Per Mr. Narendra Kawde, Hon’ble Member:
This appeal is directed against the order dated 31.8.2010 in consumer complaint No. 214/2009 passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Forum’). By way of the said order, District Forum allowed the complaint with directions to pay `22,041.31 together with interest @ 9% from 17.4.2008, `10,000/- for mental agony and torture and `5,000/- towards cost of litigation.
2. Aggrieved with the impugned order, the appellant bank preferred
this appeal stating that on request, credit card bearing No. 4346-7710-0201-6500 was issued to respondent-complainant with certain terms and conditions incorporated in Card Member Agreement. Terms and conditions were accepted by the respondent-complainant. Amongst other conditions pertaining to repayment on account of use of credit card, the condition of ‘Lien and Right of Set-off’ was an integral part of set of conditions which were amply explained appropriately in the Card Member Agreement marked as Exh. ‘A’ in the appeal memo. Further it is averred by the appellant bank that under most important terms and conditions (MITC) information such as payment of fees and charges, cash advance fees, late fee charges, finance charges, ‘Right of Lien’ and the schedule of charges were properly explained under caption MITC for the clear understanding of the respondent/complainant.
3. It is further the case of the appellant-bank that respondent/complainant availed loan of `18,000/-, `9,000/- and `62,000/- during the period January 2005 to May 2005 which was repayable in 36 EMIs. The respondent/complainant also in addition to the loan facility of dial on EMI for amount of `17,512.68 in the month of February 2005was availed.
4. Appellant bank further contended that respondent/complainant desired to foreclose her loan account and on request of respondent details of foreclosure of loan were informed to the respondent/appellant. However, the respondent arbitrarily deposited `82,528.00 on 24.2.2006 without any communication. Therefore, appellant bank could not act upon foreclosure of loan account of the respondent and the amount of `82,528.00 received by appellant bank was adjusted against the future EMI of the loan availed by the respondent/complainant and respondent/complainant did not make further repayment of outstanding loan despite several reminders. Thereupon, by invoking provision of Card Member Agreement, condition viz. ‘Lien an Right of set off’ appellant bank debited the S.B. Account of respondent to the extent of `22,041.00 against the outstanding loan.
5. Aggrievedd with the unilateral action of the appellant bank, respondent/complainant filed the complaint before district forum. Complainant was allowed by District Forum and passed the impugned order, now under appeal before us.
6. We have perused the relevant record, evidence and document led by the parties. Heard the Ld. Advocate of the appellant an respondent.
7. Admitted position on record is that respondent/complainant is a credit card holder of the appellant bank, availed periodical loans and desired to foreclose loan account and therefore, enquired with the appellant bank about the procedure to foreclose the loan account. Respondent could not get proper response and therefore, payment of `82,528.00 was rendered to appellant bank for foreclosure of her loan account on 24.2.2006 which was adjusted by appellant bank against the payment of future EMIs of loan and further deducted an amount of `22,041.00 from her saving bank A/C against outstanding payment for use of credit card without notice to the respondent. Constant persuation of the respondent by way of several communications to adjust `82,528.00 against loan did not find favour with the appellant bank.
8. A bare reading of the impugned order shows that the points raised by appellant bank in the appeal before us have been properly considered by District Forum and we are in complete agreement with the findings by District Forum. The appellant bank instead of adjusting the loan account out of the payment of `82,528/- rendered by the respondent/complainant on 24.2.2006, the appellant bank erred to treat this amount as deposit for adjusting the future EMIS against the loan of the respondent/complainant. We do not find on record any notice issued by the appellant bank to the respondent/complainant prior to debiting her S.B. account to the extent of `22,041/- on 17.4.2008 as the outstanding payment against use of credit card by the respondent/complainant. This action of the appellant bank appears to be arbitrary and unilateral though the respondent/complainant had already paid the amount of `82,528/- on 24.2.2006 to settle the loan amount. The appellant bank debited S.B. account of the respondent/complainant to the extent of `22,041/- on 17.4.2008 almost after 2 years from the date of one time payment of `82,528/- made by the respondent/complainant on 24.2.2006.
9. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that the appeal is devoid of substance and is without merit. Therefore, we pass the following order :
O R D E R
1. Appeal not allowed and hence stands dismissed.
2. Impugned order of the District Forum is hereby confirmed.
3. No order as to cost.
4. Supply free copy of the order to the parties.
Pronounced dated 15th September 2011.
