BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM (UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986) MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY.

                   Present: Sri P.V.Subrahmanyam, B.A.B.L., President.

                                 Smt.Meena Ramanathan B.Com.,Senior Member

                   Sri G. Sreenivas Rao, M.Sc.,B. Ed.,.LL.B., PGADR.,(NALSAR)

 Male Member.

Friday, the    14^th day of  October,  2011

CC.No.31 of 2011

Between:

M. Ch. Bala Naik S/o Badya Naik,

Aged about 35 years, Occ: Service R/o Sri Sravni

Residency, Flat No. 203 Bank Colony,

Pothereddypally, Sangreddy 1, Medak  District.                            … Complainant

                   And

1.     The Legal Manager,

HDFC Bank, Card Division -8,

Lettice Bridge Road,

Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai.

2.     Branch Manager,

HDFC Bank, B-2 AIE,

Opp: Jyothi Threatre,

Ramachandrapuram, Medak District.                              … Opposite parties

                   This complaint came up for final hearing before us in the presence of Sri Joshi Narayana Rao, Advocate for the complainant and  opposite parties being absent,  upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Forum delivered the following:

O R D E R

(Per Sri P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)

                  This is a complaint filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct the opposite parties to remove the Hold of the complainant’s S.B. account held with opposite party No. 2 and to pay damages of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and further to direct the opposite parties to release the amount, if any, adjusted from the SB account of the complainant and to award costs.

The averment in the complaint in brief are as follows:

 1.               The complainant is working in a private limited company. When opposite party No. 2 approached the management of the employer of the complainant, the complainant has opened SB account No. 0811540006110 with the opposite party No. 2 for credit of his salary received from is a employer. Without request of the complainant and without even an application made by the complainant, opposite party No. 2 has issued credit card bearing No 4346781008764300. The said fact was intimated to opposite party No. 1 through opposite party No. 2 because it was issued without the request of the complainant. From the beginning the card issued by opposite party No. 1 is not activated. While so on 04.03.2011 opposite party No. 1 has issued a notice to the complainant informing that the credit card account is suspended owing to irregular payment of amount due, despite repeated reminders by way of telephone calls and letters to the address of the complainant provided on the application form, as such opposite party No. 1 has placed a “Hold on Funds” of SB account by exercising banker’s lien and right of set off option to the extent of outstanding balance on the complainant’s captioned credit card account as on 04.03.2011 to the extent of Rs.7222.71 for which the complainant has sent a reply through his letter dated 12.03.2011 and a copy of it was also sent to opposite party No. 1 over fax. When the complainant has not used the credit card, since the same is not activated, it is not known as to how opposite party No. 1 withheld the funds without his knowledge. On account of withholding of the Funds of the complainant, the complainant has incurred heavy debt to maintain his family because the opposite parties have not permitted him to draw his salary which amounts to breach of trust to their customers. The employer of the complainant has credited the salary for the month of March, 2011 in the SB account of the complainant maintained with opposite party No. 2 but when the complainant tried to withdraw the money through ATM the balance was shown as zero for the reasons best known to the opposite party. There is no agreement  between the complainant and the opposite parties with regard to the terms and conditions of credit card policy agreeing of set off. Without agreement the opposite parties have no right to withhold the Funds. Even to exercise banker’s lien the opposite parties must give prior notice. No such notice is given, which amounts to cheating the complainant. The complainant has availed EPL loan account No. 15872412 for Rs. 83,000/- and paying installments regularly but due to withholding of the SB account, the complainant is not in a position to pay the installments from April 2011 on wards. The complainant got issued a legal notice  through his advocate to opposite parties No. 1 and 2 on 02.04.2011 calling upon them to remove the Hold of the complainant’s account held with opposite party No. 2 and to allow him to draw his salary through ATM. The said notice was received by the opposite parties but the opposite parties have not responded to the notice. The complainant requested the opposite parties to supply the following documents to verify the genuineness of the demand made by opposite party No. 1. The documents are :

i.                    Copy of application form for issuance of credit card.

ii.                  Copy of agreement in between the opposite party No. 1 and the complainant.

iii.                Usage details of credit card along with copy of bills.

iv.               Statement of credit card.

v.                 Date of activation of credit card.

vi.               Reason for showing the balance as ZERO in the account of my client held with opposite party No. 2 as on 01.04.2011.

Both the opposite parties are jointly and severally responsible for deficiency of service. Hence the complaint.

2.                The opposite parties having received the notice sent by this forum have not turned up nor entered their appearance through advocate either to admit the claim of the complainant or to deny. The complainant has filed his evidence affidavit to prove the averments made in the complaint, through which  Exs.A1 to A6 are marked.  A memo is filed by the complainant’s counsel to treat the evidence affidavit as written arguments as well as oral arguments. Perused the record.

3.                The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled for the direction to the opposite parties to remove the Hold of the complainant’s SB account held with opposite party No. 2 and for damages and costs.

Point:

4.                The complainant’s case is that he is working in a private limited company and when opposite party approached the management of the complainant’s employer, the complainant opened SB account No. 0811540006110 with opposite party No. 2. It is his further case that he has not submitted an application nor made any request for issue of credit card, however opposite party No. 2 issued a credit card bearing No. 4346781008764300. The complainant intimated the same to opposite party No. 1 . From the beginning the card is not activated. However  according to the complainant opposite party No. 1 issued a notice dated 04.03.2011 that the credit card account is suspended owing to irregular payment of amount due and opposite party No. 1 has placed a Hold on Funds of the SB account by exercising  banker’s lien and right of set off option to the extent of outstanding balance on the complainant’s captioned credit card account as on 04.03.2011 to the extent of Rs. 7222.71. The complainant sent a reply there to through his a letter date 12.03.2011 and a copy of it was also sent to opposite party No. 1 over fax.

5.                    When the complainant has stated in the complaint that he has not at all submitted an application nor made any request for issue of credit card, it is for the opposite parties to say whether the complainant made any request or submitted an application for issue of credit card. If no such application is necessary and every SB account holder is entitled to a credit card, the opposite parties should have stated the same in reply to the averments made in the complaint. As already stated above the opposite parties having received notice of this complaint kept quite without making an appearance before this forum either in person or through advocate either to admit or to deny the claim of the complaint.

6.                 Ex.A1 notice of opposite party No. 1 shows that they have issued repeated reminders to the complainant by way of telephone calls and letters to the numbers and addresses provided by the complainant in his credit card application form. The contention of the complainant is that he has not at all submitted any such applications form. Through Ex. A6 legal notice dated 02.04.2011 the complainant requested the opposite parties for copy of such application form for verification. Opposite party No. 2 has received the said notice under the postal acknowledgement attachment to Ex. A6. According to the complainant there is no response to the said notice.

7.                     As the complainant’s contention is that he has not at all applied nor requested for issue of credit card and the credit card issued to him was not at all activated, the question of irregular payment of amounts due in respect of such credit card does not arise and consequently holding of funds by opposite party No. 1 available in the account of the complainant with opposite party No. 2 cannot be said to be legal and it amounts to deficiency of service. It is therefore held that the complainant is entitled for the direction to the opposite parties No. 1 and 2 to remove the hold of the complainant’s SB account held with the opposite party No. 2 and for suitable compensation. The point is answered in favour of the complainant.

8.                     In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to remove the Hold on the complainant’s SB account No. 0811540006110 held with the opposite party No. 2 and to pay sum of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered by the complainant and further to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards costs of this litigation. One month time is granted for compliance of the direction and for payment of the above amounts.

                   Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the    14^th      day of October, 2011.

       Sd/-                                      Sd/-                                                    Sd/-

PRESIDENT                     LADY MEMBER                      MALE MEMBER

WITNESS EXAMINED

For the Complainant:-                                                      For the Opposite parties:-

          -Nil                                                                                           -Nil-

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For the Complainant :-                                                     For the Opposite parties:-

                                                                                                Sd/-

                                                                                               PRESIDENT

Copy to

1)   The Complainant

2)    The Opp.parties

3)     Spare copy