Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

297/2008

R.B.Ferozkhan - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

R.Karthikayan

03 Apr 2018

ORDER

                                                                                                                            Date of Filing  : 31.07.2008                                                                                                                                                 Date of Order : 03.04.2018

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

@ 2^ND Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L,                    : PRESIDENT

                 TMT. K. AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.                                :  MEMBER-I

              DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II

                                                                                        CC. NO.297 /2008

TUESDAY THE 3^rd DAY OF APRIL 2018

                                             

Mr. R.B. Ferozkhan,

No.4/20, P.T.C. Colony,

Pallava Nagar,

Maduravoyal,

Chennai – 600 095.                                                       .. Complainant.

                                                            ..Vs..

 

The Manager,

ICICI – Cards Division,

No.683, Anna Salai,                                     

Chennai – 600 006.                                                    ..  Opposite party.

 

Counsel for complainant                :  M/s. R. Karthikeyan & others    

Counsel for opposite party            :  M/s. S. Namasivayam & others

 

ORDER

THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT

       This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section  12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 seeking direction to restore(Activate) the Credit Card without any condition and inform the same to all the merchant establishment and to pay a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for distress, mental agony and for deficiency of service  and to pay cost of the complaint.

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

The complainant submits that he was issued a Credit Card bearing No.4477467800546001 from the opposite party.  The complainant availed personal loan against the Credit Cards in the year 2007 to the tune of Rs.2,46,000/- from the opposite party .  At the time of availing loan, the opposite party had stated that the holiday period (Breathing period) will be given for a period of 12 months and   thereafter the complainant shall start repayment of loan.  The total period is from 36 months to 60 months.  The complainant submits that the said loan was issued in the month of July 2007  only after the perusal of track records of the complainant from 2004 onwards.  It is further submitted that to his shock and surprise the opposite party have issued account statements from August 2007.  Immediately the same was enquired with the opposite party for which, he was replied that it is a routine process and requested the loan amount.  

2.     The complainant submits that the opposite party mechanically blocked the Complainant’s Credit Card accounts and sent a monthly account statement holding, the complainant is liable to pay Rs.3,28,700/- and raised a dispute before the Lok Adalat in No.32762 wherein the complainant’s Counsel appeared before the Lok Adalat on 01.04.2008. But the opposite party was not ready with the matter as such the files was not available.  Hence the case was closed.  The complainant sent legal notice dated:26.06.2008 to the opposite party to pay damages of Rs.3,00,000/- for the break of terms of the contract and Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony sustained by the complainant.  The said notice was received by the opposite party on 01.07.2008 for which the opposite party had replied dated:14.07.2008.   Hence the opposite party has committed an illegal act for which, the complainant shall be  compensated by way of damages.  Hence the complaint.

3. The brief averments in the written version filed by the opposite party is as follows:

        The opposite party denies all the allegations those are specifically admitted herein and the complainant is put to strict proof of the same. The opposite party submits that the complainant has filed this  case on his credit card No.4477467800546001 amounting to Rs.69,150.23 as of 10^th of October 2008 and on his Loan Card No.9401270102024002 amounting to Rs.2,95,961.23. The complainant was given credit card no.4477467800546001 and after few initial payments of the dues the complainant defaulted continuously and is due and liable on the credit card No.4477467800546001 amounting to Rs.69,150.23 as of 10^th of October 2008 and on his Loan Card No.9401270102004002 amounting to Rs.2,95,961.23.  

4.     The transactions between the complainant and the opposite party is subject to the conditions that in case of failure to pay for the services availed by him within the prescribed period he will be charged interest and penal interest, to ensure that the money is promptly paid.  The allegation that at the time of availing the loan the opposite party had stated that the holiday period (Breathing period) will be given for a period of 12 months and thereafter, the complainant shall start repayment of personal loan are denied as wholly baseless. The allegation that the total period of repayment is from 36 to 60 months is totally false.  The complainant was issued a loan for a sum of Rs.2,46,000/- on 18.07.2007 along with an Amortization Schedule, which clearly shows that the said loan has to be repaid in Equated Monthly Installment of Rs.9,522.93 for a period of 36 months and it starts from 18^th August 2007.

5.     The allegation that the complainant was shocked to receive the statement from August 2007 and on enquiry, the opposite party requested the complainant to repay the loan is totally denied.   Having received the loan amount along with Amortization Schedule, how can the complainant be shocked on seeing the statement.  The allegations that the opposite party mechanically with a malafide intention had blocked the Credit Card Accounts and the same was also informed to the merchant establishment is false.   The complainant has defaulted and is due and liable on the credit card No.4477467800546001 amounting to Rs.69,150.23 as of 10^th October 2008

and on his Loan Card No.9401270102024002 amounting to Rs.2,95,961.23.   Having received that loan for an amount of Rs.2,46,000/-, the complainant is supposed to start the EMI of Rs.9,522.93 from 18^th August 2007, the complainant has paid only Rs.6,220/- for the month of August 2007 and has defaulted the EMI continuously for the month of September, October & November 2007.   As the complainant has continuously defaulted the EMI, the opposite party has pre-closed the loan.  The allegation that the matter came up before the Lok Adalat, the opposite party was not ready with the matter as such the files was not available, hence the case was closed is false.  

6.     The information available in CIBIL is a factual record of borrowing, repayment including the time of repayment and closure compiled from information received from different banks and institutions.  Every individual transaction is recorded as it happens and it is allowed to be there forever.  It is further submitted that the information available in CIBIL is not a list  of defaulters but only a record of the credit transactions.  Neither the information available in CIBIL nor any other regulation of CIBIL bar any banks from giving credit to anyone.  In the circumstances, the allegations that this had ultimately damaged the reputation and causing distress and mental agony are denied as totally baseless and the opposite party cannot be held liable for deficiency of service and is liable to be dismissed. 

7.     In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A18 are

marked.  Proof affidavit of the opposite party filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 are marked.

8.      The point for consideration before the Forum is:-

1. Whether the complainant is entitled to restore the credit card without any condition as prayed for?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- towards compensation for mental agony with cost as prayed for?

9. On point:

Both parties filed their respective written arguments.  Heard the opposite party Counsel also.  Perused the records namely the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents.  The complainant pleaded and contended that he has applied for ICICI credit card and was issued by the opposite party vide No.4477467800546001.  The complainant also availed the facilities related to the credit card and paid dues promptly without any delay or default.  While so, in the month of July 2007 the opposite party, issued a personal loan of Rs.2,46,000/- under credit card with the assurance that the holiday period for repayment is of 12 months.  The complainant also started to repay the personal loan which is for a total period of 36 months to 60 months. 

10.    The complainant further contended that on tracking the record he was shocked and surprised that the opposite party has issued the statement of accounts from the month of August 2007 as per Ex.B2 during the holiday period of 12 months.  Thereafter, the opposite party sent monthly account statement claiming huge amount of Rs.3,28,700/-in Ex.A13 which was duly disputed before the Lok Adalat which is Ex.A16 in case No.32762  wherein, the complainant’s Counsel present and ready for settlement.  But the opposite party has not appeared before the Lok Adalat.    Since the opposite party repeatedly sending account statement and claiming huge amount the complainant issued Ex.A17, legal notice dated: 26.06.2008 for which the opposite party sent a reply with untenable contentions and deactivated the credit card.  Hence the complainant is constrained to file this case. 

11.    The learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that admittedly after accepting the terms and conditions of the opposite party, due credit card bearing no.4477467800546001 was issued to the complainant.  The transactions between the complainant and the opposite party is one of the contract of the service of the opposite party subject to the conditions that due charges and interest shall be levied.

12 .   Further, the learned Counsel for the opposite party contended that during the month of June 2010, the complainant was liable to pay a sum of Rs.98,371.76 as per Ex.B2.  But the opposite party has not produced any statement of accounts.  Further, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant has purchased high value articles using credit card and has not paid the due amount properly.  To prove such fact, the opposite party has not produced any record.  Further, the contention of the opposite party is that the complainant is a chronic defaulter in payment of monthly dues as per the statement of accounts, Ex.B2.  The contention of holiday period of 12 is imaginary.   Since the complainant has not paid the amount properly, due information given to CIBIL and deactivated the credit card.  The complainant also has not stated in the complaint or proved that he has paid the entire amount.   On a careful perusal of Ex.A13, a sum of Rs.3,28,700/- is due and as per Ex.B2 a sum of Rs.68,000/- is due and there is no document to prove that the complainant has paid the entire amount.  Hence the allegation of deficiency of service raised by the complainant is unsustainable.   Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the complainant has not paid the entire amount due to the opposite party and not entitled to the relief claimed on the basis of deficiency of service or unfair trade practice and thus the points are answered accordingly. 

In the result this complaint is dismissed.  No costs.

          Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  03^rd day  of  April 2018. 

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT

 

 

Complainant’s side documents:

Ex.A1- 10.03.2007         - Copy of Monthly Statement

Ex.A2- 11.04.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A3- 11.05.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A4- 11.06.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A5- 11.07.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A6- 11.08.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A7- 11.09.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A8- 11.10.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A9- 11.11.2007- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A10- 11.01.2008- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A11- 11.02.2008- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A12-10.03.2008- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A13- 11.04.2008- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A14- 10.05.2008- Copy of Monthly statement.

Ex.A15- 18.07.2007- Copy of Amortization Schedule.

Ex.A16- 25.03.2008- Copy of Lok Adalat Notice

Ex.A17- 26.06.2008- Copy of Legal Notice.

Ex.A18-14.07.2008- Copy of Reply.

Opposite party’s side document: -     

Ex.B1 – 19.01.2006 -Copy of Power of Attorney

Ex.B2 – Copy of statement of accounts.

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT