In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No.   143 / 2009.

1)                   Smt. Basanti Bhattacharjee,

96/3C, Tollygunge Road, Kolkata-700026.                                               ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   Standard Chartered Bank,

Rash Behari Avenue Branch,

163, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700019.

2)                   The Branch Manager, Standard Chartered Bank, 

Rash Behari Avenue Branch,

163, Rash Behari Avenue, Kolkata-700019.

3)                   Viraj Tyagi,

Business Head-Credit Cards, Standard Chartered Bank,

19, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata-700001.                                               ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. A. B. Chakraborty, Member

Order No.    28    Dated  03/02/2012.

The petition of complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed the complainant Smt. Basanti Bhattacharjee against the o.ps. Standard Chartered Bank and others. The case of the complainant in short is that complainant had a savings bank account bearing no.333-1-007497-7 with o.p. no.1. Further he was allotted a credit card bearing no.INSTABUY’S ACCOUNT – CLASSIC 9356-5008-0283-4887 with a card limit of rs.56,000/-. Moreover, complainant had a fixed deposit account bearing no.33330208448 of Rs.2,30,000/- with the same o.p. as on 5.7.09 to be matured after 3 years. Complainant was given a loan of Rs.35,000/- against the said credit card and it was stipulated in the condition that “The amount that has been approved on your credit card is part of your credit card limit would be blocked by the amount of the transaction and would be available to your as and when you repay your monthly EMI”. Thereafter complainant received a phone call from the agent and men of o.p. no.1 offering a further loan of Rs.94,000/- and the complainant received the same and consented to it. The terms of this loan was stipulated “This offer is valid only for the loan detailed above and does not cover earlier product or other spends on the credit card. Please find overleaf a sample copy of your statements to help you understand the billing system. Please not that the EMI on your loan would be added to your minimum amount due every month”. Complainant so thus of the supposition that the loan of Rs.94,000/- was outside the credit limit of the complainant. Till September, 2007 the bills were issued in accordance with the aforesaid terms and conditions. But problem cropped up when she received the statement for the month of October, 2007 wherein an amount of Rs.500/- was charged towards the penalty of existing credit limit under the head ‘over limit’. Complainant lodged complaint against o.p. no.1 and he was verbally assured that the statement will be rectified in due course. But the statement in the same manner continued subsequently and no rectification is not made at all. On the contrary Rs.10,120/- was charged towards existing credit limit as penalty. Complainant submitted that she has already paid Rs.1 lakh (approximately) towards recovery of the loan. O.p. suddenly transferred fixed deposit amount of Rs.2,30,000/- the savings bank account of the complainant without her consent and recovered Rs.22,000/- from the savings account of the complainant. thereafter complainant made several correspondences with o.ps. but not fruitful result was brought forth. Hence the instant case.

O.ps. had entered into the case by filing w/v denying all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.

            Decision  with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings and the evidence and documents in particular. Be that as it may whatever may be the conditions at the time of grand of sanction of loan it is ardent duty of o.ps. to issue notice upon the complainant prior to square up the fixed deposit and this act on the part of the o.ps. amounts to unilateral act though bank loan is a part of agreement between the parties, particularly when complainant did not pledge the fixed deposit against the loans. On the contrary it is apparent from the materials on records and statements in particular filed by complainant that o.p. itself violated the conditions imposed by them.

            So on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record it is quite evident from the record that o.ps. had sufficient negligency on their part being service provider to its consumer / complainant. Therefore we are of the view that complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for.

            Hence, ordered,             

            That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest with cost against the o.ps. O.ps. are directed to refund the fixed deposit amount of Rs.2,30,000/- (Rupees two lakhs thirty thousand) only together with matured value to the complainant with an interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of maturity till the date of realization . O.ps. are further directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till the full realization . O.ps. are further directed to send the revised statement of account to the complainant showing the amount payable, if any by the complainant enabling the complainant to pay off the dues without charging any late fee, charges, interest, etc. thereto within the stipulated period.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties.

   _____Sd-____                                                    ______Sd-______

     MEMBER                                                           PRESIDENT