DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.695/2008
1. SH. MAHIPAL SINGH
S/O LATE SHRI MEHTAB SINGH
2. SMT. SHEELA
W/O SH. MAHIPAL SINGH
BOTH R/O
R/O 9/149, DAKSHINPURI EXTN.,
DR. AMBEDKAR NAGAR,
NEW DELHI-110062 ….Complainants
Versus
1. ICICI BANK LTD.
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
PANCHSHEEL BRANCH
N-138, PANCHSHEEL PARK
NEW DELHI-110062
2. ICICI BANK
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
CREDIT CARDS
S. D. TOWER 7TH FLOOR,
D.D.A. MARKET
SECTOR-8, ROHINI,
DELHI-110085
3. ICICI LOMBARD
THROUGH ITS MANAGER
HEALTH INSURANCE
BIRLA TOWER 5TH FLOOR
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI-110001 ….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 23.10.2008 Date of Order : 07.10.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Briefly stated, the case of the complainants is that the complainant No.1 was maintaining a saving bank account bearing No.022405001312 with OP No.1; that the complainant No.1 was lured to purchase credit card No. 4477474167613002 and insurance policy No. 4034/FPS/01644150/00/000 (card No.BIL-IL-0000-03-55625-A) was also forcibly issued to him. Similarly, the complainant No.2 (wife of the complainant) was also trapped to purchase card No.4076511290680004 and insurance policy bearing No.4034/FPS01644150/00/000 (card No.BIL-IL-0000-03-55625-B). They were also made to sign on number of papers but they were not allowed to read all the papers on which signatures were taken nor copy thereof was given. It is stated as under:-
“4. That without consent of Complainant No.1, Opposite Party no.2 deliberately with intention to entangle the Complainant No.1 paid MTNL telephone bill no. No.2084694889 dated 13.04.2007, phone no. 29957384 of the complainant no.1 from the account of credit card of the complainant no.1. As the complainant no.1 was having no idea about such entangling act of the Opposite party no.2 the complainant no.1 also paid the MTNL telephone bill vide Cheque no.145352 for Rs.412/- drawn on UCO Bank, Shahpurjat Branch, New Delhi from Current A/c No.13940200000698, which has caused double payment of the said MTNL Telephone Bill…”
“5. That again in May 2007 without consent of Complainant No.1, Opposite Party no.2 deliberately with intention to entangle the Complainant no.1 paid MTNL telephone bill no.2084905384 dated 13/06/2007, phone no.29957384 of the complainant no.1 from the account of credit card of the complainant no.1. As the complainant no.1 was having no idea about such repetitive entangling act of the Opposite party no.2 the complainant no.1 paid the MTNL telephone bill vide Cheque no.145361 for Rs.299/- drawn on UCO Bank, Shahpurjat Branch, New Delhi from Current A/c No.13940200000698, which has caused again double payment of the said MTNL Telephone Bill..”
6. That without consent of complainant no. 1 opposite part no. 2 in connivance with OP no. 1 has withdrawn from saving account no. 0224 0150 2401 Mahipal Singh entire amount which is estimated to the tune of Rs. 11,500/- rupees Eleven Thousand Five Hundred which is lawful and without any consent of the complainant no. 1. That OP no. 1 must render all the account details before this Hon’ble Forum as they have not issued bank statement to the complainant no. 1.
Consequently, the notice/letters dated 21.01.2008, 28.02.2008 and 26.03.2008 were served upon the OPs to restore the entire amount taken out from the saving account of the complainant No.1 and also to cancel the policies and credit cards forcefully dumped on the complainants but to no avail. Inspite of all this the complainant No.1 was regularly paying equal monthly installments of Rs.4753/- to the OP No.1 against personal loan of Rs.1,0,000/- and never defaulted but the OPs are bent upon using unfair means collectively to dupe the complainants to meet their targets of doing business. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for the following reliefs:-
“(a). Direct the opposite Parties to refund jointly and severally the amount of Rs.11500/- along with interest @ 18% per annum to the Complainants from the date of illegally withdrawal of the amount till the date the amount is refunded or restored to the Saving account of the Complaint (sick) with the OP No.1.
(b) Direct the opposite Parties to pay compensation jointly and severally to the Complainant for the risk, harassment and mental suffered by to the tune of Rs.70,000/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the present complaint till its realization.
(c) Direct the opposite Parties to pay jointly and severally cost of the letter/notices dated 21.01.2008, 28.02.2008 and 26.03.2008 sent by the complainant no.1 to the tune of Rs.750/- to the Complainants.
(d) Award cost of the complaint to meet the ends of justice.”
OP No.1 & 2 in their written statement have inter-alia stated that the OP No.3 is a separate and distinct corporate entity from them. It is stated that the complainant had issued standing instructions for debiting the amount due on his MTNL phone and he has omitted to mention this fact in the complaint. It is submitted that the complainant had given the details of the MTNL phone number, the payment of which was to be made through the Credit Card of the complainant. It is denied for want of evidence attached by the complainant that an amount to the tune of Rs.11,500/- had been withdrawn by the OP No.1 & 2 from saving account No.022401502401. It is submitted that the complainant has not given any details of the withdrawal i.e. date of withdrawal, entry details etc. It is denied that the OP No.1 & 2 were served notice/letter dated 21.01.2008, 28.02.2008 & 26.03.2008. Other averments made in the complaint have been denied. OP No.1 & 2 have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the reply OP No.3 has inter-alia stated that the OP No.3 is a Company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act and as such OP No.3 is separate entity engaged in the business of general insurance and OP No.3 is not a unit of OP No.1. It is stated that at the request of the complainant, OP No.3 issued a health policy No.4034/FPS/01644150/00/000 which covered both the complainants and the complainants had chosen to pay premium amount of Rs.9,783/- through his credit card No.4477474167613002. It is stated that subsequently a cancellation request was received for cancellation of the said policy which was cancelled on 31.03.2007 as per the terms and conditions of the policy and an amount of Rs.5,381/- was tendered to the complainant on 19.04.2007 which would be reflected in the statement of April month of the credit card No.4477474167613002. OP No.3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
Complainants have filed separate rejoinders denying the averments made in the written statements and have reiterated the averments made in the complaint.
In the rejoinder to the written statement of OP No.1 & 2 it is submitted that “there were no conscience standing instructions ever given by the complainant for debiting the amount due on MTNL bill otherwise complainant No. 1 would have paid the MTNL bills himself. On the contrary it was trick of the OPs to entangle Complainants in financial traps so that later on some profits could be made or some charges could be levied”. It is stated that the actual withdrawn amount from complainant No.1’s saving account was Rs.10315/- dated 26.10.2007 as per the bank statement and not Rs. 10315/- as shown in the prayer clause of complaint which is due to typographical mistake.
In the rejoinder to the reply of OP-3, it is stated that the insurance policies were forcefully given to the complainants for which OP No. 2 is raising premium charges for OP-3. It is stated as under:-
“It is denied that the complainant No. 1 had chosen to pay the premium amount of Rs. 9,783/- through credit card No. 4477474167613002, however the amount was charged without consent of the complainants. Further it is submitted that the question of cancellation does not arise when the policy was never purchased by the complainants. It is only when the OPs found that complainants would take up the matter with higher authorities, OPs in a very clandestine manner effected cancellation which complainants have come to know from the written statement of OP No. 3. The amount shown as credited in statement of credit card No. 4477474167613002, for Rs.5381/- is admitted but at the same time other amounts have been debited without any detail explanation.”
Complainant No.1 & 2 have filed their separate affidavits in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Jarrar Rizvi, Power Attorney Holder on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 and affidavit of Ms. Pooja Sharma, Manager Legal on behalf of the OP No.3 have been filed in evidence.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the parties and have also gone through the material placed before us.
Onus to prove that complainant No. 1 had been lured to purchase the credit card was on the complainants. However, complainants have not lead any iota of evidence on the record to prove this fact. Copy of credit card application form submitted by the complainant with OP-1 & OP-2 has been filed as exhibit RW-1/1 which clearly goes a long way to prove that it was complainant No. 1 who had willingly and without any force had moved this application for issuing the credit card to him and in response to the application, the credit card in question was issued to him by OP-1 and OP-2. Similarly, onus to prove that the complainants had been forced to purchase the policies by the OPs who were in collusion with one another was also on the complaints. However, they have also failed to prove this fact.
In their rejoinder to the reply of OP-3, the complainants have admitted that the amount of Rs. 5,381/- had been credited in the statement of credit card in question. According to OP-3 the said amount had to be reflected in the credit card account of the complainant in the statement in the month of April. Therefore, there is every reason to believe that the complainants had known this fact about credit of Rs. 5,381/- in the credit card statement of complainant No. 1 in the month of April, 2007. However, they have not disclosed this fact in the complaint and have, thus, made an unsuccessful attempt to mislead this Forum.
This fact clearly shows that the complainant had taken the insurance policies in question willingly and requested the OP-3 to cancel the same. OP-3 cancelled the same and returned the amount of Rs. 5,381/- as per the terms and conditions governing the policy.
OP No. 1 and OP No. 2 have taken a specific plea that the complainants had issued standing instructions for debiting amount due on MTNL bill and it were the complainants who had given the details of the MTNL phone number payment of which was to be made through the credit card of the complainants.
In the rejoinder the complainants have tried to meet this situation by saying that there were no conscience standing instructions ever given by the complainant for debiting the amount due on MTNL bill otherwise complainant No. 1 would have paid the MTNL bill himself. The word “conscience” in the context is beyond our comprehension and understanding. The amount of the two bills in question with bill numbers must have been provided to OP-1 and OP-2 by the complainants himself; otherwise how could OP-1 and OP-2 know the exact amounts of two MTNL bills to be paid by the complainants for two months i.e. bills for Rs. 412/- and Rs. 299/-. Therefore, here also we hold that the complainants have failed to prove that there was any fault or deficiency in service on the part of OP-1 and OP-2.
The net result of the above discussion is that the complainants have failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs. Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 07.10.17.
