Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/408/2014

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

Arvind Sehdev, Adv.

22 Apr 2015

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

C.C. No. 408/2014)

Date of Institution: 11.08.2014

Date of order: 22.04.2015

 

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu Vs. ICICI Bank and another.

1.           I have the privilege to go through both the orders dated 09.01.2015 and 14.01.2015 passed by the Members of this Forum in the above titled complaint.   Mrs.Madhu Mutneja, Member vide order dated 09.01.2015 has dismissed the complaint whereas Sh.Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member vide order dated 14.01.2015 has allowed the complaint.
2.           The facts have already been elaborately mentioned in the orders passed, so the same are not being reiterated for the sake of brevity.
3.           After going through the facts of the case, documents and  evidence led by both the parties and the findings rendered by both the Members of this Forum,  I agree with the reasoning and findings given by Mr.Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member vide order dated 14.01.2015. However, with due respect to Mrs.Madhu Mutneja, I do not agree with the findings arrived at by her in the order dated 09.01.2015. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed in terms of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by Sh.Jaswinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
4.           A copy of this order alongwith the orders already passed by the Members of this Forum be sent to the parties, free of charge.  After compliance file be consigned.                                      

                                                                             Sd/-

Announced                                                                   (Rajan Dewan)

22.04.2015                                                                              President

 

           

 

 

 

BIKRAMJIT SINGH

Vs.

ICICI BANK LTD.

 

(Complaint No.408 of 2014)

Date of Order: 14.01.2015

DISSENTING  ORDER

 

1]        I had the honour of going through the judgment dated 9.1.2015 of the Hon’ble Lady Member, wherein the Hon’ble Member while dismissing the complaint has opined that no deficiency in service was made out against the OPs.

2]        However, with utmost respect, I have preferred to differ from this opinion for the reasons explained hereinafter.

 

3]        The Hon’ble Lady Member while quoting the partial extract of Clause No.6 Interest-Free (Grace) Period, of the Terms & Conditions, as placed on record by the OPs, applicable to the case of the complainant, in Para No.10 of the judgment, the Hon’ble Member has categorically mentioned “It is obvious that this grace period would start from the date of purchase and not after the last date due for making payment by the customers.”  However, while interpreting the same, the claim of the complainant was denied, whereas minute perusal of the entire Clause means otherwise.  Therefore, it is important to quote the Clause No.6 in its totality to understand the same, which is as under:-

6.   Interest-Free (Grace) Period:

The grace period could range from 18 to 48 days.

 

Illustrative Example for the calculation of grace period: For a statement for the period from April 15,2009 to May 15, 2009 the payment due date would be June 2, 2009.  Assuming that you have paid your Total Amount Due of the previous month statement by the payment due date, the grace period would be:

 

1. For a purchase dated April 24, 2009, the interest-free grace period is from April 24, 2009 to June 2, 2009, i.e. 40 days.
2. For a purchase dated May 14, 2009, the interest-free grace period is from May 14, 2009 to June 2, 2009, i.e. 20 days.

 

Thus, the grace period can vary depending upon the date of purchase.  However, if the Total Amount Due is not paid by the payment due date, then there will be no interest-free period.  For cash advances, interest is charged from the date of the transaction until the date of payment.

 

4]        From minute perusal of the aforementioned clause and the illustration given, it sounds as if the OPs are very liberal in giving the interest-free grace period from 20 days to 40 days, but if the same yardstick is applied to a transaction, which has happened on 24^th of February and the payment due date in this case would be 2^nd of April, meaning thereby the consumer/complainant would only have 37 days grace period and not 40 days grace period, as illustrated above.  At the same time, while applying the same clause, the minimum days would reduce to 17 days instead of 18 days as the month of February of year 2009 would be of 28 days, whereas the above illustration is applicable to the month of April, which is of 30 days in each Calendar Year. 

 

5]        While applying this clause to the case of the complainant, whose statement date is always 28^th of each month and the payment due date is the 15^th of the next month, the complainant would not have enjoyed the minimum 18 days of grace period in the statement dated 28^th of Feb., 2014, in which the payment due date would be 15^th of March, 2014 i.e. in this calendar year the complainant was left with only 16 days grace period on a transaction made on 27^th of February, as the month of February would only be of 28 days and not 31 days, as illustrated above.  Therefore, the yardstick applied to assess the grace period being irregular, cannot be termed to be a fair assessment and deserves to be ignored.  The grace period for all purposes should be of a fixed duration and free from any riders or conditions, which are confusing and are irregularly applicable. 

 

6]        In the case of the complainant, he was entitled to a minimum grace period of 48 days from the date of transaction, which was 13^th of April, 2014 as per Annexure C-1. Therefore, the OPs while preferring to realize this amount by exercising the auto-debit facility, exercised this option on 15^th May, 2014, which was much prior to the grace period available to the complainant, therefore, even the claim of Rs.6044/- towards auto-debit return fee along with the service tax component of Rs.747.15 was illegal. 

 

7]        We understand that the complainant was eager to re-pay the amounts due towards him and preferred to issue a cheque of Rs.3.00 lacs, which was returned due to insufficient funds and the OPs were certainly within their right to charge the Returned Cheque Payment Fee of Rs.6044.93 + Rs.747.15 as Service Tax.  The complainant had made the entire payment outstanding against him by 26^th of May, 2014 through two cheques dated 24.5.2014 and 26.5.2014 and the same is clearly reflected in Ann.C-2. 

 

8]          The Opposite Parties while preferring to charge the interest charges of Rs.14,395/- + Service Tax of Rs.1779/- on 27.5.2014 had again exercised this option even before the expiry of 48 days grace period, which too is against the offer they had already made to the customer/complainant, as the same was levied on 44^th day of the date of transaction i.e. 13.4.2014. 

 

9]        Therefore, in two of the above mentioned circumstances, the complainant was not given the benefit of the grace period of complete 48 days and made to pay Rs.22967/- on the two transactions dated 15.5.2014 (auto-debit return i.e. Rs.6044.93 + Rs.747.15 as Service Tax) and on 27.5.2014 (interest charges i.e. Rs.14,395/- + Service Tax of Rs.1779/-).  Thus, the OPs failed in their offer of full grace period of 48 days to the complainant, which amounts to deficiency in service on their part.  Hence, the complaint deserves to succeed against the OPs. Accordingly, the same is allowed with directions to the Opposite Parties to refund Rs.22,967/- to the complainant, along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of its respective realization till it is paid.  The OPs are also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.15,000/- on account of deficiency in service and causing harassment to the complainant, apart from paying litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

 

10]       As on the date when the arguments of this complaint were heard on 24.12.2014, the quorum consisted of the Hon’ble Presiding Member (Mrs.Madhu Mutneja) and myself.  Therefore, to form a majority opinion, it is necessary that the present complaint be once again heard by the Hon’ble President of this Forum so as to give his consent to either of the two orders. Let the case be put up before the Hon’ble President for further proceedings.

 

                       

                                           Sd/-                                       (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                              MEMBER

 

         

                 

 

 

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	408 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	11.08.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	09.01.2015

 

 

 

 

Capt. Bikramjit Singh Sandhu, R/o 95, Sector 8, Chandigarh

 

             ….Complainant

Versus

 

1]  ICICI Bank, SCO No.9-10-11, Sector 9-D, Chandigarh through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

2]  ICICI Bank, K-6 & K-7, K-12 & KB-12, Qutub Plaza, DLF, Ashoka Cresent Marg, Sector 26-A, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager/Authorised Signatory.

 

 ….Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  MRS.MADHU MUTNEJA     PRESIDING MEMBER

SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU     MEMBER

           

 

Argued By: Sh.Arvind Sehdev, Counsel for the complainant.

Sh.Puneet Tuli, Proxy Counsel for Sh.Sandeep Suri, Counsel for the OPs.

 

PER MADHU MUTNEJA, PRESIDING MEMBER

 

1]       The complainant is the holder of a credit card issued by the OPs for which regular payments were being made by him. However, he was surprised to see that as per the credit card statement for April, 2014 (Ann.C-1), the complainant had been charged a sum of Rs.32,792.47, when he was away to USA and he could not stop the charge.  When the complainant returned to India, he contacted the Credit Card Centre of the Opposite Party where he came to know that due to ECS facility activated on his account, the OPs deducted the said amount from his account.  The complainant thus fearing that his credit score at CIBIL would be affected, issued a legal notice dated 11.7.2014 to the OPs demanding refund of Rs.32792.47, which was charged over a due of Rs.3,002,246.50 for a period of 9 days delay (Ann.C-4).  However, no reply has been received from the OPs due to which the instant complaint has been preferred with a prayer for refund of the amount along with compensation and harassment for mental agony and cost of litigation.

 

2]       Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3]       The Opposite Parties in their reply has stated that the complainant is well aware as per the statement placed on record by him that the due outstanding against him was Rs.3,02,246.50 for which due date was May 15, 2014.  The RTGS/Standing instructions had first bounced on account of insufficient funds and thereafter, the cheque issued by the complainant was returned on account of insufficient funds.  Realizing that the payment was not cleared to the bank, the complainant immediately made cheque payments of Rs.2,90,000/- and Rs.10,000/- on May 24, 2014 and May 26, 2014 respectively.  As the customer had an Auto Debit facility for the total amount due, the Auto debit payment was returned due to insufficient funds as the balance in the account was Rs.2,32,826.80 as on May 15, 2014.  On account of this, an Auto debit return fee of Rs.6044.93, and late payment charge of Rs.700/- was levied in the account.  Again the cheque payment of Rs.3.00 lacs was returned due to insufficient funds on May 20, 2014.  Hence, cheque bouncing fee of Rs.6044.93 was levied in the card account.  As the payment was received after the due date and was short of Rs.2246/-, interest charges of Rs.14,395.95 were levied in customer’s card account.  The Opposite Parties have further stated that as per the account of the complainant on May 15, 2014, there was a balance of Rs.8,32,826.89 from which a debit of Rs.6.00 lacs through RTGS was made on the same day, hence the balance was reduced to Rs.2,32,826.89.  Subsequently, the Auto Debit payment effected was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds.  OPs have stated that an amount of Rs.3,02,246.50 was payable and due by the complainant on or before 15^th of May, 2014; and when this amount was not paid, the auto debit return fee of Rs.6044.93 was charged on account of cheque bouncing charges, while interest of Rs.14,395.95 was charged. According to the OPs the bank charges have been righty levied. OPs have thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4]       Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

 

5]       We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

 

6]       The grievance of the complainant relates to charges levied & debited by the Opposite Party Bank from his account towards auto-debit return fee, late payment fee and cheque bouncing charges.  The complainant has stated that all these charges levied by the OPs are unwarranted and the bank needs to be held liable for the same, besides refunding the amount charged. 

 

7]       The OPs in reply have categorically stated that the charges have been levied as per rules.  The auto debit return fee was levied when the balance in the account of the complainant was found inadequate due to which the standing instructions for RTGS could not be fulfilled. We do not find that the Opposite Party Bank was wrong in charging this amount as no instructions were given by the complainant to stop the standing instructions prior to the date of charge.

 

8]       Again the bank would be entitled to late payment fee in case late payments were received from the complainant against the payable amount, whatsoever may be the case. 

 

9]       It is important to mention here that the actual Bank Account Statement of the complainant has not been placed on record by either of the parties, which would have thrown more light on the allegations and counter-allegations by both the parties. 

 

         In these days of computerization, the standing instructions for account debits are automatically enacted by the computerized system unless directions are given to the contrary. No human action is involved/required in the auto debit transactions unless a change in the directions is required.  It seems from the details of the credit card statement that as soon as the complainant deposited money in his account, the auto debit system has picked up the amount due against the RTGS, hence the cheque issued subsequently was dishonoured for want of adequate funds.

 

10]      The OPs have placed on record the terms & conditions of ICICI Bank to support the charges levied. The relevant clauses are reproduced below:-

         “4. Interest Charges:

1. Interest will be charged if the Total Amount Due is not paid by the payment due date.  Interest will be charged on the Total Amount Due and on all new transactions (from the transaction date) till such time as the previous outstanding amounts are paid in full.  Also, interest will be levied on all cash advances from the date of the transaction until the date of payment.
2. Xxxxxx
3. In case of default, interest charges may increase up to a maximum of 3.50% per month (42% per annum).

xxxxxxxxx

6.  Interest-Free (Grace) Period:

The grace period could range from 18 to 48 days.

 

         It is obvious that this grace period would start from the date of purchase and not after the last date due for making payment by the customers.

 

11]      Hence, in view of the foregoings observations, we do not agree with the demand of the complainant, hence we cannot pass order directing OPs to refund the amounts claimed. Hence, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.

        The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.   

Announced

9^th January, 2015

                                       Sd/-

 (MADHU MUTNEJA)

PRESIDING MEMBER

 

 

 

XXXXXXX

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

                                     MEMBER