Order No. 27 dt. 06/04/2017
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- with the o.p. Bank for the period of 12 months and 16 days with the option for payment of monthly interest in the name of the complainant recording the niece of the complainant as the nominee. The complainant had an urgent financial need and he approached the o.p. 1 on 26/07/2013 for pre-mature closure of the fixed deposit. On 02//08/2013 received a letter from the legal manager, credit card division of the o.p. bank demanding a sum of Rs. 2,46,225.78/- towards outstanding dues against an alleged suspended credit card in his name. The complainant had earlier wrote a letter requesting for pre-mature closure of the deposit account and on his next visit he came to learn that the amount of Rs. 2,52,877/- was credited to his account instead of Rs. 5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,47,23/- was taken away against the non-payment of the credit card dues.
The o.p. never demanded the said amount from the complainant and no consent was taken from the complainant for pre-mature closure of the fixed deposit account to set off their illegal / purported demand. In view of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for the direction upon the o.p. bank for crediting the amount deducted from his account illegally to the tune of Rs. 2,47,123/- and also sought for necessary direction upon the o.p. to delete the name of the complainant from the CIBIL and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of R.s 50,000/-.
The o.p. contested the case and filed w/v denying all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that by dint of the judgement and order dt. 28/07/2010 it was specifically stated that the o.p. bank is lawfully entitled to mark their right of lien and set off on the said deposit account of the complainant. The complainant as law abiding citizen should have paid up the sum as per the direction given in the said judgement. It was specifically stated that there was no necessity of issuing any notice upon the complainant for adjustment with the amount due towards the credit card loan with the fixed deposit amount lying in the custody of the o.p. bank. In view of such fact the opposite party bank sated that the bank has always intimidate the customer its liability to pay vide its lien notice dt. 2907/2013 and set off for Rs. 2,46,228.23/- on 13/08/2013. It was also stated that the o.p. bank had every right without issuing any notice having the lien and right to set off on all money belonging to the complainant, standing to his credit in any account / custody of the bank, if upon demand by the bank, the balance amount on the bank card account is not repaid within the prescribed time. Having regard to the facts and circumstances to the case the o.p. bank prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the pleadings of the respective parties the following points are to be decided : -
- Whether the complainant deposited an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- as fixed deposit to the o.p. bank.
- Whether the complainant failed to pay the credit card loan amount.
- Whether the o.p. bank can adjust the amount of loan amount with the fixed deposit whenever the same was lien with the said amount.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the o.p. bank.
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
Decisions with reasons :-
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
The Ld. Lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant invested Rs. 5,00,000/- towards fixed deposit in the o.p. bank. The complainant in order to have the urgent money requested the o.p. bank for pre-mature withdrawal of the amount. The complainant after verifying his account noticed that a sum of Rs. 2,52,877/- was credited to his savings bank account after deducting a sum of Rs. 2,47,123/-. The complainant never gave any direction to the o.p. bank for adjustment of the said amount with the loan lying in respect of the credit card. The bank cannot set off the amount from the principal amount of the complainant which was kept in the fixed deposit account. In support of the said contention the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant cited several rulings as reported in Vol. II (2005) CPJ 306 and also I (2006) CPJ 182 NC, on the basis of those rulings the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that the bank cannot straight away appropriate money deposited by guarantor in FDR without any bailment and without informing guarantor. On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant emphasized that necessary direction be given upon the o.p. bank for releasing the debited amount in his account and also prayed for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 50,000/-.
The Ld. Lawyer for the o.p. argued that the complainant had earlier filed the case before Ld. DCDRF, Unit – 2, Kolkata and the Hon’ble DCDRF was pleased to hold that the HDFC bank credit card division is lawfully entitled to mark their right of lien and set off on the said deposit account of the complainant, who willfully and deliberately avoided to comply the direction of the said judgment and order of the said Ld. DCDRF and filed this case with oblique motive. The complainant should have paid up the sum as per direction given by the Ld. DCDRF, Unit – 1, Kolkata in respect of the case no. CC/637/2008. It was also emphasized by the Ld. Lawyer for o.p. that the selfsame matter cannot be agitated by the complainant by filing another case, seeking the same remedy, which he had filed earlier. In view of such background of the case the o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submission of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant invested a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/ to o.p. bank and it is also an admitted fact that the complainant was the holder of the credit card holder and the credit card was issued by the o.p. bank. From the materials on record it is well-established that the complainant in order to meet the urgent need of money requested the o.p. bank for pre-mature withdrawal of the amount. The o.p. bank after receiving the letter from the complainant processed the releasing of the fund and it was detected that an amount was due to the bank towards the loan standing in respect of the credit card.
The judgement cited by the Ld. Lawyer for the complainant not be applicable in this case. It is also found that the bank has always intimated the customer his liability to pay vide its lien notice dt. 29/07/2013 and set off for Rs. 2,46,225.23/- on 13/08/2013. It is also to be mentioned that the bank has the authority that without issuing a notice will have the lien and right to set off on all monies belonging to the complainant standing to his credit in any account / custody of the bank, if upon demand by the bank, the balance amount on the account is not repaid within the prescribed time. Apart from the said fact the complainant had earlier filed the case before the Ld. DCDRF, Unit – 2, Kolkata and an order was made directing the complainant to liquidate the dues to the bank and the bank to issue a statement to that effect but the complainant did not abide by the said direction and rushed to this Court to bypass the Ld. DCDRF, Unit – 2, Kolkata. From the materials on record since the complainant himself was at fault and he failed to pay the loan amount, therefore the adjustment of the loan amount with the fixed deposit amount has not created any right to the complainant to seek any grievance against the o.p. bank. Accordingly, we hold that the case is devoid any merit to be allowed in favour of the complainant.
Hence, ordered
that the case no. CC/610/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost.
Certified copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.
