Delhi

West Delhi

CC/15/231

RAVINDER SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

08 Aug 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III(WEST),

C 150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI, NEW DELHI-110058

 

CC No. 231/2015

In re:-

Ravinder Singh

C8 & C9, Community Centre,

Behind Janak Cinema, JanakPuri,

New Delhi-110058

                                                                                         ………..Complainant

VERSUS

ICICI Bank Ltd                                                                             ………..Opposite party

G-2, VikasPuri,

New Delhi-110018

 

Coram:                                                                             

1. MS.SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. MS.RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. MR.ANIL KUMAR  KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

 

Date of Institution:15.04.2015

Judgment reserved on: 12.07.2022

Date of Decision: 08.08.2022

Present: Complainant in person

             OP ex-parte.

 

 

O R D E R

Per: Anil Kumar Koushal (Member)

 

Brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are as follows:

 

1. The complainant submits that hewas  a regular user of ICICI Bank Credit card No. 4477474547968001 issued by OP from July 2008 and always paid the credit card bill amount to OP on or before due date.The credit card  was valid till July 2012 but after the expiry of July 2012, OP  did not issue the new credit card to the complainant. When the complainant  asked the customer care of OP about the reasons, it was told that the complainant will have to first clear the outstanding amount then a new credit card will be issued. Complainant states that as a responsible person he  used to pay the minimum balance amount every month. Few months ago the complainant came to know that OP wascharging interest and other charges on his credit card dues which is not appropriate.  Because of thesecharges, the outstanding balance in  his credit card was not getting reduced and rather getting accumulated every passing month. Complainant asked the customer care of OP to provide him the detailed calculation of interest and other charges levied on his credit card from last two years. In the meantime,  acustomer care executive Mr. Santosh Verma (Collection Division) contacted the complainant and asked for clearance of outstanding dues on his credit card  but when the complainant  told him to provide the whole calculation sheet from last two years, said Santosh Verma denied it and said that bank cannot issue this type of statement but as per bank they can issue upto 6 months statement but failed to provide it. At that time the outstanding balance in his credit card account was Rs.18,309.38 Thereafter said Santosh Verma provided the complainant  Statement of his  credit card from Sep 2011 onwards.   When the complainant checked it, he noticed that the OP  Bank had charged excess amount in lieu  of interest and other charges. The complainant told the said official to recheck and rectify the account on which the said Santosh Verma told the complainant that he will get  the settlement done in this case but asked the complainant to first  deposit Rs.1,000/- for further processing. The complainant complied with the same and  deposited Rs.1000/- on 12-02 2015 through net banking. After 10 days said Santosh Verma  again contacted the complainant and stated that the complainant will have to  pay the full amount as  outstanding towards settlement. The complainant was not agreeable and  surprised as to how banks use and cheat the customers  to achieve their  target/collection of the month.
2. Complainant further states that in the morning of 24 March 2015 at 9.45AM, hisfriend deposited  Rs.49000/- cash in the Saving A/c No 629601512503 in ICICI Bank  of the complainant. It was borrowed by the complainant from his friend on interest for facilitating admission in school, purchase of new books and dresses of complainant’s daughters. However, the complainant was again shocked to see the Message received from OP  banksame day at 3.53 PM that Rs.20,014.66/- have been deducted as lien by OP Bank.  Complainant states that he requested and pleaded too many times to the OP bank to  credit back  the amount held as lien by OP bank and was agreeable to pay the money as per mutual understanding but  the OP  did not refund the money. Due to this his family was very depressed and his daughters  didn't go to school on time due to non-availability of books and dresses. Complainant stresses that this  is not the correct way to collect the money and rather  it is totally a case of cheating and fraud. It means OP bank can charge anything and take the money from saving account without consulting the person concerned.
3. Complainant by way of this complaint  requests to intervene in this matter and ask the OP bank to refund the money held by them as lien and remove/clear the charges levied by bank in his credit card as he is very upset and mentally disturbed with this happening.
4. Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has attached emails exchanged with the OP Bank from January, 2015 to  April,2015.
5. Upon notice being issued on admission of the complaint on 16.4.2015, reply was filed by the OP. Per contra, OP contended  that the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. Admittedly he has made purchases from his credit card and admittedly he has been paying only the Minimum Amount Due. Therefore, the bank has levied interest and other charges on the balance amount as per agreement and prevailing banking practice and since the credit card had expired and the total outstandingagainst  it  was not paid, the bank did not issue the new credit card to the complainant.
6. OP states that subsequent to making minimum payment, complainant had been making purchases through his credit card which resulted in regular increase in his outstanding dues as well as levy of interest on the outstanding amount and also the levy of penal charges, besides statutory charges. It is pertinent here to submit that the complainant has been regularly utilizing his card and has subsequently on various occasions crossed his credit limit.It is submitted that as per the terms and conditions of the credit card usage, before the first use of the credit card by the complainant, he inter-alia agreed to all the terms and conditions which were explained to  him at the time of application. Now after utilizing the credit card for the past so many years and regularly paying the bills estoppes him from raising the issue that the bank is charging exorbitant interest or has levied charges which were not informed to him earlier. It is submitted that interest and charges levied areas per the guidelines issued by RBI. It is further submitted that if Minimum Amount Due (MAD) is paid or any amount less than Total Amount Due (TAD) is paid then appropriate charges are levied in the account as per the RBI guidelines.
7. It is further contended by the OP that earlier on several occasions the complainant has paid Minimum Amount Due or has made late payment, then the opposite party had levied interest and other charges, which had been paid by the complainant, therefore raising this issue at this stage is highly belated and complainant is estopped from raising this issue.It is further stated that since the purchases have been made by the complainant, he is in the knowledge of the total credit taken by him from the OP bank and under moral obligation to calculate the total amount and deposit the same with the OP bank. The complainant is under an obligation as per the terms and conditions to pay the entire amount due, thereby discharging his liability on the credit card.     For the sake of argument, without prejudice, it is stated by the OP that it does not do any good to the complainant to say that he has not received the monthly statement, it is an unassailable fact that he had made purchases and he is liable to pay the said amount to the bank and cannot escape his liability. It is stated by the OP that since the dues of the OP bank on the credit card of complainant were mounting, vide email dated 28.02.2015 it had asked the complainant to clear outstanding  dues of Rs.18678.52 or minimum amount of Rs.2310. Thereafter OP bank on 23/03/15 issued a legal notice-cum-demand letter to the complainant asking him to deposit the entire amount of Rs.20,014.66 within ten days from the date of the notice  failing which they would be constrained to exercise their right of lien over the savings account of the complainant maintained with them. The said letter was sent to the complainant through Speed Post. Since thecomplainant had failed to make the payment as per aforementioned letter, the opposite party  was constrained to use the right of lien and debit the savings bank account No.629601512503 of the complainantmaintained with it for Rs.20,014.66 on 11.04.2015 and adjusted it against the outstanding dues. As per the OP, the Complainant deliberately neglected to make the payment of credit card dues. The terms and conditions of the credit card usage, Section 72 of the India Contract Act, and the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has recognized the banker's right of general lien on the money or moneys belonging to the customer in its hand in the case of Syndicate Bank v/s Vijay Kumar &Ors; MANU/SC/0196/1992; AIR1992SC1066; (1992)2SCC331.  OP denied  that the statements were not regularly sent to the complainant. However as explained, the complainant was under the obligation to make the payment as per his purchases by adding all the payment slips, if he had not received any statement on time.
8. OP further states that the Complainant has failed to show even an iota of deficiency on the part of OP Bank. It is denied that the opposite party is  negligent in performing any services which were due to be performed towards the complainant.Whatever alleged loss in business has occurred to the complainant, that cannot be compensated by this forum as it is beyond the jurisdiction of this forum.
9. OP denied that any mental agony, tension, harassment, financial loss has been caused to the complainant in any manner whatsoever by the opposite party. It is also  denied that complainant is suffering from any illness and has been advised to avoid any tension, anxiety or stress as no document in support thereof has been annexed. Mere allegation does not justify his claim of compensation. The complainant as per the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has to prove negligence, deficiency, which the complainant has failed to do so. The OP bank has acted bonafidely in accordance with law. The complainant is trying to take advantage of his own wrong. By this action the complainant is trying to cause wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself. By filing this complaint, the complainant is misusing the provisions of law to achieve his own end. It is submitted that if the complainant is so worried about his loss then he himself should have deposited the amount due on his credit card, when it became due in the first place itself and not try to put the blame on the opposite party. Whatever has occurred is due to the complainant himself not making the payment of his credit card dues in time. It is denied by the OP that it is liable to pay any compensation to the complainant or to reverse the entries and defreeze the account until and unless the complainant pays the outstanding on his credit card. Hence this complaint is fit for outright dismissal.
10. OP filed on record several reminder letterswritten to the complainant from February, 2015 to November, 2015  seeking recovery of the outstanding dues and exercising the right of lien on the SB A/c of the complainant to recover the dues.
11. Complainant filed rejoinder in rebuttal to the stand  of the OP taken in these proceedings and stated that he never denied to pay the amount. In fact as a responsible person he used to pay minimum amount to OP bank, but it is his legal right to know the calculation charged by the OP bank. But they failed to provide the same and took the overcharged money forcefully from his saving account. That was the big pain for him.  Complainant only stopped the payment when he asked the OP  to provide the details of calculation of interest charged by the bank, but the OP bank  denied that and offeredhim to settle the case. Mr. Santosh Verma from collection Agency contacted the complainant and asked him to deposit initial amount of Rs.1,000/- for further processing. When the complainant deposited the same and asked for settlement then said Mr. Santosh Verma told the complainant to deposit the whole outstanding amount. The OP  Bank has not given any transparency or clarity for the amount they have charged.During these conversation periodsOP bank charged late payment charges and interest as it was well known by the OP that he (Mr.SantoshVerma)  has not provided the details.
12. Complainant further contended that OP  bank has issued demand notices to him. But they have not given him time to pay. They issued the notice on 23 March 2015 and debited the money on 24 March 2015 from his account. Even the complainant didn't receive the letter in question on that day. Complainant stated that after knocking off the outstanding amount from his saving account on 24th March 2015, OP Bank had not  stopped sending  reminders/statements for late payment and interest charged. They showed a recovery of Rs.5,685.31 as on statement date 14.10.2015 and it is enough to  harass the customer.  OP keeps sending statement of dues to the complainant  every month by charging late payment and interest despite knowing that the matter is pending before this Court.
13. Along with the rejoinder, complainant attached the credit card statements for the period February, 2015 to January, 2016.
14. Evidence by way of affidavit was filed by the complainant and he exhibited the documents filed on record of this case.
15. OP did not file evidence by way of affidavit despite repeated opportunities.  On one occasion on 21.5.2018, costs of Rs.500/- were also imposed on the OP to do the needful but it did not comply with the orders of this  Commission.  Ultimately, vide order dated 18.7.2018 OP was proceeded against ex parte.
16. Ex parte arguments of the complainant were heard by the previous Bench on 31.1.2019 and orders were reserved.  However, the orders were not  pronounced.
17. Ex parte arguments were heard afresh by this Bench on 12^th July, 2022.  During arguments complainant pleaded that his money used as lien by the OP Bank be  got refunded to him as he is a poor man.He reiterated that the OP has not provided him the calculation of the amount charged as lien.
18. We have gone through the documents filed on record by the rival parties and the arguments advanced by the complainant. The admission on the part of the complainant that he never cleared full  credit card dues on time is apparent from the record so filed by the complainant himself. Every time the bill was received, he used to pay only the minimum amount due and this way the arrears of dues kept mounting.  Complainant tried to settle the matter with the OP bank through its representative Mr. Santosh Verma. It is the admission of the complainant that said Mr. Santosh Verma had provided him the statement of dues from September, 2011 onwards.    The OP bank has also averred in their reply that every month the statement of credit card account was being supplied to the complainant and even  before accepting the credit card, the complainant was apprised about the  terms and conditions relating to the credit card dues.  Now when the credit card dues have mounted, the complainant is taking the plea that he was not at all aware that the outstanding dues on the credit card usage carry interest and late payment charges.We may note that it is a common practice and asper directions of RBI, all the banks and  financial institutions  are directed to charge interest on the delayed payments which keep multiplying with the mounting dues.  That is the  source of income and survival of  such institutions.  The complainant has himself admitted in the rejoinder that the credit card statements for the remaining dues after debiting the savings account of the complainant with Rs.20,014.66  are still being  received by him.  The same have been appended with the rejoinder. This itself shows that he was regularly receiving the credit card dues statements throughout from the OP but did not check the  arrears or raised the issue  with the OP earlier.

Having gone through the pleadings filed on record, we do not find any infirmity in the action of OP in exercising the right of lien on the savings account of the complainant maintained with it to recover their legitimate dues against the now cancelled credit card of the complainant. The OP was within its right to take the drastic step. Accordingly, the  complaint is dismissed. However, we make it clear here that since the OP has already received the credit card dues from the complainant by debiting the amount from the savings accounts of the complainant maintained with it  and his credit card has already been cancelled, the OP bank is estopped from raising any further demand against the cancelled credit card of the complainant and set the matter at rest as far as the dues are concerned.  The OP shall issue a No dues certificate to the complainant in this regard.

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President