DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.486/2013

Sh. Narender Sigroha

R/o-B-157 B,

Freedom Fighter Enclave,

New Delhi                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   ….Complainant

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd.

ICICI Bank Limited, NBCC Place,

Bhism Pitamaha Marg,

Lodhi Road, New Delhi

                                                                                                                        ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :     20.09.2013   

       Date of Order            :     10.12.2021  

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

Member: Sh. U.K. Tyagi

  Succinctly put, the case of Complainant is that he is holding two credit cards bearing No.9401270069837008 and 9401270005440008 from the Opposite Party Bank. After some time using the said credit cards, it was noticed that the Opposite Party Bank; arbitrarily and wrongly charged unexplained service charges. On the high service charges, the Complainant, wish to terminate credit facility. The Complainant and Sh. Maqbul Khan, employee of Opposite Party Bank arrived at settlement deal for closing the said two credit card facility. As per settlement, the Complainant had paid sum of Rs.2,19,000/- as full and final clearing all dues and service charges. Copies of said payment receipts are shown as Annexure-‘A’(Colly).

            Further, the Complainant sent many letters dated 17.02.2009 and 19.02.2012 for issuance of NOC in r/o these credit cards. The Opposite Party Bank also sent 1^st Call dated 08.02.2013 to Complainant for clearing the dues of Rs.91,602.56/-. Also such calls received on 11.09.2013 & 13.09.2013 from the staff of Opposite Party Bank (Copy of the letter and statement of account is annexed as Annexure-‘B’(Colly).

            The Opposite Party Bank as alleged by Complainant put his name in the defaulter list intentionally and deliberately to discredit him so that no bank can provide loan facility to him. He further maintained that once the credit facility was closed by him only having been cleared all dues and charges as per settlement and Opposite Party Bank should not ask for further amount.

            The conduct of Opposite Party Bank goes to show that, it is not only deficiency of service but also breach of trust and cause of action for institution of the Complaint arose in favour of Complainant. The Complainant has asked for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lac Only). Further asked for removal of name of Complainant from the civil list, to provide NOC in r/o above mentioned credit cards; and to pay litigation charges of Rs.10,000/-.

            The Opposite Party Bank has denied the allegations so made by Complainant. It is stated that the Opposite Party Bank raised bills against the transactions carried out by Complainant. Credit card facility can be terminated once the entire dues are paid. Opposite Party Bank also denied that Rs.2,19,000/- was paid as full and final payment. It is also stated that as on date, a sum of Rs.91,602.56/- is outstanding on credit card No. 9401270005440008. No settlement with officials of Opposite Party Bank was arrived at. A copy of account statement is annexed as Annexure-‘A’.

            The OP also contended that the receipts as have been filed by the Complainant itself show that the same were not full and final settlement. If it is so, receipts would be issued accordingly. It is also stated that correct statement of account was sent to the Complainant on 05.09.2013 showing outstanding of Rs.91,602.56/-. It is also stated that no civil list is maintained by the Opposite Party Bank, however, there is list prepared by CIBIL, which maintains record of credit information. The Opposite Party Bank has no control on CIBIL, being 3^rd party independent body.

            In such circumstances, no NOC in r/o above mentioned credit cards can be issued unless outstanding dues are cleared by the Complainant.

            Both the parties have filed written statements. Rejoinder on the part of Complainant is also filed. Evidences by way of affidavit and written arguments by the both the parties are on record. Oral arguments heard and concluded.

            The materials placed on record in the form of Annexures by both the parties are gone through carefully. The payment receipts of various dates are enclosed by the Complainant as Annexure-‘A’(Colly) as under.

            Whereas as per letter placed at Annexure-‘B’(Colly), the Complainant has written a letter dated 17.02.2009 indicating that three installments of Rs.73,000/- each as 1^st instalment in August 2008, 2^nd installment in September 2008 and 3^rd and last installment in October 2008 were paid. The above mentioned receipts are of different dates and amount as indicated in the above table does not indicate from either of party as settlement amount. Any how, the Opposite Party Bank has not raised any objection and did not acknowledge the above letters i.e. 17.02.2009 and 19.02.2002, whether having been received in the Bank or not. It is also noticed that Complainant also wrote a letter in February 19, 2012, replicating the some instalment having been paid to the Bank as full and final amount after the gap of almost three years. No communication is noticed between the references and requested for issuance of NOC. This Commission also noted with eagerness that the both the letters dated 17.02.2009 and 19.02.2012 are identical i.e. word to word. No reference of earlier letter is mentioned in latter one. Moreover, the Opposite Party Bank has not acknowledged these letters. The statement of Rs.91,602.56/- is found annexed by the both the parties as annexures as claim and counter claim. No shred of evidence about the settlement is found on record.

            In nut shell, this Commission does not find any merit in the Complaint. The claim of Complainant is accordingly rejected as to no cost to the party.

            File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties as per rules.