ICICI Bank Ltd V/S Pooja Katiyar - Consumer Court Case

Karnataka

Bangalore Urban

CC/08/2567

Pooja Katiyar - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

VJ

05 Dec 2008

ORDER

BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSLAL FORUM, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE.
Bangalore Urban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Cauvery Bhavan, 8th Floor, BWSSB Bldg., K. G. Rd., Bangalore-09.
consumer case(CC) No. CC/08/2567

Pooja Katiyar						...........Appellant(s)
Vs.
ICICI Bank Ltd ICiCI Bank Bangalore						...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:

Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):

OppositeParty/Respondent(s):

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended

Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2567/2008 COMPLAINANT Miss. Pooja Katiyar, D/o. Ramakripal, Residing at No. 27, 2nd Floor, 9th Cross, 15th Main, B.T.M Layout 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 029. Advocate (Vidya Jahagirdar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank (HQ) By its Chairman, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051. 2. ICICI Bank (Bangalore) Regional Manager, # 1, ICICI Bank Towers, Commissioner Road, Bangalore G.P.O. Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Jai. M. Patil) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to correct their statement of accounts, waive off the charges imposed and pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took the credit card from OP in the year 2005 with a initial limit of Rs.30,000/-. She was regular in making payment of the outstanding dues. Unfortunately OP failed to issue the monthly statement inspite of repeated requests and demands made by her. Though she has already paid Rs.36,680/-, but still OP demanding certain amount to an extent of Rs.83,000/-, which is illegal, arbitrary, against to the contractual terms and agreement. Complainant transacted through the said card up to 04.02.2007, thereafter stopped using the said card. With all that OP went on charging the hidden charges, ultimately without her knowledge and consent OP created a lien on her savings account and blocked the same. The highhandedness of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss to her. The repeated correspondence and requests made by her to OP to correct their mistake, went in futile. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card. She having understood the implications of default in payment of the amount in due took the said credit card. Thereafter she became the constant defaulter. Despite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity given by the OP to pay the outstanding dues as well as demand made, went in futile. In order to protect the interest of the OP Bank they have invoked sec- 171 of Contract Act, having found no other option but to create a lien on her savings account. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP regularly sent the statement of accounts. She has transacted and made auto sweep, but still she has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. As on the date of filing of version complainant is still in due of Rs.90,166.51. When the complainant is the defaulter, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. She has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took credit card from the OP in the year 2005 having a credit limit of Rs.30,000/-. According to the complainant she is regular in making payment of the outstanding dues, whereas OP has denied the said fact. It is further contended by the complainant that OP never sent her the monthly statement of accounts in spite of her repeated requests and demands. We do not find force in the said contention because OP has produced statement of account pertaining to her credit card right from December 2006 to January 2009. Under such circumstances naturally complainant must have received the statement of accounts. If she has not received she has got a right to seek for the said statement of account in accordance with the rules and the law. It appears she has not exhausted the said remedy. 7. We have closely scrutinized the documents produced by both the litigating parties, the statement of account furnished by the OP clearly goes to show that even after the auto sweep this complainant is still owes actually a sum of Rs.90,166.51 to the OP. A correspondence is made by the OP demanding complainant to pay the outstanding dues are produced. Despite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity given to the complainant, she failed to pay. It appears she prolonged the payment of the dues on one or the other reason. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card. While availing the said credit card she is aware of the fact of the charges that is going to be charged on the outstanding dues including penal charges. With all that now she has come with an allegation that those charges are not binding on her. We do not find force in the said allegations. 8. The documents produced by the OP goes to show that inspite of reasonable opportunity given to the complainant, she failed to make payment of the dues. Under such circumstances with no other option they created a lien on the savings account of the complainant by invoking sec 171 of the Contract Act. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. If the complainant would have been prompt in making payment of the dues this situation ought not to have arisen it is all because of her own negligence. The other allegations of the complainant that there is a use of criminal force, threatening and some unknown person calling her, disturbing her in odd hours are all baseless. There is no proof to that effect. 9. On the plain reading of the complaint, the allegations made therein, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. The complainant in our view did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised, she can file a regular Civil Suit to redress her grievance if at all she has paid the amount in excess. As far as the remedy now sought before this Forum appears to be baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. When there is no proof of deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled for either of the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.

COMPLAINT FILED: 27.11.2008 BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN) 04th FEBRUARY 2009 PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER SRI. A. MUNIYAPPA MEMBER COMPLAINT NO. 2567/2008 COMPLAINANT Miss. Pooja Katiyar, D/o. Ramakripal, Residing at No. 27, 2nd Floor, 9th Cross, 15th Main, B.T.M Layout 1st Stage, Bangalore 560 029. Advocate (Vidya Jahagirdar) V/s. OPPOSITE PARTIES 1. ICICI Bank (HQ) By its Chairman, ICICI Bank Towers, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Mumbai 400 051. 2. ICICI Bank (Bangalore) Regional Manager, # 1, ICICI Bank Towers, Commissioner Road, Bangalore G.P.O. Bangalore 560 001. Advocate (Jai. M. Patil) O R D E R This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to correct their statement of accounts, waive off the charges imposed and pay a compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- on an allegations of deficiency in service. The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under: Complainant took the credit card from OP in the year 2005 with a initial limit of Rs.30,000/-. She was regular in making payment of the outstanding dues. Unfortunately OP failed to issue the monthly statement inspite of repeated requests and demands made by her. Though she has already paid Rs.36,680/-, but still OP demanding certain amount to an extent of Rs.83,000/-, which is illegal, arbitrary, against to the contractual terms and agreement. Complainant transacted through the said card up to 04.02.2007, thereafter stopped using the said card. With all that OP went on charging the hidden charges, ultimately without her knowledge and consent OP created a lien on her savings account and blocked the same. The highhandedness of the OP has caused both mental agony and financial loss to her. The repeated correspondence and requests made by her to OP to correct their mistake, went in futile. Under such circumstances she felt the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Accordingly she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the relief. 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card. She having understood the implications of default in payment of the amount in due took the said credit card. Thereafter she became the constant defaulter. Despite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity given by the OP to pay the outstanding dues as well as demand made, went in futile. In order to protect the interest of the OP Bank they have invoked sec- 171 of Contract Act, having found no other option but to create a lien on her savings account. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. OP regularly sent the statement of accounts. She has transacted and made auto sweep, but still she has come up with this false and frivolous complaint. As on the date of filing of version complainant is still in due of Rs.90,166.51. When the complainant is the defaulter, she cannot allege the deficiency in service against the OP. The approach of the complainant is not fair and honest. She has not approached the Forum with clean hands. There is no deficiency in service of any kind on the part of the OP. The complaint is devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence and produced the documents. Then the arguments were heard. 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under: Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP? Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs now claimed? Point No. 3 :- To what Order? 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on: Point No.1:- In Negative Point No.2:- Negative Point No.3:- As per final Order. R E A S O N S 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the complainant took credit card from the OP in the year 2005 having a credit limit of Rs.30,000/-. According to the complainant she is regular in making payment of the outstanding dues, whereas OP has denied the said fact. It is further contended by the complainant that OP never sent her the monthly statement of accounts in spite of her repeated requests and demands. We do not find force in the said contention because OP has produced statement of account pertaining to her credit card right from December 2006 to January 2009. Under such circumstances naturally complainant must have received the statement of accounts. If she has not received she has got a right to seek for the said statement of account in accordance with the rules and the law. It appears she has not exhausted the said remedy. 7. We have closely scrutinized the documents produced by both the litigating parties, the statement of account furnished by the OP clearly goes to show that even after the auto sweep this complainant is still owes actually a sum of Rs.90,166.51 to the OP. A correspondence is made by the OP demanding complainant to pay the outstanding dues are produced. Despite of sufficient and reasonable opportunity given to the complainant, she failed to pay. It appears she prolonged the payment of the dues on one or the other reason. The complainant is bound by the terms and conditions of the credit card. While availing the said credit card she is aware of the fact of the charges that is going to be charged on the outstanding dues including penal charges. With all that now she has come with an allegation that those charges are not binding on her. We do not find force in the said allegations. 8. The documents produced by the OP goes to show that inspite of reasonable opportunity given to the complainant, she failed to make payment of the dues. Under such circumstances with no other option they created a lien on the savings account of the complainant by invoking sec 171 of the Contract Act. That act of the OP cannot be termed as deficiency in service. If the complainant would have been prompt in making payment of the dues this situation ought not to have arisen it is all because of her own negligence. The other allegations of the complainant that there is a use of criminal force, threatening and some unknown person calling her, disturbing her in odd hours are all baseless. There is no proof to that effect. 9. On the plain reading of the complaint, the allegations made therein, it did not spell out a case of hiring of service and suffering from deficiency, rather it disclosed a case relating to settlement of accounts and for the balance due on the basis of the accounts. The complainant in our view did not fall within the ambit of sec-2(1) (c) (e) of the C.P. Act. If the complainant is so advised, she can file a regular Civil Suit to redress her grievance if at all she has paid the amount in excess. As far as the remedy now sought before this Forum appears to be baseless. The complaint is devoid of merits. When there is no proof of deficiency in service the complainant is not entitled for either of the relief. Accordingly we answer point nos.1 and 2 in negative and proceed to pass the following: O R D E R The complaint is dismissed. In view of the nature of dispute no order as to costs. (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 04th day of February 2009.) MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT p.n.g.