Date of Filing:22/03/2021 Date of Order:29/03/2022 BEFORE THE BANGALORE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SHANTHINAGAR BANGALORE - 27. Dated:29th DAY OF MARCH 2022 PRESENT SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS, B.Sc., LL.B. Rtd. Prl. District & Sessions Judge And PRESIDENT SRI. Y.S. THAMMANNA, B.Sc, LL.B., MEMBER SMT.SHARAVATHI S.M, B.A, LL.B., MEMBER COMPLAINT NO.265/2021 COMPLAINANT : | | Mr. SYED ISHRATHULLA HUSSAINI (Age about 56 years) S/o Late Syed Amanulla Husaini No. 9SP20, DAR AL IMAN Apartment No.201, 1st Floor, 3rd Main, HBR Layout II Stage, Bangalore 560 045 Mob: 9886917806 Email: | |
Vs OPPOSITE PARTY: | | KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK, No.160, Ground Floor, Mattadhalli Extension, RT Nagar Main Road, RT Nagar, Bangalore 560 032. (Sri Manjunath, Adv. for OP)
| |
|
ORDER
SRI.H.R. SRINIVAS. PRESIDENT
1. This is the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Party (herein referred to as OP) under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 for the deficiency in service in deducting Rs.5074.73 from the SB account of the complainant in respect of alleged credit card dues of Rs.5,074.73 and for refund of the same along with interest at 12% per annum and to direct OP to unblock the Savings Bank Account of the complainant, for compensation of Rs.25,000/- for causing mental agony and hardship and Rs.5,000/- towards cost of the litigation and for such other reliefs as the Hon’ble District Commission deems fit.
2. The brief facts of the complaint are that; complainant is a account holder with OP having account 211010009641. The said account is a joint account of the complainant along with his daughter Syed Ruquiya Hussaini. On 09.03.2020 a sum of Rs.5.074.73 was deducted from their account. The same was questioned with the branch official of OP and correspondences were made. It is contended that a credit card was also issued to them by Op’s credit card division and there is no contract between OP and the complainant in respect of the credit card. At the time of marketing the credit card, it was informed that there is zero entrance fee and the limit was of Rs.27,000/- later increased to Rs.96,000/-. He was paying all the credit card dues as and when it became due. OP did not send the credit card bills for several months with an intention to make the complainant defaulter. On 04.01.2021 when the complainant went to update his passbook and wanted to withdraw Rs.9,615/- from the bank. He was informed that the account has been blocked by the credit card division. Hence he had to issue legal notice to remove the block as he was not a defaulter and even if he defaults, the debit from his Savings Bank Account is illegal and hence there is deficiency in service and pray the commission to revert the credit of Rs.5,074.73 from his account towards credit card dues and for paying the compensation and to unblock the account by allowing the complaint.
3. Upon issuance of notice, OP appeared through its counsel and filed version, contending that the complaint filed is misconceived, false, frivolous and complainant is not entitle for the any of the reliefs prayed therein. All the allegations made against it have been denied.
4. It is stated by OP that the complainant along with his daughter had a Savings Bank Account and was debited Rs.5,074,73 on 09.03.2020. The complainant after receipt of the credit card bills made certain payment, but was irregular in paying the dues. As per clause 17 of the terms and conditions of the credit card, the banker can have lien mark on the account of the customer. Accordingly, they have acted and debited Rs.5,074.73 on 09.03.2020. The same was intimated to the complainant on 28.02.2020 intimating the lien mark on the SB account. The complainant is put to strict proof of paying the credit card dues.
5. As per letter dated: 28.02.2020, an amount of Rs.34,949.56 was due by the complainant towards the credit card. On the date of complaint, the due was 59,068.95. As a Bank and Financial Institutions, OP has every right to have lien on the account of the customer who becomes defaulter and hence it is not deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and they have exercised their legal right hence prayed the commission to dismiss the complaint.
6. In order to prove the case, complainant filed his affidavit evidence and produced documents. Arguments Heard. The following points arise for our consideration:-
1) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
2) Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief prayed for in the complaint?
7. Our answers to the above points are:-
POINT NO.1 & 2 : IN THE NEGATIVE.
For the following.
REASONS
POINT No.1 & 2:-
8. On perusing the complaint, version, documents, evidence filed by the both the parties, it becomes clear that, the complaint along with his daughter are SB Account holder with OP bank. Deduction of Rs.5,074.73 on 09.03.2020 is admitted by OP and it is its specific case that, the amount due from the complainant through the credit card borrowings and that they have debited the said amount their account. It is for the complainant to prove that he has paid the entire amount and no amount is pending payment.
9. At the same time, OP has also admitted that it has marked a lien on the account of the complainant for its due payment. Account statement is also produced. Copy of the letter issued by the bank dated 28.02.2020 has been also produced wherein it is mentioned that the complainant is due a sum of Rs.34,949.56. As per the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, and Clause 17 of the terms and conditions or credit card the bank as a lien over the account of the complainant / borrower. The same has been exercised by OP. According to OP the balance as on the date i.e.28.02.2020 for a sum of Rs.34949.56 and as on the filing of the complaint for a sum of Rs.59,068.95.
10. When such being the case, it is the duty of the complainant to pay the entire amount in respect of the credit card usage, failing which as per law OP has every right to recover the same from the account of the complainant by debiting the same from the account. In view of this, the act of OP cannot be considered as illegal, deficiency of service or unfair trade. Hence we answer POINT NO.1 AND 2 IN THE NEGATIVE and pass the following:
ORDER
- The complaint is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.
- OP is directed to unblock the SB account of complainant if amount is paid towards overdue credit card bill and allow to operate for the balance amount.
3. Send a copy of this order to both parties free of cost.
Note: You are hereby directed to take back the extra copies of the Complaints/version, documents and records filed by you within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
(Dictated to the Stenographer over the computer, typed by him, corrected and then pronounced by us in the Open Commission on this day the 29th day of MARCH 2022)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
ANNEXURES
- Witness examined on behalf of the Complainant/s by way of affidavit:
CW-1 | Mr. Syed Ishrathulla Hussaini – Complainant |
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Complainant/s:
Ex P1: Copy of first page of pass book of complainant with OP.
Ex P2: Copy of Statement of account.
Ex. P3: Copy of cheque dishonoured by OP.
Ex P4: Copy of the complaint sent to OP through email
Ex P5 : Copy of the email sent to nodal officer Kotak Credit Card Division
Ex P6: Copy of the legal notice sent to OP
2. Witness examined on behalf of the Opposite party/s by way of affidavit:
RW-1: - Nil -
Copies of Documents produced on behalf of Opposite Party/s
- Nil -
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
RAK*
