Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/258/2016

Gurmukh Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, ICICI Bank - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

19 Sep 2016

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No.	:	258 of 2016
Date of Institution	:	15.09.2016
Date of Decision	:	19.09.2016

 

Gurmukh Singh son of S.Sardar Singh, resident of #255, Sector 35-A, Chandigarh.

……Appellant/Complainant

V e r s u s

1. The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Credit Card Division, Feroz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana.
2. The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Madhya Marg, Sector 26, Chandigarh.
3. The Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
4. The Regional Manager, ICICI Bank Ltd., Credit Card Division, Land Mark, Race Course Circle, Varoda.

              ....Respondents/Opposite Parties

Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

BEFORE:         JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT.

                        MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.

                        MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

 

Argued by:       Appellant in person.

 

PER JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT

                This appeal is directed against an order dated 03.06.2016, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the Forum only), vide which, it accepted a complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant) and directed the Opposite Parties (now respondents) jointly and severally, as under:-

“[a]      To remove the lien on the saving account of the complainant maintained with the OP Bank forthwith;

 [b]      To pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service.

The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties jointly & severally; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the awarded amount, as at sub-para [b] above, from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid, apart from comply with the directions as at sub-para [a] above.”   

2.         As per facts of the case, the appellant/complainant was maintaining a saving bank account with the respondents/ opposite parties. He had been utilizing the credit card issued by the respondents till 20.06.2008. On the said date credit account of the appellant stood closed on making payment of Rs.2,000/- through cheque to the respondents. On 06.09.2013, a letter dated 27.08.2013 was received by the appellant, from the respondents, asking him to deposit an outstanding amount of Rs.11,584.29Ps., due for payment by him towards credit card account. It was further said in the above letter that, in case, he failed to make the payment as directed, lien would be marked on his saving bank account. In the meantime, a cheque in the sum of Rs.14,500/- issued by the appellant, in favour of one Rajeev Nakta, was dishonoured by the respondents on 02.09.2013, on the ground ‘insufficient funds’ in his (appellant) saving bank account. The appellant raised the matter with the respondents, however, when they failed to give any reply, consumer complaint was filed by him (appellant) before the Forum.
3.         In the reply filed, the respondents/opposite parties took a stand that against credit card account, an amount of Rs.13,584.29Ps., was outstanding, which was payable by the appellant. However, out of the said amount, only Rs.2,000/- had been paid by the appellant, as such, the respondents had rightly exercised their right by marking lien aforesaid. The remaining averments were denied being wrong.
4.         In the rejoinder filed, the appellant reiterated all the averments contained in the complaint and repudiated those, contained in the written version of the respondents.
5.         The parties led evidence, in support of their case.
6.         After hearing appellant in person, Counsel for the respondents and on going through the evidence and record of the case, the Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to, in the opening para of the instant order. 
7.         Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant, on the ground inadequate compensation has been granted by the Forum,
8.         We have heard the appellant in person, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence and record of the case, carefully. 
9.         On perusal of documents on record, it was found as a matter of fact, by the Forum that the respondents were wrong in putting up lien against saving bank account of the appellant. It was also found by the Forum that dishonoring of cheque aforesaid, was not justified, as there were sufficient funds available in the account of the appellant. The respondents were found guilty of providing deficient service by observing as under:-

 “8]       The complainant while reiterating his allegations, as mentioned in the complaint, had even placed on record the entire details of payments made to the OPs vide Ann.C-3/A filed along with his rejoinder.  The complainant had also claimed in his complaint that the OPs did not serve upon him any credit card statement or bill, since 20.6.2008, when he made the payment of Rs.2000/- on the demand of the collecting agent of the OPs, who received the same while claiming that this is the only outstanding amount against the credit card of the complainant and nothing remained outstanding after this payment.  The complainant has placed on record the Credit Card Statements for the period 20.6.2005 to 20.4.2007, along with his account statement of savings bank account maintained with the OPs for the period 20.6.2011 to 1.1.2015. 

9]       The OPs have not placed on record any document to prove that the complainant’s Credit Card Account remained unpaid since 20.6.2008  and that the complainant was still using the said Credit Card even after having made the payment of Rs.2000/- on 20.6.2008 and such amounts, which remained outstanding against him, continuously showed such outstanding in each of Credit Card Bill, which were being continuously raised in his name.  It is also surprising to notice that, even if at all, the complainant had not paid Rs.11,584/- since 20.6.2008, how could this amount remain the same to be recovered after 5 years without even adding a single penny towards penalty and interest.  The OPs have also failed to prove that the complainant was being continuously served with updated bills since 20.6.2008, wherein such outstandings were shown to be pending against him.   Interestingly, the OPs did not even honour their own words of Show Cause Period of 10 days, as per Ann.C-2 dated 27.8.2013, while demanding the complainant to settle his account, but exercised the lien within five days, as per Ann.C-4, dated 2.9.2013, whereas the OPs should have waited till 7^th of Sept., 2013 for the complainant to respond before such power to mark lien on his account was exercised.  It was on account of Ops having jumped on their own 10 days Show Cause Period that the complainant’s cheque (Ann.C-5) was dishonoured on 2.9.2013, causing him much embarrassment and loss of trust in the eyes of his perspective clients.        

10]      The act of the OPs in demanding the amount of Rs.11,584/- towards the Credit Card Accounts outstandings, without any valid proof amounts to deficiency in service on their part and even the act of exercising lien on the saving account of the complainant, without sufficient mandate is a grave error on their part.”

10.         Taking note of above facts, directions were issued to the respondents to remove lien shown against saving bank account of the appellant and further they were directed to pay consolidated compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the appellant for suffering mental agony, physical harassment and also on account of deficiency in providing service to him.
11.         By filing this appeal, the appellant has claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/- besides claiming litigation expenses to the tune of Rs.15,000/-.
12.         We are not inclined to accept prayer made by the appellant. It is on record that except dishonoring of cheque issued by the appellant, no monetary loss was caused to him, by the act of the respondents, in wrongly marking lien against his saving bank account.

                At the time of arguments, on our asking, it was disclosed by the appellant that qua cheque bouncing, the person in whose favour cheque was issued, has not initiated any civil or criminal proceedings. Under above circumstances, lumpsum compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- granted by the Forum to the appellant is fair and adequate. No case, whatsoever, has been made out by the appellant, for enhancement of compensation already granted by the Forum. 

13.         No other point, was urged, by the appellant.
14.         For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs. The order of the Forum is upheld.
15.         Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.         The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced.

19.09.2016

Sd/-

[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(DEV RAJ)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

        MEMBER

Rg