Date of Filing : 10.05.2010
Date of Order : 26.11.2011
BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020
Dated 26th day of November 2011
PRESENT
Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO B.Sc.B.L. …. President
Sri. BALAKRISHNA V. MASALI, B.A., LL.B.(SPL) …. Member
COMPLAINT NO. 1042/2010
Nagendra K.S.
SHIG-C-125/8, 5th Phase,
Yelahanka New Town,
Bangalore 560 064.
(By Advocate S.B.Raju) ……. Complainant
V/s.
1. ICICI Bank Ltd.,
Corporate Office,
ICICI Bank Towers,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Mumbai – Rep. by its Managing Director.
2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Mythri Centre,
No.4/10, Hosur Road,
Beside Oxford engineering and dental college,
Bommanahalli Hosur Road,
Bangalore 560 068.
By its Manager
(By Advocate M/s FX & Co.,) …..Opposite Parties
ORDER
(By the President Sri. H.V.RAMACHANDRA RAO)
The brief antecedents that yet to be filing of the complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act seeking direction to the OPs to pay Rs.61,309-64 ps. are necessary.
1. The complainant is having a S.B.A/c No.000201502838 with the OP bank and also have a credit card No.4477-4702-5914-9004 and also hold membership card 4477 4737 7634008 of the OP. At the time of the credit card he has authorized the OP2 to withdraw the full amount from the SB A/c whenever the credit card he used, so that the complainant cannot be penalized for any interest. In spite of maintaining sufficient balance in the S.B.A/c the OP has withdrawn only the interest part from the S.B.A/c and thus the complainant was charged heavily. On 30.11.2007 the complainant cancelled the debit facility. The outstanding balance was Rs.29,979/- but principal was only Rs.7859/-. On 10.12.2007 he paid Rs.8000/- hence the dues was stands nil. The complainant cancelled the auto debit facility on 30.12.2007. On 19.01.2008 the OP reversed the interest service tax. On 05.07.2008 the OP demanded the complainant to pay Rs.31,309/-. This is a deficiency in service.
2. In brief version of the Ops are :
The SB A/c, credit card are admitted. The complainant has apted for auto debit facility for the payment of the usage of the credit card thereby authorized the OPs to raise the debit against the SB A/c, and authorized to debit only with an amount equivalent to the minimum amount from its total usage of amount and not the entire usage amount. Accordingly the OPs were debiting the minimum amount from each of usage. It has been accepted by the complainant. The due dates will be mentioned to the complainant every month by statement of account. As on 18.05.2007 the complainant was due Rs.47,636.48 ps. On 06.06.2007 the complainant has paid only Rs.20,000/- still he was due Rs.29,993.78 ps. The complainant was using the credit card and not making the payment. On 10.12.2008 he has paid Rs.8000/-, still he was due 22,943.62 ps. On 13.12.2007 the complainant sought for cancellation of the auto debit card without any enclosures. The OP stopped debiting the minimum amount also. On 05.07.2008 the OP called upon the complainant to pay Rs.31,309-64 ps as due on 18.06.2008. The complainant did not pay. Hence u/s 171 of the contract act and as per the contract the OP has exercised the lien and recovered the money from the S.B.A/c. Hence the complaint be dismissed.
3. To substantiate their respective cases the parties have filed their respective affidavits and documents. The case was posted for arguments, none appeared hence perused records.
4. The points that arise for our consideration are
A) Whether there is deficiency in service ?
B) What order?
5. Our answers are
A) Negative
B) As per the detail order for the following
REASONS
6. Reading the pleadings in conjunction affidavit and documents on record it is an admitted fact that the complainant is having a credit card and he was using it since 09.06.2005 by making an application. It is also an admitted fact that the complainant has opted for “the auto debit facility” for the payment of the usage charges authorizing the OP to debit it to his savings bank account. According to the authorization the OP was bound to debit only the minimum amount from each credit card usage and not the entire amount. The entire allegation of the complainant is that he has authorized the OP to pay the entire credit card amount. There is no such document in this regard.
7. Even otherwise what was the transaction he was made? when he made? what was the due date? what was the amount standing in the S.B.A/c? how much it was disbursed? when is not at whispered? The pleading has bald as it could be.
8. It is seen from the records produced by the complainant that as per statement dated 19.04.2006 the complainant was due Rs.15,978-49 ps; as on 19.1.2008 he was due Rs.23,170.90 ps. Without paying this how can the complainant say that the OP is wrong. It is seen from the statement of accounts produced by the OP the statement dated 18.5.2007 to 18.11.2008, the complainant is due the amount and he was irregular in payment. Hence the penal interest and other charges were levied.
9. Further it is seen that the complainant has cancelled the auto debit facility on 30.11.2007 and he was due Rs.29,917/- but he paid only Rs.8000/- on 10.12.2007 and claims he is not due any other amount.
10. In any event as the amount was not paid, the OP on 05.07.2008 recovered Rs.31,309/- from the complainant from his S.B.A/c and credited it to the credit card A/c. When the amount of credit card is not paid the OP recovered the money, there is nothing wrong . The entire grievance of the complainant is that the OP instead of crediting the amount from his S.B A/c on every credit transaction, the whole amount, they have debited only interest part, hence OP is not liable. This is untenable contention. This requires detailed cross examination and scrutiny of evidence. It cannot be done in the summory way. If the complainant is entitled to, he can approach the civil court for that, this order will not come in the way. Hence we hold the above points and pass the following
ORDER
1. Complaint is dismissed.
2. Return the extra sets to the concerned parties as under regulation 20(3) of the consumer Protection Regulation 2005.
3. Send copy of this Order to both the parties free of cost immediately.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 26th day of November 2011.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
