For the Complainant : Mr. Vinod Joshi, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : M/s. Mannadir & Co. Advocates
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra
-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
::::: JUDGMENT :::::
Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :
The Opposite parties no.1 and 2 are Chairman and Branch Manager of ICICI Bank Ltd., respectively, whereas the Opposite party no.3 is General Manger of Reserve Bank of India. Allegations made in the complaint are principally against ICICI Bank. Therefore, in the next part of the judgment, we will refer to ICICI Bank as the Opposite party only. The Complainant was given credit card facility by the Opposite party –Bank and according to the Complainant because of some difficulty with his Employer Company; the Complainant could not get salary and fail to deposit credit card dues. According to the Complainant, the Opposite party had sent some antisocial persons to threaten the Complainant, as well as to take away his utensils and belongings. It is further, alleged by the Complainant, the Opposite party used to make phone calls and use abuses to the Complainant and his family members in filthy language. According to the Complainant, the Opposite party has caused harassment of the Complainant for recovery of credit card dues. The Opposite party should have gone for legal action but the Opposite party was not entitled to make such calls and give threats to the Complainant. By conducting itself, in such manner, the Opposite party has rendered itself guilty of deficiency in service vis-à-vis credit card facility.
2 The Opposite party –Bank appeared and filed its written version of defence and denied allegations made in the complaint. According to the Opposite party, the Complainant has committed huge default in making payment of credit card dues and certain calls were made at the residence of the Complainant to remind him for the credit card dues. The Opposite party has denied allegations that such calls were made to cause of harassment to the Complainant and pressurized him to make payment of credit card dues.
3 Both the sides filed their affidavit of evidence and documents. The Complainant was not present at the time of the oral argument. We have heard representative of the Opposite party. Following points arises for our determination.
Nos. | Points | Findings |
1 | Whether the Complainant has proved alleged deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite party–Bank by making unsolicited calls and giving threatens vis-à-vis credit card dues ? | No |
2 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to get any relief ? | No |
3 | What order ? | Complaint dismissed |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS :-
4 There is no dispute about the fact that the Complainant had availed credit card facility from the Opposite party-Bank. E-mail dated, 13.05.2009 produced by the Complainant shows that out standing amount of credit card dues at reached Rs.1,06,992/-. That event sent by the Opposite party shows that but calls were made by the Opposite party in connection with the credit card dues.
5 However, according to the Complainant, representative of the Opposite party had used abusive and filthy language while making these calls. In paragraph no.7 in the complaint, the Complainant has alleged that on 14.04.2009 and 09.05.2009, one person introduced himself –Mr. Altaf and another person –Mr. Shetty used filthy language and gave threats to the applicant – Complainant. That they will come to his house and take away the utensils and put the Complainant in custody. In paragraph no.7, it is referred that these calls as well as earlier calls were received by wife of the Complainant. However, the Complainant has not filed affidavit of his wife to substantiate allegations that such calls, described in paragraph no.6 and 7 in the complaint were in fact received by her. The Complainant had filed complaint with Police Station, Mahim making allegations against Recovery Department of the Bank. However, in that complaint, no particulars of calls were furnished. No doubt, the Opposite party –Bank in its e-mail, dated, 13.05.2009 has admitted to have made certain calls to the Complainant but has explained that they were in connection with recovery of outstanding amount of the credit card dues.
6 The Complainant in paragraph no.9 of the complaint alleged that such, persons threatened to the Complainant that they will take away the utensils and give threat of abduction. The Complainant has not given date and time of receiving of such threats from any officers of the Opposite party. Thus, allegations made in paragraph no.9 of the complaint are devoid of particulars.
7 The Complainant in paragraph no.10 of the complaint has alleged that he had paid Rs.18,200/- to the Officer of the Opposite party towards EMI but the Officer refused to pass the official receipt and agreed to give receipt on plain paper. The Complainant has called this is deficiency in service. The Complainant has not described as to where this incident has taken place, whether it was at office of the Bank or elsewhere. Date and time of transaction is also not mentioned. Name of the Officer or atleast his post is not mentioned. Thus, again, these allegations are devoid of particulars.
8 We have no doubt, in our mind that as per Hon’ble National Commission and Hon’ble Supreme Court directions, Bank is not supposed to send Recovery Officers at the residence of the Customer and it is not expected to give threats or use of abusive, filthy language to the Customer. However, the Complainant / Customer is required to adduced required evidence to substantiate these allegations which has not been done in the present case.
In view of the above, we proceed to pass the following order.
::::: ORDER :::::
1. Complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
2. Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both
the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
