recover the same in E.M.I. The purchase of jewels during March 2005 has also been denied by him, but later on admitted to had requested to treat as loan and recovery was effected in E.M.I. Therefore, the Opposite party on the basis of request of the complainant shown to have been debiting in the account of the complainant towards recovery of his loan in E.M.I. The complainant who has attributed to certain irregularities to Opposite party in maintaining accounts has not made any endeavour to prove it by pin pointing to the irregularity in maintenance of the accounts. Further it is interesting to note that the complainant has not alleged that the Opposite party by such irregularities in maintaining of his account has caused any monitory loss to him or debited excess amount from his account. From reading the prayer he has made in the complaint, it is clear that he has only sought for a direction to the Opposite party to maintain his account both in S.B. account and credit card properly and sought for damages of Rs.50,000/-. Therefore, it is clear that he is not complaining of any monitory loss due to the act or omission of the Opposite party. As pointed out by us above since he has not proved as to where exactly irregular or illegality is committed by the Opposite party in maintaining his account. The complainant is therefore not entitled for any relief as he has failed to prove any deficiency of the Opposite party. Hence, the complainant is not entitled for any damages and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. With the result we answer point no.1 and 2 in the negative and pass the following order:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 1. The Complaint is dismissed.<br /> 2. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> 3. Give a copy of this order to each party according to Rules.<br />