Per :- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA JUDGMENT The Opposite Party is the ICICI Bank Ltd., having its branch office at Andheri (East), Mumbai. The Opposite Party – Bank; had issued a credit card to the Complainant. [2] It is the grievance of the Complainant that the Opposite Party – Bank; had often charged late payment charges and despite correspondence, the Opposite Party – Bank; had not reversed those entries. It is also a grievance of the Complainant that without any authority, the Opposite Party – Bank; accessed to his savings bank account and debited an amount in sum of Rs.700/- & Rs.200/- from the said account. The Complainant’s another grievance is that his family members received telephone calls from the Opposite Party – Bank; containing threats. Making allegations of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank; the Complainant has sought direction to the Opposite Party – Bank; to reverse the entries regarding late payment charges and to pay him an amount in sum of Rs.4,75,000/- by way of compensation. [3] Pursuant to the notice of appearance issued by this Forum, the Opposite Party – Bank; appeared and contested the complaint by filing its written version of defence and took stand that the Complainant had committed consistent defaults in making payment of the dues and often minimum charges were not paid. Since the payments were received partially and with delay; the Opposite Party – Bank; had levied late payment charges in each monthly statement. Thus, the Opposite Party – Bank; has justified its action to levy late payment charges. The Opposite Party – Bank; has also justified the debit entries in the savings bank account of the Complainant by making a statement to the effect that as per the banker’s lien, the Opposite Party – Bank; has a right to have access to savings bank account of the Complainant. The Opposite Party – Bank; has denied allegations of giving of threats to the Complainant and his family members. [4] The Complainant filed his rejoinder to the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party – Bank. [5] Parties to the complaint proceeding have filed their respective affidavits of evidence and copies of relevant documents as well as written notes of arguments. [6] We have gone through the pleadings, affidavits and documents as well as written notes of arguments filed by the parties. [7] We heard the Complainant in person and the Learned Advocate for the Opposite Party – Bank. [8] We take the points that arise for our consideration and record our findings there-against as below:- Sr. No. | Points for consideration | Findings | 1. | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opposite Party – Bank; is guilty of deficiency in service qua his credit card account? | NO | 2. | Whether the Complainant is entitled to any direction as against the Opposite Party – Bank? | NO | 3. | What order? | The complaint stands dismissed. |
REASONS FOR FINDINGS [9] There is no dispute between the parties to the complaint proceeding as regards the fact that the Opposite Party – Bank; had issued a credit card to the Complainant, which was being used by the Complainant. There is also no dispute as regards the fact that often the Opposite Party – Bank; had levied late payment charges. The Complainant’s principal grievance is about late payment charges, which had often appeared in his statement of accounts. [10] In order to find out substance in the grievance expressed by the Complainant vis-à-vis late payment fees, we find that at Annexure-‘A’ to ‘F’, from page (01) to page (27) of the compilation of the complaint, the Complainant has produced on the record copies of credit card statements. On going through the same, it is seen that in the Statement dtd.15/6/2006, previous balance was an amount in sum of Rs.320/-, but there was no payment on the part of the Complainant and he made purchases worth an amount in sum of Rs.3,269/-. Since the previous balance was not paid, there appears entry of late fee payment besides service tax and interest charges. In the statement dtd.15/7/2006, outstanding amount was in sum of Rs.3,589/- and the Complainant made purchases worth an amount in sum of Rs.1,239/- and he paid to the Opposite Party – Bank; an amount in sum of Rs.3,269/-. This shows that entire outstanding amount was not paid and the credit cheques were not issued within a period of first fifteen days. [11] Instead of referring to all these credit card statements, we propose to reproduce here compilation of figures, which appear in paragraph (11)(d), from page (04) onwards of the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party – Bank; which reads as follows:- “ JUNE 15 2006 Previous balance of Rs.320/- shown. No payment made in May 06, till June 14, 2006. There is actual expenditure in this period of Rs.2842.50. JULY 15 2006 Payment of June bill made on July 10, 06, that is late hence delay charges. Actual expenses in this period Rs.799/-. This amount not paid. AUGUST 15 2006 Actual expenses Rs.6,951/- Not Paid July dues not paid in time hence interest dues. Total actual July + August dues Rs.7750/-. SEPTEMBER 06 Actual expenses Rs.756/-. Old interest and other charges reversed. July and August bill not paid in time hence interest. Total Actual dues July + August + September Rs.8506/- OCTOBER 06 Actual expenses Rs.493/-. Total accumulated actual exp Rs.8999/- NOVEMBER 06 Oct dues paid Nov 11, that is late amount paid only Rs.7444/- Amount short by Rs.1555/-. No actual expenses in November. JANUARY 07 Actual expenses Rs.8,300/-. Accumulated balance Rs.11192/-. FEBRUARY & MARCH 07 Not actual expenses. Actual carried forward Rs.2892/- APRIL 07 Cash paid Rs.130/- No actual exp Accumulate dues 11192-130 = Rs.11062/- MAY 07 Payment Rs.1346/- Balance Rs.10192/- JUNE & JULY 07 No actual expenses Actual exp balance carried forward Rs.10192/- AUGUST 07 Credit limit crossed therefore overlimit charges attracted. Cash payment 200/- Actual balance still due Rs.8646/- SEPTEMBER & OCTOBER 07 No actual expenses. Carried forward Actual balance Rs.8646/- NOVEMBER 07 Cash paid Rs.700/- Actual exp balance Rs.7946/- DECEMBER 07 JANUARY & FEBRUARY 08 No actual expenses. Balance on actual still due Rs.7946/- MAY 08 Complaint filed.” [12] As per paragraph (11)(f) of the written version, as filed by the Opposite Party – Bank; charges were levied again because the balance after reversals were not paid by the Complainant and the charges on the amount kept accruing to his card account. [13] Alongwith the written notes of arguments, the Opposite Party – Bank; has produced on the record a booklet, which was forwarded to the Complainant by the Opposite Party – Bank; at the time of issuance of credit card. On going through the same, it is seen that it contains terms & conditions. Entry under Column No.(3) thereof, shows that late payment charges @ 30% of the minimum amount due were leviable subject to minimum amount in sum of Rs.400/- and maximum amount in sum of Rs.600/-. In addition to that overdue interest was also leviable. Explanation under Clause No.(5) of the booklet under the caption – ‘Late Payment Charges’, gives one illustration, which shows that if the minimum amount due is not paid on the due date, late payment charges would be levied at 30% of minimum amount due subject to minimum amount in sum of Rs.400/- and maximum amount in sum of Rs.600/-. Thus, the entries in the credit card statements read together with instructions in the booklet in the background of compilation of the facts, as given in the written version of defence, as filed by the Opposite Party – Bank; show that the Complainant often had not made payment of minimum amount due as well as often the payments were made after the due dates. That conferred a right upon the Opposite Party – Bank; to levy late payment charges as well as interest for which the Complainant should not have any grievance. [14] It appears that the Complainant has maintained his savings bank account with the Opposite Party – Bank. It also appears that the Opposite Party – Bank; had accessed that savings bank account and had debited amounts in sum of Rs.130, Rs.1,300/-, Rs.700/- and Rs.200/- from the said account. As per the provisions contained in Section-171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872; bankers can have general lien on the goods. It is extended to the amounts in the bank account. Therefore, the Complainant should not have any grievance about the said debit entries in his savings bank account. [15] The Complainant has failed to establish by leading any cogent and satisfactory evidence that he and his family members were threatened by the Opposite Party – Bank; and therefore, that grievance is also not been established. [16] In view of the above, we hold that the Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank. With this, we proceed to pass the order as below:- ORDER The complaint stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Parties shall be informed accordingly, by sending certified copies of this order.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member | | 
