Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/809/2015

Vishal Bhardwaj - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Maneesh Kumar Bali

08 Jun 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

 

 

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/809/2015
Date of Institution	:	07/12/2015
Date of Decision	:	08/06/2016

 

 

Vishal Bhardwaj son of Jagdish Chand aged about 35 years resident of H.No.3445, Sector 38-D, Chandigarh (UT).

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     ICICI Bank Ltd., S.C.O 129-130-131, Sector 9-C, Chandigarh (UT), through its Manager.

2.     ICICI Bank Ltd., Registered office-Race Course Circle, Vadodara, 390007, India, through its authorised signatory.

……Opposite Parties

 

QUORUM:	DR. MANJIT SINGH	PRESIDENT
	MRS.SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

               

                       

                                                                       

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Maneesh Bali, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. Sandeep Suri, Counsel for OPs

                       

                 

PER DR. MANJIT SINGH, PRESIDENT

1.         This consumer complaint, under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, has been brought by
   Sh. Vishal Bhardwaj, complainant against ICICI Bank Ltd. and another, Opposite Parties (hereinafter called the OPs), with regard to the dispute about full and final settlement of his credit card.

                The brief facts of the consumer complaint are that credit card No.5177194056772004 was issued to the complainant in the year 2004. On 16.1.2006, the complainant made a telephonic call at the office of the OPs and requested to close the said credit card account.  On 17.1.2006, the complainant received a call from one, Mr. Shailender of the OP Bank who asked him to make a payment of Rs.7,500/- towards full and final payment. On 18.1.2006, the complainant handed over cheque No.020359 of Rs.7,500/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Sector 37-C, Chandigarh. Mr. Shailender issued receipt No.0160026 against the payment.  On the asking of the complainant, a hand written note towards the full and final payment settlement amount was given to the complainant by an employee, Sh. Harjinder Singh having employee code as CHDCCC0945. The complainant made a photocopy of the cheque as well as the hand written note which was given on the back of the cheque.  In the month of February 2015, the complainant applied for a loan, but, his loan application was refused citing the reason that CIBIL rating of the complainant was not sufficient. On 3.3.2015, the complainant purchased online report of CIBIL and was shocked to know that there is a balance of credit standing against him amounting to Rs.54,390/- and that amount was shown pending towards ICICI Bank.  On 5.6.2015, the complainant wrote two e-mails to the OPs and on 8.6.2015 reply was received, but, the OPs refused to accede to the request of the complainant and showed a balance of Rs.54,836/- towards the complainant.  The complainant even issued a legal notice, but, without any success. Hence, this complaint.

2.         OPs filed their reply taking the preliminary objection that the present complaint is barred by limitation. The dispute raised by the complainant pertains to the year 2006 and the dispute being raised in the year 2016 is hopelessly barred by limitation. It is alleged that the amount is due and payable to the OPs against the credit card. CIBIL is only record of a person’s repayment history and in the present case the payment has not been made by the complainant and the same is being reflected in the credit history and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.  It is alleged that the payment of an amount of Rs.7,500/- is a matter of record.  The receipt has been validly issued.  Had there been a full and final settlement, a separate letter would have been issued towards the full and final settlement. Even otherwise, receipt is also not talking of any full and final settlement.  Neither could a full and final settlement be made in the manner as is being stated by the complainant to have been made nor was the said person, whose name is being mentioned by the complainant, authorized to make a full and final settlement for and on behalf of the OPs. Even the name of the person which has been mentioned by the complainant is not the person who has issued the receipt at Annexure C-1.  The OPs prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
3.         Rejoinder was filed by the complainant denying all the averments in the written statement of the OPs.
4.         The parties led evidence in support of their contentions. 
5.         We have gone through the record, including the written arguments of the complainant, and heard the arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6.         The learned counsel for the complainant argued that there has been a full a final settlement between the complainant and the OP/bank and in lieu of the full and final settlement, a sum of Rs.7,500/- was paid through cheque by the complainant which was accepted by the OPs and a note was given on the back side of the cheque by the employees of the bank with regard to the full and final settlement. Now the OP/bank is unnecessarily harassing the complainant and demanding an outstanding amount of Rs.54,390/- and even the OP-bank has informed the CIBIL about the said outstanding amount due to which the complainant could not get loan and his application was refused on the ground that rating of the complainant was not sufficient.  As such, the complaint is to be accepted and the complainant is to be suitably awarded compensation.
7.         The learned counsel for the OPs argued that the complaint is hopelessly time barred. The dispute relates to the year 2006 and the complaint filed in the year 2016 is hopelessly time barred. He argued that the complainant himself admitted that in the month of September, 2012, he received the information from the Bank about the outstanding amount.  Since a period of more than two years have lapsed from that date also, as such, the complaint is time barred. The learned counsel for the OPs further argued that there is no document in the possession of the complainant to prove that there has been a full and final settlement between the complainant and the OP bank.  Had there been any full and final settlement, in that eventuality, the complainant must had been issued a letter in that regard by a duly authorized person and in absence of any such document, the version of the complainant cannot be presumed to be true.  He argued that since an amount of Rs.54,390/- was outstanding against the complainant, as such CIBIL was duly informed and, therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.
8.         The argument of learned counsel for the OPs that the complaint is hopelessly time barred on the ground that the dispute relates to the year 2006 and also on the ground that the complainant was informed in the year 2012, is devoid of merit.  The complainant has a daily cause of action against the OPs as the OPs have shown in the accounts a sum of Rs.54,390/- outstanding against the credit card of the complainant and also informed CIBIL to the effect that the said amount is outstanding against the complainant.  Since in the record of CIBIL a sum of Rs.54,390/- is outstanding against the complainant towards the OP bank, so, a fresh cause of action arose to the complainant when he approached the OP Bank for loan amount.  Even otherwise, since the OP bank has not relinquished their claim against the said amount of Rs.54,390/-, so even today the complainant has cause of action against the OPs.  As such, the complaint is well within the period of limitation.
9.         The payment of Rs.7,500/- through cheque made by the complainant is admitted by the OPs in their written reply.  Though this payment is admitted to be received, but the, OPs have denied that there has been full and final settlement between the complainant and the OP bank. No doubt, the argument of learned counsel for the OPs has some force that in case there is full and final settlement, then a letter is issued to the borrower by the competent officer of the bank in this regard.  But, to issue such a letter is the duty of the bank and the complainant was not in a position to compel the bank to issue such a letter.   In case no such letter has been issued, even then the complainant can prove his case by other circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance in favour of the complainant is the deposit of cheque of Rs.7,500/- (Annexure C-2) as well as the payment receipt (Annexure
   C-1). The complainant has alleged that he received information from one Sh. Shailender to deposit a sum of Rs.7,500/- for full and final settlement. The complainant handed over the cheque in the bank and the complainant has placed on record a photocopy of the noting of Sh. Shailender which reads as under :-

“Received this cheque payment as full & final payment of credit card No.5177 1940 5677 2004 by date 18/1/2006 the due under this card are full paid without any balance till date.”

Then there is again photocopy of noting on Annexure C-2 by the complainant to close his account and stop the billing in future and then there is a noting of Sh. Harjinder Singh about the receipt and acceptance.  In the noting employee number of said Sh. Harjinder Singh is also mentioned. The OPs did not deny in their written reply that S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh were not their employees or authorized agents. No affidavit of S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh has been placed on record to deny this photocopy of the noting.  No doubt, the counsel for the OPs argued that the original noting has not been produced, but the original noting must be in the record of the bank which could be produced by the bank. Even if said S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh were not authorized for full and final settlement, the OP bank is responsible for the acts and conduct of its employees.  Once the employees of the OP bank gave in writing that there has been full and final settlement between the complainant and the OP bank, then the complainant had no further role to play.  If both the employees/agents of the OP bank had acted unauthorisedly, then it was the bank who was to take action against them.

10.         It cannot be said that the said employees of the bank namely S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh acted unauthorisedly beyond their jurisdiction because the OPs have failed to prove that much more amount was outstanding against the complainant on the date of settlement.  Had there been much more liability with the complainant at that time, then it could be said that no full and final settlement was possible, though the bank authorities are competent to waive some of the outstanding amount. Even otherwise, by producing the statement of accounts of the complainant, the OPs could falsify the stand of the complainant that a huge amount was outstanding against him as such there could be no full and final settlement with the OPs. The best evidence available with the OPs was the statement of accounts of the credit card account of the complainant, which has been withheld by them.  So, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the OPs that only a sum of Rs.7,500/- was outstanding against the complainant and on receipt of the said amount, there was a full and final settlement with the complainant.
11.         The learned counsel for the OPs argued that the complainant has mentioned that he obtained the noting on the back of the cheque, but, the noting itself is so large that it cannot be on the back of the cheque.  Hence, it is proved that the complainant is telling a lie.
12.         The complainant might have mentioned due to inadvertence that the noting was obtained on the back of the cheque, but, certainly there is a noting, photocopy of which was obtained by the complainant. Since there is no denial by the OPs or by said S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh that the said photocopy of the noting is not in the hands of S/Sh. Shailender and Harjinder Singh, so the version of the complainant that a writing was given in his favour for full and final settlement cannot be disbelieved. Thus, the complainant has fully proved that there was a full and final settlement on 18.1.2006 after making the payment of Rs.7,500/- through cheque.  Since there had been a full and final settlement between the complainant and the bank, the OP bank has wrongly shown an amount of Rs.54,390/- outstanding against the complainant, particularly when the OP bank has failed to produce the statement of accounts of the complainant to prove how a huge amount accumulated in the credit account of the complainant. The complainant has been unduly harassed by the OP bank and he has to face mental agony as he could not get the loan sanctioned in his favour because of the information sent by the OP bank to CIBIL.
13.         Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case, this consumer complaint is partly accepted. The OPs are directed as under :-

(i)     To issue No Due certificate for the credit card No.5177194056772004 of the complainant and also intimate CIBIL that no amount is outstanding against the credit card No.5177194056772004 in the account of the complainant and there has been full and final settlement;

 (ii)   To pay to the complainant compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- for harassment and mental agony faced by the complainant at the hands of the OPs;

(iii)   To also pay Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation to the complainant. 

14.         This order be complied with by the OPs within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which they shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till realization, apart from compliance of directions at Sr.No.(i) & (iii) above.
15.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
08/06/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
hg	Member	Member	President