Order No. 17 dt. 07/09/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant opened a savings bank account with o.p. no.2 being no.913010040377034. The title of the said account being Piyali Pal Roy. No credit card facility was allotted to the complainant in respect of the said bank account. The complainant while on 28.1.14 operated the ATM card and on checking the balance the complainant came to know that a sum of Rs.2,81,687.71 has been debited by the o.p. bank. On perusal of the bank statement it revealed that such deductions were made due to one credit card being no.471861000022309 standing in the name of Piyali Pal. The said credit card was inoperative, defunct, closed and out of service for past six years. The complainant on the basis of the said fact filed this case making allegation against the o.p. bank for gross deficiency in service and also unfair trade practice and on the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for refund of the deducted amount of Rs.2,81,687.71 and compensation of Rs.75,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the complainant has not availed any service from o.ps. on payment of consideration. The complainant availed a credit card. It is well settled law that where relationship between the debtor and the creditor the relief under C.P. Act is not applicable. It was stated that in the year 2007 the complainant approached the o.p. bank for availing a credit card and represented that she would duly repay the dues in respect of such credit card and for that purpose credit card application was submitted. Pursuant to the said application credit card was issued to the complainant. The complainant was using the said credit card. The o.ps. from time to time provided the statements which were duly received by the complainant. In spite of receiving such statement the complainant failed and/or neglected to pay the outstanding amount. Subsequently o.ps. sent several reminders asking the complainant to pay the outstanding amount, but no effective step was taken by the complainant. The complainant neglected to clear her dues and as such, o.p. bank in exercise of its right as provided under member agreement and Sec 171 of the Indian Contract Act imposed a lien on her S.B A/C to the tune of Rs.2,81,687.71 and the complainant was informed the said fact. In spite of giving such information the complainant did not pay the amount, ultimately o.p. bank deducted a sum of Rs.2,81,687.71 from the account of the complainant. Since the amount remained due was adjusted with the account held by the complainant and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. the case is to be dismissed.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant had the credit card facility with o.p. bank?
- Whether the S.B. A/C held by the complainant was lien with the due amount lying in the credit of the complainant?
- Whether the complainant paid the dues in respect of the amount lying due to the account of the credit card?
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant while attempting to withdraw money from ATM she came to learn that an amount of Rs.2,81,687.71 was debited from her account and after getting the statement of account she was astonished to find that the amount deducted from the account of the complainant in respect of the amount due by one account holder Piyali Pal. The complainant became very anxious and she brought it to the notice of o.p. bank, but no action was taken for which the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. for releasing the said amount as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that the complainant before her marriage was known as Piyali Pal and she was the holder of credit card issued by o.ps. During the operation of the said card facility the complainant purchased goods for which the amount was lying due to the tune of Rs.2,81,687.71. As per the terms of Sec 171 of the Indian Contract Act o.p. bank imposed a lien on her S.B. A/C to the tune of Rs.2,81,687.71. The complainant was informed the said fact but she did not pay the said amount. Subsequently the said amount was deducted from the complainant’s account. It is false to say that Piyali Pal and Piyali Pal Roy is a different person. Before her marriage she was known as Piyali Pal and after her marriage she became Piyali Pal Roy. Therefore, the wrong submission made by ld. lawyer for the complainant that Piyali Pal and Piyali Pal Roy are different persons, is not correct. In order evade the payment of the outstanding dues the complainant has made false allegation against the o.p. bank and filed this case for which the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant before her marriage know as Piyali Pal was the holder of credit card issued by o.p. bank. It is also an admitted fact that Piyali Pal had the dues in respect of availing of the facility of the credit card and the said dues was not paid by Piyali Pal. It is also an admitted fact that subsequently after marriage Piyali Pal became Piyali Pal Roy. Both Piyali Pal and Piyali Pal Roy is same person and it is false to say that o.p. bank deducted amount from the account of the Piyali Pal Roy in respect of the amount remaining due to the bank by one Piyali Pal is a separate person cannot be accepted. The complainant in order to throw dust upon this Forum made such wild allegation against the bank which has got no subsistence to be accepted. The o.p. bank took the proper measure and informed the complainant beforehand regarding the lien of the said amount in respect of the account held by the complainant. In spite of such information the complainant did not liquidate the said amount. Accordingly from the facts and circumstances of the case we hold that the bank did the act as per law and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of o.ps. and as such, we hold that the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.357/2015 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
