Sri Partha Kumar Basu, Ld. Member

The gist of the complaint is about unauthorized recoveries of Rs..54,000/- from the salary account of the complainant. The complainant made correspondences with the respondent Bank but the perseverance did not yield positive results and hence this case. The complaint case has been running on contest by OP1 bank and ex-parte against OP2 credit card division of the bank. Final hearing was conducted on 25.07.2024 and today is fixed for delivery of Judgement.

The complaint as averred by the complainant in gist is that she held a savings bank account with the OP1 bank and also maintained a credit card account in the same bank which is the card division of that bank as OP2. The complainant paid off Rs 69,430/- between 07.01.2016 to 12.02.2022 and also requested OP1 bank to settle the accounts by furnishing statements which the OP1 bank failed and neglected and shifted the responsibility towards the OP2. The complainant thereafter discovered that a deduction of Rs.25,000/- and Rs. 29,000/- have taken place from the said salary account in January 2022 and February 2022 without giving notice to the complainant cum account holder on account of credit card bill although the complainant claimed having the said that the credit card already expired beforehand in August 2019.  Being dissatisfied the complainant lodged various complaints on 12.02.2022,                                                                                                                                                                                           16.02.2022 and 23.02.2022 but without any respite. In summary, the complainant claimed that such deduction from the salary account in respect of Credit Card dues is unauthorized and inspite of pursuations, the dispute did not get resolved and rather the bank refused the prayer for settlement. Hence the case. As per the complainant the bank has failed to discharge their liabilities towards this consumer by acting as an agent of their Credit Card division. The complainant also contested that the bank should have given advance notice before allowing debit in her account. Hence the Bank has acted in a deceitful manner and failed to protect the interest of the consumer which amounts to be violative of natural justice and an unfair trade practices. The complainant prayed for refund of that deduction of Rs.54,000/- by the OPs with a cost of Rs 20,000/-  alongwith a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

The complainant in support of his pleadings exhibited the documents like copy of the credit card, copy of letters to bank dated 12.02.2022, 16.02.2022 & 23.02.2022 and copy of first page of bank pass book of the savings account with downloaded copy of statement showing debit entries for the period 06.02.2022 to 06.01.2023, auto debit/deduction for Rs. 25,000/-, Rs.29,750/-, Rs.500/- and Rs. 400/- and another statement for the period from 04.09.2019 to 08.09.2019 and for the period 19.04.2021 to 22.04.2021 showing  few debit entries of Rs.25,000/- & Rs.29,750/- by the bank.

The OP1 Bank contested the dispute by filing W/V and BNA. Questionnaire and replies were exchanged by both sides. It was averred by the OP1 Bank that the complainant had been enjoying Credit Card facility of the same bank with a limit of Rs.50,000/- secured against the authority to exercise the right of lien. As there was an outstanding on her Credit Card account therefore due to default of non-payment of the credit card dues, the bank recovered the outstanding (late payment fees, service charges & GST) with the available balances in the her savings account as per rules, terms and conditions of Credit Card agreement. It was also brought to notice by the OP1 Bank that the complainant had prior knowledge about auto debit facility from her savings bank account in line with her letter dated 12.02.2022. OP1 further contended that it got evident from complainant’s letter dated 23.02.2022 approaching the OP1 that the card holder was much aware about her liabilities on account of outstanding dues. Hence the OP1 claimed having no deficiency of service on their part. The OP1 Bank exhibited documentary evidences in support of their arguments that includes the credit card statement of accounts for the period from August 2016 to April 2022.

The arguments as advanced by the Ld Advocates were heard, records and documents and exhibits perused and points considered.

It appears that the complainant was maintaining a credit card as well as a saving bank account with the OP1/OP2. As per statement from January 2015 to April 2022 exhibited by the OP1 bank it appears that the card was last used by the complainant for purchases in 01.07.2017 statement with a residual dues of Rs. 51,655.24/- on 01.08.2017. No specific averment is made by complainant in respect of clearing her dues as of 01.08.2017, neither any acceptable explanation is provided by her. The total dues got further accumulated perpetually on account of late fees, service charges and GST from time to time although no fresh purchase was made after July 2017. The complainant nowhere in the complaint petition or any other records or documents denied having not used the said credit card or dues thereof, till then. From the exhibits also the same is apparent. The credit card bill outstanding was recovered by bank from the saving account for Rs. 54,000/-.

The next question arises for consideration that whether the OP1 bank was entitled to deduct the card dues from the saving bank account of the complainant. As per the terms and conditions on which the credit card was issued can have a general lien and can recover dues from savings account if a customer fails to repay credit card dues. The terms and conditions of a bank or a NBFC on credit card mentions inter alia that the bank, at any time, will have lien and right to set-off on all outstanding dues belonging to the Card member standing to their credit in any account/custody of the bank, if upon demand by the bank, the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within the prescribed time. It is also a settled principle of law that lien can be created by bank/ NBFC, at any time, and have right to set-off all the dues standing to their credit in any account of debtors’ in the bank or upon demand by the bank unless the dues are not repaid within the prescribed time. [NCDRC in HDFC Bank Vs Anish Munjal on January 23, 2019 in a RP no. 1737 of 2013 (against the Order dated 22/02/2013 in Appeal No. 1722/2011 of the State Commission –Rajasthan]. Though the complainant in the instant case in hand has taken the plea that she never used the card after the expiry of it (August 2019) but that does not absolve her from clearing up the dues.

Although recovery of overdues for credit card debt depends primarily upon the card holders’ capacity to repay but in the highly competitive environment in credit card business customers are provided with opportunities as settlements as they are often over loaded and unable to repay the dues in full or in time. Though Ld. Advocate cited the Order of the Hon’ble SCDRC, Telangana dated 20.06.2023 in the matter of FA 404/2015 in CC/45/2015 where it was held that it was unfair about a recovery of total salary from card debtor’s account but it is not of much help since as per facts of this case, there were no dues of cardholder that could be established, which is not a case herein. Also in the instant case, no cogent proof could be given by the complainant in support of her claim that the said savings account was her salary account since she refrained from exhibiting any bank statement showing credit entry of salaries from her deemed employer.

In view of above, the OP1 bank was entitled to set off the credit card dues of the complainant.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, no deficiency on behalf of the OP bank in rendering service to the complainant got established. The complaint petition therefore is not substantiated and the complainant is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

In the result, the complaint case fails.

No fees due.

Hence it is,

                                                                            ORDERED

That the complaint case, be and the same, is hereby dismissed on contest by OP1 and on ex-parte basis on OP2.

There will be no order as to payment of cost.

Let a copy of the order be supplied free of cost to the parties concerned as per CPR.

The final Order will be available in the website at www.confonet.nic.in

Dictated and corrected by

     (Partha Kumar Basu)

             Member