BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 82/2005 Filed on 05/03/2005<br /> Dated : 07.04.2008<br /> Complainant :<br /> Jose Cyriac, Teacher, St. Joseph's H.S.S, Thiruvananthapuram – 1.<br /> Opposite party : <br /> The ICICI Bank represented by the Credit Card Customer Services Officer, ICICI Bank, Bakery Jn, Vazhuthacaud Road, Tvpm. <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 14.10.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 4.03.2008, the Forum on 07.04.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER <br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER <br /> The complainant in this case is Mr. Jose Cyriac. He is the Principal, St. Joseph's Higher Secondary School, Tvpm. The opposite party is ICICI Bank , Bakery Junction, Tvpm. The case of the complainant is as follows :<br /> The complainant availed a loan of Rs. 10000/- on his credit card No. 4477460402230009 from the opposite party. As per the terms and conditions of the opposite party, the card member can fore close the loan at any time. On 01.11.2003 the complainant fore closed the loan paying Rs. 10100/- as per the terms and conditions of the bank. He also paid an excess payment to provide for whatever fore closure charges the bank might expect. The bank accepted the same and in the statement of the opposite party dated 21.11.2003 the complainant has no further liability. On 01.12.2003 the complainant tried to withdraw Rs. 5000/- from the ATM facility attached to the Tvpm. Main branch. The attempt was failed because as per the statement of balance amount available to the complainant, it was only Rs. 3750/-. The same was informed to the credit card section of the opposite party and the complainant was informed that the complainant was eligible for more than Rs. 5000/-. And accordingly the complainant made another attempt at the opposite party's ATM, but the bank failed to provide credit, since the bank contradicted its own statement unreasonably. The complainant requested for cancellation of the card. But instead of cancelling the card, the opposite party bank claimed that dues is pending on the card. The complainant states that the bank owed complainant refund of the excess amount collected by the bank. Though repeated requests were made by the complainant, the bank instead of refunding the excess amount harassed the complainant by demanding exorbitant payments without any base which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence this complaint against the opposite party claiming refund of Rs. 578/-, the excess amount collected with 18% interest along with compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. <br /> <br /> The opposite party remained exparte. The complainant PW1 has filed affidavit in support of his complaint and Exts. P1 to P23 were marked on his side. PW1 has not been cross examined and hence his affidavit stands unchallenged. <br /> <br /> Points to be considered : <br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and<br /> (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed? <br /> <br /> Points (i) and (ii):- The complainant was offered a loan of Rs. 20,000/- by the opposite party and accordingly the complainant availed a loan of Rs. 10,000/- as per Exts. P1 and P2. The complainant further submitted that since he opted for pre-closure, he had paid the amount of Rs. 10,100/- besides the payment of 1st instalment of Rs. 917/- on 01.11.2003. Ext. P5 is the document acknowledging the same by the opposite party. In Ext. P5 dated 21.11.2003 it is seen that the available cash limit is Rs. 12,000/- and available credit limit is Rs. 40,000/-. The complaint alleges that, on 01.12.2003, the complainant's request for withdrawal of Rs. 5,000/- was declined on the ground that he was eligible only for Rs. 3,750/-. On a perusal of Ext. P6 the transaction is seen declined and as per Ext. P7 the cash limit available is seen as Rs. 3,750/- as on 01.12.2003. The complainant contends that from 21.11.2003 to 01.12.2003 there has been no transaction in between him and the opposite party. Since there is no documents on record to prove otherwise, this Forum is also inclined to believe the same. The opposite party's above said deficient service compelled the complainant to cancel the credit card facility as per Ext. P8. But the opposite party did not cancel the card which amounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party according to the complainant. On a perusal of all the documents on record, this Forum finds no reason to disbelieve the complainant's allegation, that he had remitted an excess amount of Rs. 578/-. Since the opposite party has not turned up to either produce their statement or controvert the allegation of the complainant. We can only go by the complainant. The complainant has succeeded to prove his complaint. In the light of the above it is found that the opposite party is negligent for deficiency in service. <br /> <br /> In the result, an order is passed as follows : The opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 578/- to the complainant with interest at 12% from 04.11.2003 till realisation and Rs. 2000/- towards compensation for his grievances. Time for compliance two months, failing which execution can be taken.<br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 7th April, 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> jb