O R D E R<br /> <br /> SRI.D. KRISHNAPPA, PRESIDENT:<br /> <br /> The brief facts of the complaint filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that he is a customer of Ops having a credit card and was using credit card facility. That he after availing credit card facility was promptly and regularly paying dues through cheques but the Ops are unnecessarily charging him unnecessary interest, EMI charges, EMI interest, transfer debit, service tax, late fee etc., violating the terms of the credit card by burdening him. The Ops in the year 2006 intimated him showing out standing amount of Rs.69,592.78 without furnishing statement and without showing under what provision they were imposing the above charges. After receipt of the communication he got issued a legal notice on 27/02/2006 with all details requesting Op to furnish statement and other details deducting the excess amount in a sum of Rs.39,359/- and refund the excess amount to him as the Op has deducted that amount in excess. But the Op kept quite for long time to the legal notice. But subsequently in the year 2010, ops without issuing a lien notice has forfeited a sum of Rs.77,219.86 from his account. Despite issue of legal notice dated 24/03/2010 Ops have not taken any action and therefore calling this act of Ops as deficient has prayed for a direction to the Ops to pay him Rs.77,219.86 which has been forfeited from his account, to award damages of Rs.20,000/- and to pay cost.<br /> <br /> 2. Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed version contending that complaint is not maintainable, is barred by limitation and calling upon the complainant to put to the strict proof of the allegations made. Ops have admitted that the complainant is their customer availing credit facility. Ops have denied the allegation that they were not issuing statement of transaction. They have also denied that they have forfeited the complainant’s money without issuing any notice and stated that they have issued a lien notice to the complainant on 19/02/2010. It is further contended that the complainant who availed credit facility through his credit card was not prompt in repaying the credit availed. As on 19/02/2010, the complainant was due Rs.77,219.86 and the complainant by crediting the contractual obligation committed default in paying the outstanding amount which remained un-cleared warranting imposition of other charges. Ops by further contending that the complainant was very irregular in repaying the amount due under the credit card and when the complainant committed default in repayment of the card dues, they imposed other legal charges and Ops further denying any deficiency in their service have contended that by exercising their lien recovered the credit card dues from the account of the complainant and thereby they have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In the course of enquiry into the complaint, complainant and power of attorney holder of the Ops have filed their affidavit evidence reproducing what they have sated in their respective complaint and version. Complainant along with the complaint has produced a copy of the legal notice he got issued to the Op, his own calculation sheet, a letter of the first Op dated 04/03/2010 informing the complainant about debiting of the card amount to the account of the complainant. Ops have produced copies of statement, copies of the application given by the complainant for issue of credit card and copies of statement of the credit card account of the complainant. We have heard the counsel for both parties and perused the records.<br /> <br /> 4. On the above contentions, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant proves that the Ops have caused deficiency in their service in debiting certain amount to the account of the complainant claiming to be due under the complainant’s credit card.<br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No.1 : In the negative<br /> Point No.2 : See the final order<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. Answer on point No.1: Ops in their version have contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and have elaborated by contending that complainant himself has sated that the Ops as on 2006 called upon him to pay credit card outstanding amount of Rs.69,572.98 and therefore stated that if he had aggrieved by the claim made in the year 2006 he ought to have filed a complaint within 2 years from 2006 but did not file a complaint and filed during 2010. Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation and have prayed for dismissal of the same. Whereas the counsel appearing for the complainant inviting our attention to the letter of Ops dated 04/03/2010 submitted that Ops claimed to have exercising their lien debited a sum of Rs.77,219.86 from his account without any legal right and therefore submitted that the complainant aggrieved by this act of the Ops in debiting that amount has filed this complaint and therefore argued that the complaint is in time. Though we see that there had been some dispute between the parties with regard to the credit card dues and the complainant is referring to the claim made by the Ops in the year 2006 but thereafter it appear that the parties did not have any correspondences and both parties there after kept quite for some time and then Ops woke up on 04/03/2010 after debiting a sum of Rs.77,219.86 to the account of the complainant informed the complainant through a letter. Therefore, the complainant who after coming to know the debit of amount from his account definitely is an aggrieved person and has filed this complaint. Therefore, this complaint considering the act of Ops against which it is filed cannot be held as barred by limitation and this letter should be construed has given cause of action to this complaint.<br /> <br /> 7. Coming to the merits of the case, the complainant’s allegation found to be has no beginning and no end. Because he admits to had availed a credit card and was availing credit card facility from the Ops bank. He has not come with clear picture whether he was paying all the credit card dues as and when he was using the card or whether he was due any amount at any time or not. In Para 6 of his complaint has admitted that the Ops during the year 2006 informed him to pay credit card outstanding amount including using of the cards as per outstanding balance Rs.69,592.78. The complainant has not denied his liability to the Ops under the credit card. If the complainant’s were to be sure he was not due any amount as on 2006 he could have said that he was not due at all or if he had paid some amount and was due only part of it he could have stated so. What he has stated is that the Ops have claimed that amount without furnishing the statement and has further stated as if the Ops have levied several charges like interest, EMI interest, EMI charges, EMI processing fee, service tax etc., violating the guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India but the complainant has not produced any such guidelines of the Reserve Bank of India in violation of which Ops have imposed those charges on him. It is also not the case that Rs.69,592.78 claimed by the Ops in the year 2006 was not consisting of any credit card dues and the entire amount was towards these charges. When the complainant did not pay the credit card dues, naturally Ops are entitle to levy certain charges and therefore that cannot be said as over charge unless complainant is able to prove it. The complainant after receipt of such demand from the Op during the year 2006 did not take any step either to contact the Ops to ascertain the correctness of the amount claimed but not what are all the charges that levied on him and to see whatever the amount legally due from him was paid and the account is closed. He did not choose to do so. He did not even challenge that claim made by the Ops by filing any complaint before the consumer forum or before any other authority but left that dues and claim of the Ops as it was and it started moving towards higher side by subsequent levy interest, late payment charges, etc., etc.,<br /> <br /> 8. The counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant did not question the amount claimed from him in the year 2006. That he did not approach the Ops for any kind of settlement and stated when card amount became over due, Op had no option but to impose penal interest, over due charges, service tax etc. and the same has accumulated and that the complainant on 08/07/2007 paid only Rs.16.210/- but did not clear the entire dues and therefore, stated that the complainant has not disputed the amount due at any time and his conduct of paying only partial amount of Rs.16,210/- against total amount of Rs.77,219.86 is nothing but the acknowledgment of his liability and therefore submitted for dismissal of the complaint. Ops have also produced a copy of the statement evidencing partial payment made by the complainant by producing copy of the statement. The counsel for the complainant has not disputed the fact of this partial payment made by the complainant and as relied upon by the Ops. Complainant thereafter again kept quite by not making any further payments and has resulted in accumulation of Rs.77,219.86. That the Ops considering no response from the complainant stated to had addressed a letter to the complainant and debited that amount to the account of the complainant by further offering an opportunity to the complainant to meet them if he was in need of any clarification. On considering the entire facts placed before us we find no merits in the allegation of the complainant, that he was not given the statement of account and the imposition of certain charges on the over due amount is against the Reserve Bank of India guide lines. When the complainant admitted to had received of demand notice from the Ops in the year 2006 itself he ought to have taken up the cause with the Ops to get it cleared either by paying whatever the amount was due or by getting the mistake rectified if at all if there was any by apprising the Ops. The complainant having had not chosen either of these ways available to him slept over the matter allowing the outstanding amount to accumulate. The Ops finding no other way to go found to have exercised banker’s lien and debited to the account of the complainant which cannot be termed as deficiency in the service of the Ops. The complaint in our view is therefore devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. As the result, we answer point No.1 in the negative and pass the following order.<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer. Got it transcribed and corrected. Pronounced in the Open forum on this the 30th September 2010.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />