D.O.F. 18.05.2009
D.O.O. 27.12.2011
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri.K.Gopalan : President
Smt. K.P.Preethakumari: Member
Smt.M.D.Jessy : Member
Dated this the 27th day of December, 2011.
C.C.No.129/2009
Viswanathan Balakrishnan,
S/o. C.S. Balakrishnan,
Settha, : Complainant
R.C. Road, Payyambalam,
Kannur
(Rep. by Adv. C.K. Rathnakaran)
1. The Manager,
ICICI Bank, Credit Card Division,
Post Box No.14,
Ambattur Indstrial Estate,
Ambattur, Chennai - 58 : Opposite parties
2. The Manager,
ICICI Bank,
KVR Towers, Kannur.
(Both rep. by Adv. Shaijan George)
O R D E R
Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member.
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite parties to pay ` 60,000 with 8% interest as compensation and cost.
The complainant’s case is that he is the holder of credit card No.44774487506001 of the opposite party bank on 03.05.2009, he went to Malabar Gold Jewellery shop for purchasing gold ornaments and purchased gold ornaments for `1,12,000 and the card was declined. Immediately the complainant contacted the customer care and they informed that the card was rejected due to security reason. The complainant immediately requested to opposite party to install the existing credit limit of `1,15,000. The complainant can purchase goods worth `1,15,000 by using the credit card. The complainant waited there for two hours, anticipating that 1st opposite party will install the credit facility. But the opposite party did not comply the same and hence the complainant returned from jewellery after giving back the gold. The complainant is the H.L.A account holder of 1st opposite party for the last 5 years and using the facility and paying the credit amount without default. Due to the act of the opposite party, the complainant has caused mental agony amounts to unfair practice and deficiency of service. Hence this complaint.
The opposite parties appeared and filed their version in response to the notice issued by the Forum contending that the complainant has not contacted the opposite party on 03.05.09 and enquired about the credit limit and the credit card was issued to the complainant on stipulated condition. The risk factor in conducting the credit card operation is solely within the authority of the bank and has got the power and right to decline any purchase as stipulated in the terms and conditions provided to its customers along with welcome kit. To avoid suspected fraud, card is temporarily deactivated by the system. In such cases 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 and such right to declination is vested with bank as per the terms and conditions for the use of credit card. The complainant has appraised about the so called incident to the bank and the bank has given a proper reply to the complainant expressing regret to the incident, but enlightening him regarding the right of the bank to decline the purchase as per Clause III of welcome booklet in which the bank reserves the absolute discretion and liberty to decline or honour the authentication request on the card without assigning any reason. For gold and electronic purchase approval of high amount purchase is not permitted for the reason of security and cash withdrawn also has given a limit. All these aspects were made known to the complainant while delivering the card along with welcome kit as directed by RBI guidelines. For manual authentication queries, the payment records of the customer will also be taken into consideration. The opposite party cannot authenticate a credit facility if it smells any doubt regarding the transaction of possibility of non-payment. On going through the payment records, the complainant has not followed a satisfactory payment mode apart from making the payment of minimum amount due. As on 22.06.2009 the complainant has to pay ` 28,360.59 to opposite party as the total amount due and has not bothered to make the payment due to the bank. The complainant was well aware that the payment to his purchase may be declined by the bank at its discretion. There is no need to cause any mental agony to him due to the declination of payment. There is no element of unfair practice or deficiency in service. So the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
Upon the above rival contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of PW1, PW2, DW1 and Ext.A1 and B1 to B5.
The case of the complainant is that on 30.05.2009, he had purchased gold ornaments for ` 1,12,000 from Malabar gold using his credit card and the same was declined, eventhough his credit limit is `1,15,000. In order to prove his case he was examined himself as PW1 and PW2 and produced the brochure with conditions of credit card. In order to disprove the case opposite party also examined DW1 and produced documents such as Power of Attorney, account statements 48 in numbers, terms and conditions of credit card, attested copy of application, attested copy of account statement. According to the complainant he is using the credit card for the last 5 years and was paying the credit amount without any default and had contacted the opposite party before purchase and they had assured that he can avail credit facility of `1,15,000. But according to opposite party, the credit card was issued to the opposite party with stipulated conditions and the risk factor is conducting the credit card operation is solely with the bank and has got the power and right to decline the purchase. Moreover gold and electronic purchase, of high amount is not permitted for the reason of security and cash withdrawal also has limit which were made known to the complainant while delivering the card along with welcome kit. Moreover the complainant has not followed a satisfactory payment mode apart from making minimum of payment. In Ext.A1 details regarding credit summary shows that credit limit including cash is `1,50,000 available credit including cash in `1,12,726.06 and cash limit is `45,000. The complainant, PW1 also deposed that “Fsâ cardsâ limit H¶c e£w cq]-bm-Wv. km[\w hm§m³ 1,12,726 cq]bpw cash withdraw sN¿m³ 45,000 cq]bpw Bbn-cp-¶p. 03.05.09\v Fsâ credit cardsâ limit `1,15,000 cq]-bmWv F¶v ]d-ªXv icn-bm-Wv” . So this substantiates that on the date of alleged purchase, the complainant has a credit limit for purchase of `1,15,000. But according to opposite party, on the date of alleged purchase there is a due of ` 22,269.94 in the account of the complainant. In order to substantiate this, the opposite party has produced Ext.B2 statement of account, 48 in number, and as per this statement dated 28.05.2009, shows that ` 26,058.73 is due as per the statement dated 28.06.2009, there is a due of ` 30,006.73. This shows that the complainant had already availed a credit of ` 26,058.73 out of ` 1,15,000. Moreover opposite party submitted that complainant is a person having a history of non-satisfactory repayment. But the complainant has not produced any documents to disprove the contention. On the other hand, the B1 statement of account substantiate the case of OP that the repayment history of the complainant is not satisfactory. Moreover according to opposite party the credit card was declined due to security reason also. The PW2 who is the staff of the jewellery from which the complainant has tried to purchase ornaments deposed before the Forum that “Credit card D]-tbm-Kn¨v dealings \S-¯m-dpv and further deposed that thsdbpw credit cardIÄ decline sNbvX tIkp-IÄ Dv. credit card decline sN¿m³ ]e Imc-W-§Ä Dv. kzÀ®hpw Ce-Ivt{Sm-WnIvkv km[-\-§fpw bulk purchase\v {ian¨p Ign-ªm decline sN¿-s¸Spw” He further deposed that “R§-fpsS Øm]-\-¯n-\-Sp¯v Alukas Jewellery Dv. 2 hÀjw ap¼v hymP credit card D]-tbm-Kn¨v kzÀ®w X«n-sb-Sp¯ hnhcw Adnbmw.” So from the above discussion it is seen that the credit card can be declined due to security reason. In this case also it can be seen that it was declined due to security reason and also due to non-satisfactory history of repayment. The complainant’s further case is that eventhough he had contacted immediately the customer care service of 1st opposite party and requested to install the existing credit limit of ` 1,15,000. But the opposite parties have not done so, eventhough the complainant had waited there for 2 hours. But the complainant has not produced any documents to show that he had contacted and waited for installation of credit limit of ` 1,15,000. Moreover it is seen that the complainant had already due an amount of ` 26,058.73 during these time and has not produced any documents to prove that he had already paid the due amount to opposite party. So from the available evidence on record, it is seen that the complainant had failed to substantiate his case and hence we are of opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed and order passed accordingly.
In the result, complaint dismissed. No cost.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Credit card statement.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Power of attorney.
B2. Account Statement (48 in numbers).
B3. Terms and conditions.
B4. Attested copy of application.
B5. Attested copy of Account Statement.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
PW2. Niyad V.N.
Witness examined for the opposite party
DW1. Babu Sreejith N.
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
