Per :- Mr. J. L. Deshpande, President Place : Bandra -*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*- ::::: JUDGMENT ::::: Facts giving rise to this complaint may be stated, in brief, as follows :- The Opponent is Credit Card Division of HDFC Bank Limited. The Complainant was issued credit card by the bank. The Complainant was also having saving account as Salary Account with the Opponent- Bank. The Complainant had not used Credit Card after August, 2006. 2 According to the Complainant, without giving any intimation to the Complainant and without her consent amount in sum of Rs.25,795/- was debited from her saving account, vide, entry, dated, 09.11.2008. 3 It is alleged by the Complainant that this action on the part of the Opponent –Bank is unauthorized and illegal. Making allegations of deficiency in service against the bank, the Complainant filed this complaint and sought relief of direction to the bank to reverse debit entry in sum of Rs.25,795/- and compensation in sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. 4 The Opponent –Bank filed written version of defence by filing affidavit of its Representative – Mr. Anand Prabhu. The Opponent –Bank explained that amount in sum of Rs.25,585/- was outstanding in the credit card account of the Complainant and the Complainant had not paid the same. The Opponent –Bank had issued notice, dated, 24.10.2008 to the Complainant that they placed “Hold on Funds” as there was an outstanding amount in sum of Rs.25,585/- in the credit card account of the Complainant. When the outstanding balance was not paid by the Complainant, the Opponent –Bank invoked Section-171 of the Contract Act and Condition in the Credit Card Agreement and Hold on Funds was effected. Thus the Opponent –Bank justified its action. 5 Both the parties filed their affidavits and documents and written arguments. We have gone through the same. Following points arise for our consideration. Nos. | Points | Considerations | 1 | Whether the Complainant has proved that the Opponent –Bank is guilty of deficiency in service by interfering with her saving account ? | No | 2 | Whether the Complainant is entitled to direction against the Opponent –Bank and compensation ? | No | 3 | What order ? | Complaint dismissed |
Reasons for Findings :- 6 At exhibit-c of the complaint, the Complainant has produced copy of the e-mail, dated, 07.11.2008 in which the Complainant admit a statement that she had already made the settlement payment to the Opponent –Bank in 2007 and the Opponent –Bank was interfering with her saving account. In the complaint, in paragraph no.2, the Complainant has alleged that the Complainant used to get calls from the recovery agency and after a lot of discussion the recovery agency had offered settlement of Rs.12,000/- against the Credit card, waving of additional interest. The Complainant has also alleged that she made payment till May, 2007. 7 The Opponent –Bank in its written version of defence paragraph no.4 has denied these statements. 8 Now, it was for the Complainant to produce material on record regarding the outstanding amount in her credit card account, payments made by her from time to time, payment of Rs.12,000/- as alleged by her and last debit balance in the credit card account. The Complainant has not produced any evidence to this effect. Merely saying that the Complainant did not use credit card after 2006 is not sufficient. The Complainant has not honestly brought on the record all the facts and figures about her credit card transactions. 9 On the contrary, the Opponent –Bank had issued notice to the Complainant on 24.10.2008 which shows that outstanding amount in the credit card account was Rs.25,585/-. In the same, notice it was submitted that the payments in the credit card account were irregular. The Complainant herself has produced this notice. The Opponent –Bank has produced a copy of the credit card agreement and there was clause in the agreement which confirmed right of lein and set off on the Opponent –Bank. In addition to that Section-171 of Indian Contract Act confers General Right of Lein on the Bank in respect of the amount found due. Thus, the Opponent –Bank appears to have exercised that right under the agreement as well as Section-171 of Contract Act. 10 The Complainant has failed to establish that there was no outstanding balance in her credit card account and settlement offer was accepted by her in the year, 2007 and was acted upon and the outstanding balance was wiped of and no amount was due to the Opponent –Bank under the credit card account. Merely saying that she had not used credit card after, 2006 is not sufficient to infer that there was no outstanding balance in the said account. 11 In view of the above discussion, we hold that action on the part of the Opponent –Bank to exercise Right of Lein vis-à-vis saving bank account of the Complainant was not arbitrary or unauthorized. Thus, the Complainant has failed to establish deficiency in the service on the part of the Opponent –Bank. With this, we proceed to pass the following order. ORDER (1) The complaint stands dismissed with no order as to costs. (2) Certified copies of this order to be furnished to both the parties, free of costs, as per rule.
| | [HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT | | 
