BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE URBAN

    18^th DAY OF MARCH 2019

O R D E R

SRI. S.L PATIL, PRESIDENT

The complainant has filed this complaint U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Opposite Party (herein after referred as OP) for the following reliefs.

1. Extra deducted Rs.4946-89,

2. Lien intimation need to give A/c holder, prior approval of Lean,

3. Without inform attached lean due to loss on compensation Rs.5000/- and miscellaneous expenses actual.

2. The brief allegations made in the complaint are as under:

That the complainant had credit card of OP and on 30.06.2014 complainant swiped the card for petrol and shopping totally for Rs.4,369/-.  Again on 20.10.2014 the complainant used credit card by swiping Rs.699/-.  After that complainant not used the credit card.  Complainant had deposited cash to the credit card account of the complainant for totally Rs.4,400/-.  Complainant requested OP to stop all the functions about the credit card department through mail dated 28.11.2014 and complainant get customer reference No.9430743 as same day and due amount of Rs.4,235-24.  After that complainant paid cash Rs.1,400/-, so due only Rs.2,335-24 only.  That as per the terms of complainant’s choice credit card yearly interest not above 48%.  OP Bank made lien and they holded amount of Rs.7,282-13 dated 21.07.2015.  Complainant never give lien accept to saving account to Axis Bank, Malleshwaram Branch, Bangalore.  Complainant visited the OP Bank several times regarding the above issues but OP not responded even complainant issued letter to the OP dated 27.07.2015 for that also no response from OP side.  Complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Hence, this complaint.

3. On issuance of notice, OP Bank did appear and filed the version stating that the OP Bank is the scheduled bank, further complainant has no locus-standi either to file the complaint or maintain the same against it.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.  Further denied the contents of the complaint as not true and correct.

There was a due of Rs.7,282/- in the credit card account of the complainant in the month of August 2015 and hence lien was marked, but in the month of September 2015 the complainant got some charges reversal in his account and credited back to the extent of Rs.2,597-79 to his account.  That OP being the Bank can exercise the Banker’s right to General Lien under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 that permits such exercise of lien and therefore the OP marked a lien to the account of the complainant towards the bank dues.  Hence the question of taking consent for marking lien to the account from the customers of the OP does not arise.  As per the agreement entered into between the parties and as per customer manuals, OP can exercise its rights to charge and rate of interest @ 3.5% per month on the total over due amount and late payment charges of Rs.600/- and also over-limit charges of Rs.500/-, if the customer exceeds his credit limit.

In view of the said facts, OP has strictly acted as per the guidelines in this regard and not committed any deficiency of service and has acted in good faith.  Hence OP prays for dismissal of the complaint.

4. To substantiate the allegations made in the complaint the complainant submitted his affidavit evidence reiterating the allegations made in the complaint.  Sri.Karthik R Aknur, Assistant Vice President & Branch Head, tendered affidavit evidence on behalf of OP.  OP submitted written arguments.  Both parties produced certain documents.  We have also heard oral arguments.

5. The points that arise for our consideration are:

        6. Our answer to the above points are as under:

REASONS

7. Point No.1:- We have briefly stated the contents of the complaint as well as the version filed by OP.  To falsify the case of the complainant the OP has specifically contended that there was a due of Rs.7,282/- in the credit card account of the complainant in the month of August 2015 and hence lien was marked but in the month of September 2015 the complainant got some charges reversal in his account and credited back to the extent of Rs.2,597-79 to the complainant account which can be seen on going through the documents produced by OP at Exhibit R-1.

8. It is further stated that OP being the Bank can exercise the Banker’s right to General Lien under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 that permits such exercise of lien and therefore the OP marked a lien to the account of the complainant towards bank dues.  Hence the question of taking consent for making lien to the account from the customers of the OP does not arise.  Further submits that as per the agreement entered into between the parties and as per the customer manuals, OP can exercise its rights to charge the rate of interest @ 3.5% per month on the total overdue amount and late payment charges of Rs.600/- and also over limit charges of Rs.500/-, if the customer exceeds his credit limit.  Referring to these facts submits there is no any deficiency.  Further to falsify the contention taken by the OP there is no any proper reply by the complainant.  We find there is a considerable force in the contention taken by the OP on the ground that OP Bank can exercise the Banker’s right to General Lien under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872.  Further the agreement entered into between the complainant and OP as per the customer manuals, OP Bank can exercise its rights to charge the rate of interest @ 3.5% per month on the total overdue amount and late payment charges of Rs.600/- and also the over-limit charges of Rs.500/-, if the customer exceeds his credit limit.  In this case the complainant has exceeds the credit limit.  Hence the OP has rightly placed reliance on the section 171 of Indian Contact Act and also as per the customer manuals.  Hence we do not find any deficiency in service on the part of OP.  Accordingly the complaint filed by the complainant devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.  Accordingly we answered point No.1 in the negative. 

          9. Point No.2: In the result, we passed the following:         

  O R D E R

The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed devoid of any merits.  Looking to the circumstances of the case, we direct both the parties to bear their own costs.

Supply free copy of this order to both the parties.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed and corrected, pronounced in the Forum on this 18^th day of March 2019)

MEMBER                                                              PRESIDENT

Vln*

Witnesses examined on behalf of the complainant dated 08.01.2016.

Sri.K.Ramesh Babu,

Documents produced by the complainant:

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite party dated 05.02.2016.

Sri.Karthik R Ankur

Document produced by the Opposite party.

MEMBER                                                               PRESIDENT

Vln*