DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,<br /> BATHINDA (PUNJAB)<br /> <br /> CC. No. 146 of 06-07-2009<br /> Decided on : 10-11-2009 <br /> <br /> Mukhtiar Singh S/o Sh. Balwant Singh, R /o H. No. 22545, Street No. 18, Bhagu Road, Bathinda.<br /> .... Complainant<br /> Versus<br /> <br /> 1.ICICI Bank Ltd., Near Clock Tower Building, Bibiwala Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager.<br /> 2.ICICI Lomboard General Insurance Company Ltd., Ist Floor, Shorva Complex, Power House Road, Bathinda through its Branch Manager<br /> <br /> ... Opposite parties<br /> <br /> Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection<br /> Act, 1986.<br /> <br /> QUORUM <br /> <br /> Sh. George, President<br /> Dr. Phulinder Preet, Member<br /> Sh. Amarjeet Paul, Member<br /> <br /> For the Complainant : Sh. Sandeep Singh Jeeda, counsel for the complainant.<br /> For the Opposite parties : Sh. Sanjay Goyal, counsel for opposite party No. 1<br /> Sh. Vinod Garg, counsel for opposite party No. 2. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> GEORGE, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> 1. The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (here-in-after referred to as 'Act') against the opposite parties with the allegations that he is maintaining Bank account with opposite party No. 1 and was provided Credit Card facility vide Credit Card No. 4477465008081003. The opposite party No. 2 is the sister concern of opposite party No. 1 and the opposite parties in connivance with each other and without the consent of the complainant issued some Insurance policies in the name of the complainant and started to deduct the amount of installments of premium from his account. However, the complainant succeeded to get the said policies cancelled and he was assured by the opposite parties that the deducted amount will be adjusted in his account. On scrutiny of credit card statement dated 21-01-2009, the complainant found that one entry on 8-1-09 and 13-1-09 each and four entries on 20-1-09 were made in his account and on enquiry it was told to him that some Insurance policies have been issued in his name whereas the said Insurance policies have already been got cancelled by him and now the opposite parties started to deduct the amount from his account on account of service tax. The opposite parties have also deducted an amount of Rs. 5251/- as bank collection payment on dated 28-04-09 which is arbitrary and without any cause. The complainant approached the opposite parties and requested them to correct his statement of account and adjust the amount which has been deducted without any reason and his liability, but there was no response from them. Hence, this complaint for issuing directions to the opposite parties to adjust the amount which has been deducted from his account without his consent on account of premium and service tax, alongwith interest 24% P.A. and to pay him compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental tension and harassment.<br /> 2. The opposite party No. 1 filed reply taking legal objections that complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred; this Forum has no jurisdiction as dispute relates to settlement of account; the complainant has concealed material facts and the complaint is filed on false facts.<br /> On merits, it has been denied that there is any connivance between opposite party No. 1 & 2. It has been submitted that both the opposite parties are independent companies. The complainant with free will had purchased Insurance policies through voice recording system and authorised to debit the premium amount through credit card. Later on, the complainant opted for cancellation of policies and as such, opposite party No. 2 cancelled the policies and since second policy was cancelled after three months, he had to make payment as per rules and he paid the amount through credit card. His credit card limit was Rs. 59,000/- which was exceeded and he had to make the payment of interest on excess limit which he did not pay. The entries in statement dated 21-01-2009 were not on account of insurance charges and service charges rather late payment charges, services tax and service charges @ 2.75% P.M which are payable by the complainant as per declaration given by him at the time of issuance of credit card. It has been submitted that Rs. 5251/- were transferred from saving account of complainant because he did not make the payment of due amount of credit card and still Rs. 1,32,529/- were due against the complainant. <br /> 3. The opposite party No. 2 filed separate reply taking similar legal objections as has been taken by opposite party No. 2. On merits it has been denied that opposite party No. 2 issued Insurance policies inconnivance with opposite party No. 1. It has been submitted that the complainant got two Insurance policies voluntarily of his own accord and consent and his consent was recorded in Voice Recording System (VRS). As per latest system, there is no need to submit any proposal form as the policies are issued through Internet and through telephone etc. As desired by the complainant, the opposite party No. 2 cancelled the policies and refunded the amount to complainant. Since the second policy was cancelled after three months from policy start date, therefore the complainant got short refund.<br /> 4. In support of his averments contained in the complaint, the complainant has tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. C-1, photocopies of credit card statements Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-50, photocopy of letter dated 30-05-09 Ex. C-51 and another affidavit of complainant Ex. C-52.<br /> 5. To controvert the evidence of the complainant, the opposite parties produced on record affidavit of Sh. Ravinder Dhul, Manager (Legal) Ex. R-1, copies of calculation sheets Ex. R-2 to Ex. R-3 and affidavit of Sh. Veer Bhadar, attorney ICICI Bank Ltd., Ex. R-4.<br /> 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the entire record of the case, it appears that the complainant started maintaining a bank account with opposite party No. 1 since 2003. The opposite party No. 2 is an Insurance Company and is sister concern of opposite party No. 1. According to the complainant both the opposite parties in connivance with each other, started deducted some amount from his account maintained by opposite party No. 1 and on enquiries, he was informed that the amount has been deducted towards some of the Insurance policies. On the objection raised by the complainant, the amount was refunded and credited in his bank account. <br /> 7. The complainant now has fresh grievance that on seeking his credit card statements dated 21-01-2009, 08-01-2009, 13-01-2009 and 20-01-2009, he found that certain amount was deducted from his bank account and on enquiries, he was told that some Insurance policies have been issued in his name and the amount is being deducted as premium. He has also claimed that an amount of Rs. 5251/- has been deducted on 28-04-09 from his bank account as bank collection payment and he was intimated regarding the deduction of premium by way of post giving statement of account dated 21-05-2009.<br /> 8. The record reveals that the amount deducted from the account of the complainant does not pertain to any premium of Insurance policy rather the deductions are on account of late payment fee, service tax, interest charges and overlimit fee etc., The credit card statements Ex. C-2 to Ex. C-51 and especially Ex. C-47 to Ex. C-49 reveal that complainant has exceeded his credit limit beyond all proportions as against an amount of Rs. 27,090/-, an amount of Rs. 1,22,430.24 is being reflected in his credit card statement Ex. C-47 whereas similar kind of situation is being reflected in his credit card statements for the months of March and April, 2009 Ex. C-48 & Ex. C-49 respectively. The complainant has not been able to prove by leading cogent and convincing evidence that opposite party No. 1 has deducted any unreasonable amount from his account and the same is being credited to the account of opposite party No. 2 on account of any Insurance policy. <br /> 9. The perusal of record reveals that there appears to be no circumstance to draw any inference that either of the two opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice or they are responsible for causing any deficiency in service. The complaint filed by the complainant appears to be totally frivolous and is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.<br /> The copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and the file be indexed and consigned.<br /> Pronounced :<br /> 10-11-2009 <br /> (George)<br /> President<br /> <br /> <br /> (Dr. Phulinder Preet)<br /> Member <br /> <br /> (Amarjeet Paul) Member