KERAL A STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
VAZHUTHACAUD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO.77/12
JUDGMENT DATED 16.10.2012
PRESENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
Viswanathan Balakrishnan,
S/o C.S.Balakrishnan
Residing at “Swetha”, R.C.Road, -- APPELLANT
Payyambalam, P.O.Kannur 670001
Kannur Taluk, Kannur District.
(By Adv.D.Ganeshkumar & Ors)
Vs.
1. The Manager,
ICICI Bank Credit Card Ltd;
Post Box No.14,
Ambattur, Chennai – 58. -- RESPONDENTS
2. The Manager,
ICICI Bank, Grand Plaza,
Prabhath Complex, Kannur – 670 001.
(By Adv.Suja)
JUDGMENT
SHRI.K.CHANDRADAS NADAR,JUDICIAL MEMBER
The appellant was the complainant in CC.No.129/09 in the file of CDRF, Kannur. The respondents were opposite parties. The complainant alleged that he was the holder of credit card issued by the opposite party bank and on 3.5.09 he went to Malabar Gold Jewellery shop for purchasing gold ornaments. He purchased gold ornaments for Rs.1,12,000/-. But the shop declined to accept the credit card. Immediately, the complainant contacted the customer care. They informed that the card was rejected due to security reasons. The complainant immediately requested the opposite party to install the existing credit limit of Rs.1,15,000/-. The complainant can purchase goods worth Rs.1,15,000/- by using credit card. The complainant waited there for two hours, anticipating that the first opposite party would install the credit facility. But they did not do so and the complainant returned from the Jewellery after giving back, the purchased gold. The complainant is the HLA account holder of 1st opposite party for the last 5 years and was using the facility and paying the credit amount without default. The act of the opposite parties caused mental agony to the complainant and amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint claiming compensation.
2. The opposite parties filed joint version and contended that the complainant had not contacted the opposite party on 3.5.09 as alleged. Credit card was issued to the complainant on stipulated conditions. The risk factor in using the credit card is solely within the authority of the bank and the bank has got the power and right to decline any purchase as stipulated in the terms and conditions provided to its customers. To avoid suspected fraud, the card was temporarily deactivated by the system. In such a case the customer is supposed to contact the customer care channel and on confirmation the card will be reactivated with due regard to the payment records of the customer. Such precautionary measures are taken to safeguard the interest of the customers as well as the bank. The complainant has apprised about the incident to the bank and the bank has given a proper reply. For gold and electronic purchaseS approval of high amount purchases is not permitted for reasons of security and the cash withdrawn is given a limit. For manual authentication queries, the payment records of the customer is also to be taken into consideration.
3. On going through the payment records of the complainant, it was found that he had not followed a satisfactory repayment schedule. As on 22.6.09, the complainant had to pay Rs.28,360.59 to the opposite parties as the total amount due. He had not bothered to make the payment due to the bank. No mental agony was caused to the complainant due to the fact that payment was declined. There was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service as alleged. Hence the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
4. Before the CDRF, Kannur, complainant and one witness were examined as PWs 1 and 2. Ext.A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. One witness was examined on the side of the opposite parties and Exts.B1 to B5 were marked on their side. The Forum held that deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties was not established and as such dismissed the complaint. Hence the appeal by the complainant.
5. The only question that arises for consideration is whether deficiency in service on the part of the respondents is established and if so whether the appellant is entitled to claim compensation.
6. It is not disputed that the complainant is the holder of credit card issued by the opposite parties. It is also in evidence that the credit card limit was Rs.1,15,000/-. Out of the said limit Rs.1,12,726/- was available for purchase of goods. The limit available for withdrawal of cash was Rs.45,000/-. On 3.5.09 the limit of his credit card was Rs.1,15,000/-. These facts were admitted by the complainant. According to him on 3.5.09 he went to the Malabar Gold Jewellery shop and purchased gold ornaments worth Rs.1,12,000/- and offered the credit card which was declined. The credit card limit was not installed despite request to the bank. The allegation that the complainant contacted the opposite party is denied. Even if the denial is not true the reasons urged on behalf of the respondents to decline the credit card purchase require examination. Firstly, it is contended that fraudulent purchases using credit card is most prevalent in the case of purchase of gold items and electronic items. So, the bank had to be extra-cautious and the credit card facility was deactivated. 2ndly it is contended that the repayment history of the complainant was not at all satisfactory. Thirdly, it is contended that as on the date of the alleged purchase an amount of Rs.22,269.94 was due in the account of the complainant. Together with the admitted purchase of gold ornaments worth Rs.1,12,000/- the limit of the credit card was exceeded beyond the permitted maximum. Even if the first argument is not that much convincing because it was the duty of the bank to clear the purchase once no fraud was involved the other two reasons require close examination. The complainant produced Ext.A1 credit card summary. The opposite parties have produced Ext.B2 account statements 48 numbers and Ext.B5 attested copy of account statement. As observed by the Forum, it is quite obvious from these statements that the history of repayment by the complainant was not satisfactory. As on the date of purchase, the amount due to the bank was Rs.22,269.94. Together with the value of the purchased items the credit card limit was exceeded. That was sufficient reason for the bank to decline the credit card purchase alleged by the complainant. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondents under the above circumstances. Hence the complaint was rightly dismissed by the Forum.
In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed, but without costs.
K.CHANDRADAS NADAR -- JUDICIAL MEMBER
SL
