State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Icici Bank Ltd. vs Rohit Sharma on 18 July, 2012
IN THE STATE COMMISSION:DELHI IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI (Constituted under Section 9 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986) Date of Decision: 18.07.2012 (1) First Appeal No.2010/530 (Arising out of Order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.590/2009) 1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Appellants/Opposite Parties 9A- Phelps Building, through Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal Conaught Place, advocate New Delhi. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rohini, Sector -8, New Delhi. 3. ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Versus Sh. Rohit Sharma, .Respondent/Complainant C-39, Ramesh Nagar, through Sh. G.L. Aggarwal, New Delhi Authorised Representative. (2) First Appeal No.2010/5321 (Arising out of Order dated 12.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.592/2009) 1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Appellants/Opposite Parties 9A- Phelps Building, through Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal Conaught Place, advocate New Delhi. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rohini, Sector -8, New Delhi. 3. ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Versus Sh. Rohit Sharma, .Respondent/Complainant C-39, Ramesh Nagar, through Sh. G.L. Aggarwal, New Delhi Authorised Representative. (3) First Appeal No.2010/531 (Arising out of Order dated 13.05.2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum( New Delhi) M-Block, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi in Complaint Case No.591/2009) 1. ICICI Bank Ltd. Appellants/Opposite Parties 9A- Phelps Building, through Mr. Pradeep Aggarwal Conaught Place, advocate New Delhi. 2. ICICI Bank Ltd., Rohini, Sector -8, New Delhi. 3. ICICI Bank Ltd., Videocon Tower, Jhandewalan, New Delhi. Versus Sh. Rohit Sharma, .Respondent/Complainant C-39, Ramesh Nagar, through Sh. G.L. Aggarwal, New Delhi Authorised Representative. CORAM Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi ... President Mr. Salma Noor, Member
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President
1. The above numbered three appeals, filed by the appellant/OP ICICI Bank arise from three separate common orders passed by the District Forum, involving similar question of facts and law and are therefore consolidated together for the purpose of hearing and disposal.
2. Complainants grouse, in all these three complaints filed against the OP ICICI Bank and its ancillaries OP No.2 and 3, is that despite that he never applied before the ICICI Bank for obtaining any credit card, yet the OPs on basis of forged and false credit (in all three in number) are harassing him and under duress are trying to recover the following amount from the complainant, the details of the credit cards and the amounts being alleged to be due against the complainant in all three complaints are given as under:
Complaint case No. Credit Card No. Amount Due C-590/2009 5239511145742003 14829.30P C-591/2009 4477587508674001 14829.30P C-592/2009 5176537196877003 30455.87P
3. According to the complainant the OPs are claiming to have issue these credit cards in his name, on his application at his Noida address i.e. C-75, G. Floor, Noida(UP), while the truth remained that he never lived at Noida and is residing at C-39, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi, since childhood, his PAN number and Ration card which are in his name are also issued against the same address. He had never applied for these credit cards and they were never delivered to him. Despite all that since 11.12.2008 OP is utilizing his muscleman who all making uncalled for efforts to recover the amounts in question from the complainant. His prayer in all three complaints is consistant that OPs be directed to withdraw entire claim amount in reference of unsolicited credit cards, and to pay him a compensation of Rs.90,000/-, cost for harassment and inconvenience, and Rs.20000/- as costs in each complaint.
4. OPs by filing a joint written statement in each complaint have opposed the claim alleging that the complainant has no valid cause of action in his favour, and has not come with clean hands before the Forum. All the three credit cards in question were supplied to the complainant, through its registered courier services provider, Express IT, which were received by the Secretary of the complainant by giving reference of complainant PAN Card No.BSRPS1047R. All details of the credit cards were also supplied to the complainant, when he approached the OPs for that purpose. The OPs bank alleged that the complainant used the credit card of the OP Bank from their inception till date and now to avoid the payment due over the credit cards, is denying the very existence of the credit cards. The OPs denied to have made any threatening calls or using abusive language or employment of musclemen to recover the amount due against the complainant.
5. The contention of the complainant in all the three complaints foud favour with the District Forum, who by three separate orders allowed the complaints of the complainant and directed the OP Bank to stop operation of the above mentioned credit cards and to reverse the dues and to pay double the penalty of the amount due and also ordered to pay Rs.50,000/- ( in complaint case No.592/2009), Rs.20,000/- (In complaint case No.591/2009) and Rs.90,000/- (in complaint case No.590/2009) as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs in each complaint.
6. That is what brings the OPs bank in appeals before this Commission.
7. We have heard Sh. Praveen Aggarwal, counsel for the appellant OP Bank and Sh. G.L. Aggarwal authorized representative of the respondent and the father of the respondent in all the appeals.
8. The District Forum found that this was a case of unsolicited issue of credit card. It has been observed that Bank has resorted to the practice of supplying credit cards, without being demanded. The finding of the Forum is based on evidence, which it has mentioned in its order, and is wholly justified. The Forum found prima facie variation in the signatures of the complainant on the application forms for issuance of credit cards, and the signatures on the complaint. The Forum found that there was manifest difference in two signatures which was clearly observable.
9. The address of the complainant was also found to be wrongly given by the appellant Bank, because the complainant has been residing at another address in Delhi and not in Noida. The documentary proof of the same was furnished by the complainant/respondent and the copies of ration card, PAN Card and Income Tax Return were filed to show his Delhi address.
10. It becomes thus clear that the credit cards were supplied without asking for promotion of business by the appellant Bank and the appellant Bank also resorted to the practice of threats and bullying for recovery of the amount which was not only based on a false claim, but also otherwise unwarranted, unjustified and impermissible under the law. We feel also inclined to quote a few lines of a judgment of my learned predecessor Honble Mr. Justice J.D. Kapoor in this connection It appears that the banks, particularly the Private Multi-National Banks, consider themselves above law and resort to illegal and uncivilized methods in recovering the loan or dues against the credit cards issued by them by employing recovery agents, musclemen and goons, who not only employ threats and abuses on the telephones but also visit the houses of the consumers with these threats. They chase the consumers, waylay them, get hold of their vehicles, beat and bruise them and sometimes create circumstances driving them to commit suicide. Houyhnhnms of yesterday appear to have become yahoos of today.
11. What has therefore happened in this case is that the appellant Bank has resorted to illegal and forcible methods for recovery of an amount which was just not due. The complainant therefore needs to be adequately compensated for the harassment, he has undergone, at the hands of the appellant Bank.
12. One of the argument by the counsel for the appellant Bank was that the complainant has demanded only Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation while Rs.1,64,000/- has been granted by the District Forum on basis of guidelines, issued by Reserve Bank of India, which mentioned as follows:
6.1(a):- Unsolicited cards should not be issued. In case, an unsolicited card is issued and activated without the written consent of the recipient and the latter is billed for the same, the card issuing bank shall not only reverse the charges forthwith, but also pay a penalty without demur to the recipient amounting to twice the value of the charges reversed It is not incumbent upon a Court to restrict an award to the amount, claimed by the complainant, particularly when it is found that under Law or in accordance with the prescribe practice, he is entitled to more. We need not therefore reduce the amount of compensation because the said amount is in accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India.
13. Costs of appeal is fixed at Rs.10,000/- each.
14. Appeals dismissed.
15. A copy of this order be provided to the parties free of cost and also be sent to the concerned District Forum. The file be consigned thereafter to Record room.
Announced on 18th day of July, 2012.
(Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi) President (Salma Noor) Member Tri