Order No.  12  dt.  08/08/2018

        The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant was provided with a credit card bearing no. 4346781102380474 issued on 08/06/2010 by o.p. bank with a limit of Rs.19,000/-. The complainant used the said card in the month of Aug. – Sept.2010 and never approached anything by using the said card subsequently. The o.p. has deducted the amount from the account of the complainant without any information. The complainant had also fulfilled the demand of o.p. in cash. Since the amount deducted by o.p. and the claim paid by o.p. was not justifiable one, therefore, the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,11,4448/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            The  o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant approached the o.p. for availing a credit card facility and pursuant thereto issued a credit card bearing no. 4346781102380474 in favour of the complainant. The said credit card was / is governed by the card member agreement of o.p. bank and the complainant. The complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the said card member agreement. The complainant had been using the said credit card which would be evident from the statement of accounts filed by the complainant annexed with the petition of complaint. The statements were provided to the complainant by o.p. regularly. It is found from the statement of accounts that the complainant was irregular in payment of dues. Being constrained the o.p. marked a “Hold on Funds” to the extent of Rs.10,536/- on 01/12/2012 on the savings bank account of the complainant maintained with the o.p. bank and issued a notice calling upon the complainant to repay the said amount. As the complainant did not turn up o.p. deducted the amount on which the “Hold on Fund” was marked. Thereafter, o.p. issued a lawyer’s notice calling the complainant to clear the dues, but the complainant failed and neglected to clear her dues. As the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. the outstanding against the said credit card kept on increasing due to levy of service tax and other charges. The entire facts were informed to the complainant, but the complainant failed to pay the entire amount for which the complainant by making a false ground filed this case praying for refund of the amount deducted from his account which was kept in lien in respect of the said credit card. Since o.p. did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, therefore, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.    

            On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant had the credit card with o.p.?
2. Whether the complainant used the card credit card exceeding the credit limit?
3. Whether the o.p. repeatedly requested the complainant to repay the outstanding amount?
4. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
5. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

            All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

            Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant was provided with a credit card bearing no. 4346781102380474 issued on 08/06/2010 by o.p. bank with a limit of Rs.19,000/-. The complainant used the said card in the month of Aug. – Sept.2010 and never approached anything by using the said card subsequently. The o.p. has deducted the amount from the account of the complainant without any information. The complainant had also fulfilled the demand of o.p. in cash. Since the amount deducted by o.p. and the claim paid by o.p. was not justifiable one, therefore, the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for refund of the amount of Rs.1,11,4448/- as well as compensation and litigation cost.

            Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant approached the o.p. for availing a credit card facility and pursuant thereto issued a credit card bearing no. 4346781102380474 in favour of the complainant. The said credit card was / is governed by the card member agreement of o.p. bank and the complainant. The complainant was bound by the terms and conditions of the said card member agreement. The complainant had been using the said credit card which would be evident from the statement of accounts filed by the complainant annexed with the petition of complaint. The statements were provided to the complainant by o.p. regularly. It is found from the statement of accounts that the complainant was irregular in payment of dues. Being constrained the o.p. marked a “Hold on Funds” to the extent of Rs.10,536/- on 01/12/2012 on the savings bank account of the complainant maintained with the o.p. bank and issued a notice calling upon the complainant to repay the said amount. As the complainant did not turn up o.p. deducted the amount on which the “Hold on Fund” was marked. Thereafter, o.p. issued a lawyer’s notice calling the complainant to clear the dues, but the complainant failed and neglected to clear her dues. As the complainant did not pay any heed to the request of o.p. the outstanding against the said credit card kept on increasing due to levy of service tax and other charges. The entire facts were informed to the complainant, but the complainant failed to pay the entire amount for which the complainant by making a false ground filed this case praying for refund of the amount deducted from his account which was kept in lien in respect of the said credit card. Since o.p. did not commit any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice, therefore, o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.   

            Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is admitted fact that the complainant was the holder of a credit card issued by o.p. and the credit limit in respect of the said card was Rs.19,000/-. It is also evident from the statement of accounts submitted by the complainant that the complainant used to avail the credit card facility during the year 2010-2011. It is also found that the complainant was irregular in payment of the dues and o.p. marked a “Hold on Fund” to the extent of Rs.10,536/- on 01/12/2012 on the savings account of the complainant. The o.p. also issued a notice to the complainant asking for repayment of the amount, but the complainant ignored the said letter. As the complainant did not turn up the o.p. deduced the said amount and the complainant was informed through an advocate asking her to clear the outstanding, but the complainant neglected to clear her dues. In such manner the amount increased and whenever the complainant was informed time to time the increase of the due amount, the complainant did not pay any heed. It is also found from the materials on record that the entire transactions took place in the year 2010-11 and the case was filed long after the said transactions and the complainant failed to explain as to why the case was filed after the statutory period of 2 years. The Ld. lawyer for o.p. in support of their contention relied on a decision as disposed of by Hon’ble National Commission in respect of CC No. 219 of 2006 whereby it was held that neither serving of the notice upon the o.ps. nor their response to the said notice gave any fresh cause of action to the complainant to file this complaint.  The cause of action which accrued to the complainants before this Commission cannot be said to be a continuing cause of action and once they had come to know that the air bags in the car had not been deployed, they were required to approach the Commission within 2 years of acquiring such knowledge.

            From the facts and circumstances of the case it is crystal clear that the entire transactions took place in the year 2010-11 and the complainant ignored the demand notice of o.p. which caused accumulation of the dues and ultimately the said amount was deducted from the account of the complainant which was kept in lien with the said credit card account. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant has not come with clean hands and she will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.p.