Date of Filing:17.03.2008<br /> Date of Order:23.06.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> <br /> Dated: 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2008<br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President.<br /> Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member.<br /> Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 719 OF 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> M.S. Srinivasa Gowda,<br /> R/at No.67, 6th Cross, <br /> III Main, Purna Pragna Layout, <br /> BSK III Stage, Near Water Tank,<br /> Bangalore-560 085. Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> ICICI Bank Limited,<br /> West Wing, I Floor, Mytree Centre,<br /> 4/10, Hosur Road, Bommanahalli,<br /> Bangalore-560 068,<br /> Represented by the General Manager,<br /> Credit Cards Division. Opposite Party<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> By the President Sri. S.S. Nagarale<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-.<br /> The facts of the case are that, the complainant availed a credit card bearing No.5177194234503008 and subsequently availed credit card facility. The complainant was regular in payment of the credit amount, however the complainant had a total outstanding balance of Rs.1,500/- as on 14/6/2007. But he was surprised to receive a statement dated 14/5/2007 from the opposite party calling upon the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.23,911-19, being horrified the complainant enquired about the veracity and the genuineness of the statement of account. After verifying the accounts the opposite party confirmed the complainant that there was a computer mistake in the statement dated 14/5/2007 and instructed the complainant to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- stating that it was the actual amount in the credit card account. When the complainant resisted the highhandedness of the opposite party bank recovery agents, they receded but threatened the complainant of dire consequences which made the complainant to inform the higher authorities of the opposite party bank. The complainant was surprised to receive a notice from District Legal Services Authority, Bangalore City in pre-litigation No.108473/2007 calling upon the complainant to be present for hearing on 30/10/2007. The complainant telephoned to the concerned person to verify the account status, most probably after knowing that there was no balance the said representative became calm but in a diplomatic manner he represented the complainant that he will “look into the matter” and try to solve the same. The complainant by paying the amount of Rs.1,500/- to the authorized representative of the opposite party namely Ravi.V had cleared the entire balance amount and in fact the bank representative has issued a payment receipt which bears the opposite party bank and other relevant details, the said payment receipt also bears a computerized unique Hologram which is affixed on the payment receipt by the officials of the opposite party Bank. The complainant issued a legal notice on 17/12/2007 to the opposite party stating about the entire facts and circumstances. In spite of the receipt of the notice the opposite party Bank did not reply, therefore it is a fact accomplished that the opposite party knowing fully well about the closure of the credit card account is indulging in intimidatory tactics, which is impermissible in law. Hence, the complaint. <br /> <br /> 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite parties put in appearance through advocate and filed defence version stating that, the complainant had approached for seeking credit card thereby made a request through credit application. Pursuant to the same said credit card was sanctioned with the belief and assurance that any charge incurred, by virtue of the usage of the card, shall become due and payable and the same shall be paid on receipt of the monthly statement of account on and before the payment due date. The complainant constantly defaulted in payment of outstanding balance on the card in spite of repeated requests, reminders and demands and despite sufficient opportunities granted to him to regularize his account. The opposite party at no point of time had instructed the complainant to pay Rs.1,500/-. The allegations made herein are false, the opposite party admits the fact that it had conducted Lok Adalath for customers intending to settle their accounts and in furtherance of the same the notice was also issued to the complainant herein to come forward and settle however at no point of time the opposite party had assured to close the account. The opposite party had received the payment and the receipt is issued to that effect, however that doesn’t mean the account getting closed. The opposite party in order to collect its legal dues had issued notices however it had not engaged any anti social elements to recover its dues, the same is permissible under law. In view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite parties have prayed to dismiss the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. Arguments heard. <br /> 4. The points for consideration are:- <br /> Whether there was any deficiency in service <br /> on the part of the opposite party? <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 5. Perused the complaint and documents. The complainant has produced payment receipt of opposite party Bank. This receipt is dated 14/6/2007. As per this receipt it is clearly mentioned that account is closed and no balance. The opposite party received Rs.1,500/- from the complainant on 14/6/2007 and credit card account was closed. Even after closer of the account the opposite party Bank referred the matter to the pre-litigation Forum, this itself goes to show that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party Bank. How can the opposite party Bank refer the matter to Legal Services Authority for pre-litigation settlement when the account of the complainant had been closed and to that effect the Bank had issued receipt. The complainant got issued legal notice on 17/12/2007 explaining all the facts in spite of the receipt of the notice opposite party Bank did not reply. Therefore, the case of the complainant has to be accepted. The defefnce version has been filed, but version has been signed by the advocate for the opposite party and the opposite party Bank and its representative or authorized signatory has not signed the defence version. There is no verification of the defence version. Therefore, the defence version filed by the advocate for opposite party is not a defence version at all in the eye of law. In the defence version also, nothing has been stated in respect of the amount due to the Bank. In the defence version, it is clearly admitted that, opposite party had received the payment and receipt has been issued. When this is the case how can the opposite party again refer the matter to the pre-litigation Forum. It has been submitted by the complainant that the representative of the opposite party Bank time and again making telephone calls at odd hours and this amounts to harassment. The complainant has suffered mental tension and agony. It is alleged by the complainant that the opposite party Bank employing rowdies and goonda elements. This allegation is very serious. The Bank is not entitled to engage any goonda elements for recovery of dues. This unlawful activity cannot be permitted and tolerated. It is not proper and just on the part of the opposite party to engage antisocial elements for recovery. The Bank has to file litigation legally, nobody is permitted to take law in their hands. India is governed by rule of law. Everybody has to respect and abide the law and nobody is above the law. The opposite party Bank shall not indulge in any illegal activities. If there was any due there are modes to recover the same. The Bank has to take legal course instead of taking coercive steps. The complainant has been able to prove that his credit card has been closed on payment and he has got receipt to that effect. Therefore, there is no question of any further recovery of dues from the complainant. The complainant has sought Rs.2,00,000/- compensation for deficiency of service. I am of the opinion that this is not a fit case to grant such unreasonable and unjustified compensation. However, in view of the above discussion opposite party Bank is not entitled to recover anything from the complainant since the account has been closed and therefore this observation and discussion will meet the ends of justice. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the complaint is liable to be disposed of holding that, there is no due from the complainant and the opposite party is not entitled to recover anything from the complainant since the account has been closed. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:- <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> 6. The complaint is disposed off accordingly. Parties to bear their own costs.<br /> <br /> 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. <br /> <br /> 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 23RD DAY OF JUNE 2008.<br /> <br /> Order accordingly,<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br /> We concur the above findings. <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />