Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/380/2012

S. MUTHU KUMARAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE MANAGER, ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

23 Jul 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CHENNAI

BEFORE :  THIRU.J.JAYARAM                                   PRESIDING  JUDICIAL MEMBER

                                                      TMT.P.BAKIYAVATHI                               MEMBER

                                                                                                F.A.NO.380/2012

(Against the order in CC.No.432/2008, dated 08.04.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (South)

DATED THIS THE 23^rd DAY OF JULY 2015

S.Muthukumaran,

S/o.N.Subramanian,

No.F-1, Siva padma Flats,

4/1, East Mada Street,

Villivakkam,                                                     Appellant / Complainant

Chennai 600 049.

                              Vs

The Manager,

ICICI Bank,

Santhome Branch, Ground Floor,

ICICI Bank Towers,                                          Respondent / Opposite party

93, Santhome High Road,

Chennai 600 028.

          This appeal coming before us for final hearing on 14.07.2015 and on hearing the arguments of both sides and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:

Counsel for Appellant/ Complainant :  M/s.Lawthirst Associates          

Counsel for Respondent/Opposite party :  M/s.Sai Krishnan Associates   

J.JAYARAM,  PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.       The appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (South) in CC.No.432/2008, dated 08.04.2011 dismissing the complaint.

2.       The case of the complainant is that the complainant had availed credit card facility from the opposite party and he had a primary credit card and also add on cards provided by the opposite party and on perusal of the statement of accounts issued by the opposite party, the complainant found an unknown credit card No.5177 1941 5770 4013.  The opposite party had not issued any card bearing the above said number and it is a mistake committed by the opposite party.  The complainant contacted the opposite parties’ office several times and the opposite party did not take steps to rectify the error.  On 27.5.2008 he went to Anna Nagar ATM centre to operate his SB account and he found that his SB account was blocked by the opposite party and then he approached the Mount Road Zonal Manager office of the opposite party and the Zonal Manager informed him that his account was blocked due to nonpayment of bill of the aforesaid unknown credit card which was not issued by the opposite party and the opposite party had debited a sum of Rs.27,682/- from his SB account without any intimation.  The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service.

3.       According to the opposite party the complainant availed credit card facility with them and the complainant was provided with a primary card followed by add on cards.  One add on card bearing No.5177 1941 5770 4013 was issued to the complainant on 19.11.2007 which was received by the complainant on 21.11.2007 by showing his driving license bearing No.TN-010014563/2006, as proof of his identity and the card  was  used  by  the  complainant.   Further the opposite party exercised  their right  of the lien  and transferred a sum of Rs.27,682/- was debited from his SB account and was adjusted against the dues payable by the complainant for the above said credit card.  There is no deficiency in service on their part.

4.       The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint holding that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party.

5.       Aggrieved by the impugned order the complainant has preferred this appeal.

6.       According to the Respondent / opposite party the impugned add on card was dispatched to the complainant through courier and it has been delivered to the complainant on 21.11.2007 on verifying the complainant’s driving license bearing No.TN-010014563/2006, after checking his identity.  Thus the Respondent / opposite party has established that the impugned add on card was duly delivered to the complainant.  The complainant has not taken any steps to rebut and prove that the card was not delivered to him, atleast by producing his driving license.  Therefore we hold that the complainant / appellant has duly received the card sent by the opposite party and therefore there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party on this score.

7.       The further contention of the complainant is that the respondent / opposite arty debited a sum of Rs.27,682/- from his SB account and the amount was adjusted against the dues payable by the complainant to the opposite party for the impugned add on card without any intimation.  It is pertinent to note that as per the settled position of law the opposite party has every right to debit the amount from the complainant’s account and to adjust it against the dues on the add on card without intimation, exercising their right of lien.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in this regard.

8.       The District Forum has rightly held that there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and has rightly dismissed the complaint for proper reasons.

9.       We find no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decisions of the District Forum dismissing the complaint.  There is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

10.     In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum dismissing the complaint. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIYAVATHI                                                        J.JAYARAM

      MEMBER                                                     PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER

 

INDEX; YES/ NO

VL/D;/PJM/BANK