DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, LUCKNOW

CASE No.326 of 2008

       Sri Nishant Jaiswal, aged about 30 yrs.,

       S/o Sri Surendra Jaiswal,

       R/o 18, Station Road,

       Adjacent to Chintels House,

       Lucknow.

                                                                    ……Complainant

Versus

                 1. M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.,

                     Land Mark, Race Course Circle,

                    Vadora-390007.

                    Through its Managing Director.

                 2. Branch Manager,

                     M/s ICICI Bank Ltd.,

                     Ground Floor, Shalimar Tower,

                     M.G. Road, Hazratganj, Lucknow.

                                                                               .......Opp. Parties

Present:-

Sri Vijai Varma, President.

Smt. Anju Awasthy, Member.

JUDGMENT

This complaint has been filed by the Complainant against the OPs for providing the full bills for card No.5176530001803009 and for restraining the OPs for demanding Rs.15,056.30 from the Complainant and for directing the OPs for not making any demand in future and  for payment of compensation of Rs.10,00,000.00 and cost of litigation of Rs.4,000.00.

          The case in brief of the Complainant is that a credit card No.5176530001803009 was issued to the Complainant by the OPs. The Complainant was paying his regular dues as per shopping or use of the said credit card. The OPs are liable to raise bill for getting the payment but the OPs did not issue any monthly bills for getting the payment so the Complainant stopped making the payments. In June, 2007 the Complainant

-2-

received a notice sent by the Counsel of the OPs wherein it was mentioned that the Complainant had to pay Rs.70,894.49 to the OPs within 15 days and also mentioned for contacting Mr. Hitesh Agarwal on telephone. The Complainant contacted Mr. Hitesh Agarwal on phone who informed him that there can be one time settlement if the Complainant deposits the settlement amount at once. The Complainant asked him to provide full details of the bills on which it was promised that very soon bills will be provided. On 12.06.2007 a letter was received by the Complainant from Mr. Hitesh Agarwal on behalf of the OPs and directed the Complainant to deposit Rs.66,000.00 as one time settlement. After receiving the letter, the Complainant contacted Mr. Hitesh Agarwal on telephone and requested him to provide the details of the bills for different month but it was informed that the providing of bills for different months is a lengthy process and the bill will be provided later on and the Complainant must pay Rs.66,000.00 to the OPs. On believing the above words the Complainant paid the full amount of Rs.66,000.00 on 13.06.2007 as one time settlement through DD. On 13.06.2007 Mr. Vimal Shukla as Principal Officer of OPs who was present alongwith agent for taking cheque, informed the Complainant that along the above said credit card OPs have also issued two other cards of which the numbers are 5176530001803017 and 5176530001803108. On 13.06.2007 Mr. Vinod Shukla endorsed that full and final payment as one time settlement, the amount of Rs.66,000.00 has been taken on behalf of OPs and the detail bills will be sent very shortly but till date no bills have been sent to the Complainant. In February, 2008 the Complainant again received legal notice sent by Counsel of OPs in which a demand of Rs.15,056.30 has been made and it is also mentioned that if the above said amount of Rs.15,056.30 is not paid then criminal and civil actions will be taken against the Complainant. When one time settlement has

-3-

been arrived and the full payment has been made then OPs have got no right to demand Rs.15,056.30. Till date no basis has been provided to the Complainant by the OPs for the demand of Rs.66,000.00 and Rs.15,056.30 in spite of several requests made by the Complainant to provide the bill which proves that the OPs adopted unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, hence this complaint.

          The OPs have filed the WS wherein it is mainly submitted that The Complainant is a credit card holder of the OP bank, card No. being 5176530001803009. It is denied that the Complainant did not get any monthly bills for the usage of the card. It is admitted that due to default made by the Complainant the notice was sent to the Complainant for making the payment of Rs.70,894.00 due towards the bank. It is admitted that the letter dated 12.06.2007 has been sent to the Complainant to deposit Rs.66,000.00 for one time settlement. The Complainant has made payment of Rs.66,000.00 on 13.06.2007 through DD. It is admitted that even after the settlement has been done by the Complainant the legal notice has been sent by the bank through his Counsel demanding a sum of Rs.15,056.30. The inconvenience caused to the Complainant by the legal notice sent to him was purely unintentional. Mr. Hitesh Agarwal ex-employee of the bank was instrumental in getting the settlement done. During the time when the settlement of the Complainant was done, Mr. Hitesh Agarwal left the bank. Since he left the bank and the other person took over his work and in this process the credit card account of the Complainant was not zeroised due to some communication gap. In order to get the credit card holder account zeroised, a manual process need to be followed which was left to be completed due to some communication gap. As the Complainant’s a/c was not zeroised the interest kept on increasing due to which the legal notice has been sent to him. The account of the Complainant has been zeroised and there is

-4-

no amount pending towards the bank in his account. The complaint deserves to be dismissed as unintentional error is rectified and account of the Complainant is zeroised.

          The Complainant has filed his affidavit with 6 annexures and 5 annexures with the complaint. The OPs have filed the affidavit of Sri Jogendra Singh, Legal Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd. with annexure A.

          Heard Counsel for the OPs but none appeared to argue the case from the side of the Complainant. Perused the entire record.

          Now, it is to be seen as to whether the OPs have committed deficiency in service in sending a notice for recovery of amount of Rs.15,056.30 despite Complainant making payment of the entire arrears due to him or not, if so its consequences.

          The Complainant has come up with a simple case of having a credit card account with the OPs and he was served with a notice of card No.5176530001803009 by the OPs for clearing arrear and for the purpose to contact Mr. Hitesh Agarwal of OPs. When the Complainant contacted Mr. Hitesh Agarwal on phone and asked for providing the details of the bills for the different months, then he was informed that there could be one time settlement amount at once. The Complainant was asked by Mr. Hitesh Agarwal to deposit Rs.66,000.00 as one time settlement and even though Mr. Hitesh Agarwal did not provide the details of the bills but the Complainant made payment of the entire amount of Rs.66,000.00 as one time settlement through DD on 13.06.2007. But the Complainant was not provided with the details of the bills and instead, he was served with a legal notice of Counsel for the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.15,056.30 with the threat that if the amount is not paid then the civil and criminal actions will follow. It is the case of the Complainant that once, one time settlement was made with the OPs and accordingly the Complainant had made

-5-

entire payment to the OPs then they had no right to demand Rs.15,056.30. The OPs have taken the stand that the Complainant was to make payment of Rs.15,056.30  due to the bank but one time settlement was offered to the Complainant and in consequence the Complainant had deposited Rs.66,000.00 on 13.06.2007 through DD. The notice sent thereafter by the OPs to the Complainant demanding a sum of Rs.15,056.30, which caused the Complainant inconvenience, was purely unintentional as Mr. Hitesh Agarwal ex-employee of the bank who was instrumental in getting the settlement done, had left during the process of settlement of the matter. Since other person who took over the work of Mr. Hitesh Agarwal and since the process of the credit card a/c of the Complainant was not made nil due to the communication gap, therefore interest kept on increasing on the amount due for which a legal notice was sent to the Complainant. The fact is that the a/c of the Complainant is nil and there is no amount pending towards the bank in his a/c after the payment of one time settlement amount. As the unintentional error is rectified, therefore now the complaint deserves to be dismissed. From the averments made by the OPs in their WS it is clear that the Complainant had made payment in consequence of one time settlement with the OPs but the OPs did not correct their statement of accounts and therefore showing the amount as due to be paid by the Complainant and kept on levying the interest on amount due and thereafter the notice was sent to the Complainant for recovery of amount of Rs.15,056.30. This is ridiculous justification given by the OPs that the person who was negotiating the matter of one time settlement with the Complainant had left the bank and hence the credit card a/c of the Complainant was not made nil after the payment made by the Complainant, hence they kept levying the interest on the amount due after the payment of Rs.66,000.00 and a notice for the payment of amount due of Rs.15,056.30 was issued. This

-6-

explanation smacks of the evil designs of the OPs as there is no justification whatsoever for showing certain amount due even after the Complainant had made the entire payment which he was called upon to make, as per the one time settlement. Therefore, the OPs have certainly committed gross deficiency in service and harassed the Complainant by way of sending illegal notices for an amount which was not due at all. It is also noticeable that the Complainant kept demanding details of the bills to be paid by him but no such details of the bills were provided to the Complainant. This also is not at all justified as whenever any payment is demanded from a credit card holder then the details as to how the amount has swelled to a certain figure is to be disclosed to the person who has to make the payment but in the instant case the Complainant was not provided with the details of the monthly bills and instead an illegal notice was served on him, therefore in this regard also the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Therefore, the Complainant is entitled to compensation for the harassment caused to him. The Complainant has sought the remedy of restraining the OPs for demanding Rs.15,056.30 from the Complainant but in this matter the OPs have already admitted that the account of the Complainant has been made nil as he had already made the payment as one time settlement. Therefore, there is no amount which is due from the Complainant as per the version of the OPs themselves but the fact remains that the Complainant has thoroughly been harassed in this case for demanding an amount which is not due to him and for not providing the details of the monthly bills to the Complainant and therefore the Complainant is entitled to compensation for the deficiency in service as also for harassment. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we consider it proper to award compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000.00. The Complainant is also entitled to the cost of the litigation.

-7-

ORDER

          The complaint is partly allowed. The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) as compensation and Rs.4,000.00 (Rupees Four Thousand only) as the cost of the litigation to the Complainant. The compliance of the order is to be made within a month. If the compliance of the order is not made within a month then the OPs shall pay 9% interest on the entire amount due.

     (Anju Awasthy)                                          (Vijai Varma)

          Member                                                    President    Dated:    20 August, 2015