2. The ICICI Bank Limited,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    The Regional Office,

    (Land Mark) Race Course Circle,

    Adodara.

3. Prasad & Sukumar Associates,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Office D.No.46-20-81,

    Dondparthi Road,

    Visakhapatnam.

4. The ICICI Bank Credit Cards,

    Rep. by its Manager,

    Near Chandivali studio,

    Opp. Madapur Colony,

    Chandivali, Mumbai-400 072.                    … Opposite parties

      This complaint coming up before us for final hearing on                      20-10-11 in the presence of Sri S. Yedukondalu, advocate for complainant and of Sri D.V. Sainath, advocate for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4, 3^rd opposite party remained absent and set exparte, upon perusing the material on record, hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum made the following: 

O R D E R

Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

        The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act praying to cancel the liability of outstanding dues falsely claimed by the ICICI Bank as on 04-11-09 against complainant for Rs.72,689-77 ps. 2) to vacate the charge over SB A/C. No.630701517685 and order to refund charged amount with interest @ 12% p.a.,  3) to pass compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony, continuous harassment and damage of reputation from                    01-01-07 and for legal expenses.

2.   The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:

        The complainant obtained credit card from opposite party banker in the year 2004 and availed loan on the said credit card and paying the fixed installments regularly through cheques.   During 2004 opposite party banker issued add on bandan card in the name of the daughter of the complainant by name Shaik Gousia Begum without the consent of the complainant.   Immediately on receipt of the said Bandan credit card, complainant approached the executive of the banker of Arundelpet branch, Guntur and returned the said card for cancellation.  Subsequently after a long lapse, opposite party sent letter of queried transactions on bandan card with details.   The bandan card given for cancellation by the complainant was being utilized by some others and the transaction bills are being sent from time to time to the complainant.  The nature of transactions seems to be obnoxious and disgrace to the complainant being a lady and insulting situation occurred among the co-employees and family members of the complainant.   The act of the banker is a breach of contract between the banker and the customer due to negligence on the part of banker.   The complainant made representation dated            08-10-06 issued legal notice dated 24-07-07 and 29-05-08.  In spite of repeated requests of complainant the transactions are not stopped and served demand statement dated 11-06-08 showing total outstanding of Rs.53,718.03 ps.   The banker also sent letter dated 04-11-09 showing outstanding dues of Rs.70,883.77ps. in respect of the credit card of the complainant.   The banker got issued legal notice through 3^rd opposite party dated 15-12-08 by showing the outstanding dues of Rs.72,689.77 ps., in respect of the credit card of the complainant and for settlement of the said outstanding amount.   Thus the banker instead of canceling the add on bandan credit card shown utilization.   Thus there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party banker.   Hence the complaint. 

3.     1^st opposite party filed its version and the same was adopted by opposite parties 2 and 4 which is in brief as follows:

        The allegations of the complaint are not true and the complaint is not maintainable in law.   Complainant had initially availed a credit card from the bank in her name and subsequently in 2004 only at the request of complainant, a bandan addon credit card was issued in the name of the daughter of complainant Shaik Gousia Begum.  The allegation of the complainant that she approached the Executive Director of the opposite party bank at Arundelpet and returned the said card for cancellation is not true.  Reserve Bank of India issued all guidelines to all card holders for safety of credit cards and to destroy the card if the card holder wants to terminate the card so as to prevent its misuse.   The averments of complainant that after a long wait the complainant had queried about the transactions of the addon bandan credit card on 01-01-07 clearly shows that complainant is in possession of the said card and was using the same.   Sending bills to credit card holders for using the credit card is neither a malpractice nor deficiency of service nor breach of contract.   The transactions alleged by the complainant are valid and complainant is bound to pay the bills issued to her.   Complainant had resorted to this frivolous litigation only to evade payment of the credit card dues.   Exercising its lien as a banker to recover its dues is a right conferred to the banker.   The amounts claimed by the bank as dues are neither false nor fabricated.   There is no deficiency on the part of the banker and the banker is not liable to pay any amounts as compensation to the complainant.   Hence the complaint may be dismissed against this opposite party.

4.   The 3^rd opposite party filed its counter which is in brief as follows:

      The complaint is bad in law and not maintainable on facts.   The allegations mentioned in the complaint are all false, incorrect and this opposite party denies the same.   It is not true that the complainant is paying dues regularly through cheques.  The complaint filed against 3^rd opposite party is clear abuse of process of law.   Without any locus standi the 3^rd party is impleaded as party to the proceedings.   The 3^rd opposite party is not a consumer or beneficiary.   The action of complainant tantamount to mis-joinder of unnecessary parties.   Complainant impleaded this opposite party to harass him knowing fully that this opposite party is not a necessary party.  Hence the complaint may be dismissed against this 3^rd opposite party.  

5.  Complainant, 1^st opposite party and 3^rd opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their contentions reiterating the same, 2^nd opposite party and 4^th opposite party filed memo adopting the affidavit of 1^st opposite party. 

6.   On behalf of complainant Exs.A-1 to A-21 are marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of opposite parties.

7.     Now the points for consideration are:

1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?      

8.     The case of the complainant is that during 2004 she obtained a credit card from 1^st opposite party banker and availed a loan and paying the same regularly through cheques, that without her consent 1^st opposite party issued add on bandan card in the name of her daughter Shaik Gousia Begum during 2004 and on receipt of said bandan card she immediately approached the executive of the opposite party banker at Arundelpet branch, Guntur and returned the add on bandan card for cancellation, but to her surprise she received queried transactions on bandan card and thereupon she made representations to opposite party banker stating that the transactions are not made by her since the card was already handed over for cancellation but the opposite party banker continued to demand queried transactions and thus there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.        

9.     The case of opposite parties/banker is that she has not handed over the addon bandan card for cancellation and that she has utlised the same and failed to pay the amounts of transactions made on add on bandan card and filed this complaint in order to avoid payment of the amount due to the bank.   

10.   Complainant addressed a letter under Ex.A-12 to the opposite party stating that without her consent add on bandan card in the name of her daughter Shaik Gousia Begum was issued by opposite party bank and that as she did not require the same, she returned the same during the year 2004 to the concerned Executive of the opposite party bank and when asked for acknowledgement the said Executive stated that there is no necessity to give acknowledgement.   Thus she stated in her letter Ex.A-12 that immediately after receipt of the add on bandan card she returned the same to the concerned Executive but did not obtain acknowledgement and that she has not utilized the said add on bandan card.   Even though she has not utilized the said add on bandan card she received a notice dated 11-11-06 on 13-12-06 showing due amount payable as Rs.22,323/-.   Immediately on receipt of the said demand notice she addressed a letter under Ex.A-12 after ascertaining the transactions for the due amount of Rs.22,323/-.   On receipt of Ex.A-12 the opposite party bank addressed a letter to complainant, Ex.A-1 dated 01-01-07 stating that they have deactivated the bandan credit card in question and investigating about the transaction questioned by the complainant and that the said investigation will take 45 days and also informed that they are temporarily reversing the questioned transactions billed to her account  and that it will reflect in her next statement and also informed that if the complaint is resolved in her favour they will make the reversals permanent.   Subsequently, opposite party bank issued Ex.A-2 statement dated 11-01-07 wherein Rs.500/- and Rs.22,323/- are shown as debits against the add on bandan card in the name of Shaik Gousia Begum and credited two amounts i.e., (1) Rs.22,323/- and another (2) Rs.22,448/-.  Even though complainant has not questioned the amount of Rs.22,448/- the said amount was given credit besides Rs.22,323/- (questioned amount).   Subsequently opposite party bank issued Ex.A-3 statement dated 10-02-07 wherein no transactions shown against add on bandan card but the transactions made on the credit card of the complainant are only shown.   Later opposite party bank addressed a letter dated 03-03-07 mentioning the questioned transactions of the add on bandan card and intimated the complainant that their investigation of the facts has confirmed that the transactions tookplace on her credit card and hence they are reversing the temporary credit that was provided to her earlier and the reversal will reflect in her next statement and also requested the complainant to make the payment of the queried transactions immediately.   Later opposite party bank issued Ex.A-4 statement dated 10-03-07 wherein Rs.22,448/- is shown as debit against the add on bandan card which is in the name of Shaik Gousia Begum.    Thus Ex.A-4 shows opposite party bank has reversed the amount of Rs.22,448/- which was given credit under Ex.A-2 but opposite party bank has not reversed the credited amount of Rs.22,323/- which represents the queried transaction amount.   Later from Ex.A-5 statement dated 11-04-07 onwards the transactions made under the credit card of the complainant are only shown in Exs.A-5 to A-11 statements.   Thus a perusal of Ex.A-1, A-2 and A-4 shows that the queried amount of Rs.22,323/- is not debited by opposite party bank and opposite party bank has only debited the unquestioned amount of Rs.22,448/- which was given credit in Ex.A-2.   The complainant has not proved that she has returned the add on bandan card to the opposite party bank.   The complainant also failed to file the statement dated 11-11-06 which was questioned by her in her letter Ex.A-12 or the earlier statements in order to prove that she has not made any transactions earlier to the statement dated 11-11-06.   Thus as stated above the opposite party bank has only reversed the unquestioned amount of Rs.22,448/- in Ex.A-4 but has not reversed the questioned amount of Rs.22,323/-.   The amount that was reversed by the opposite party bank i.e, Rs.22,448/-  was not at all questioned by the complainant.   Therefore it can safely be concluded that the queried transaction amount of Rs.22,323/- is not reversed by the opposite party bank.  Even though opposite party                                                                                                    

bank sent Ex.A-16 conciliation notice dated 15-12-08 complainant has not responded to the said conciliation notice.  Further complainant added Advocate office which has given conciliation notice Ex.A-16 on behalf of opposite party bank as OP3 for the reasons best known to her, even though OP3 is not a necessary party to the complaint.   Therefore, the complaint is bad for mis-joinder of OP3 advocates office which has given notice (Ex.A-16) on behalf of opposite party bank. 

         Therefore in view of the foregoing discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, it can safely be concluded that the complainant failed to prove the allegations made by her against opposite party bank and that therefore we cannot find any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party bank.     Therefore opposite party bank is not liable for any compensation and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.   Accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

11.   In the result the complaint is dismissed.  But in the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own cots.

        Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31^st day of October, 2011.     

       MEMBER                            MEMBER                            PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For opposite parties :            NIL

                                                                                PRESIDENT