State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Hdfc Bank Limited vs Angshuman Bhattacharjee on 17 June, 2014
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO.
: FA/818/2012
(Arising out
of order dated 07.09.2012 of Consumer Case No. 402/2010 of D.C.D.R.F., Kolkata,
Unit I)
Date of Filing : 01.11.2012 Date of Final Order : 17.06.2014
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
HDFC BANK LIMITED, Cards
Division, Gillander House,
8,
Netaji Subhas Road,
Kolkata 700001.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
ANGSHUMAN BHATTACHARJEE,
s/o Sri Omkar Nath
Bhattacharjee,
residing at 96/3C, Tollygunge Road,
P. S. Tollygunge, Kolkata
700026.
BEFORE : MEMBER : Mrs. Mridula Roy.
MEMBER : Mr. Tarapada Gangopadhyay.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. Diganta Das,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Ved Sharma,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.09.2012 passed by Learned District Consumer Dispute Rederssal Forum, Kolkata Unit - I in Complainant Case No. 402 of 2010 allowing the same on contest with cost, directing the Opposite Parties to credit the amount of Rs. 32152.89 ( Rupees thirty thousand one hundred fifty two and paises eighty nine ) only to the account in question of the complainant and to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation for tremendous mental agony, and to pay Rs. 3,000/- towards litigation cost within 45 days from the date of communication of the order i.d. an interest @ 9% shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till realisation.
Being aggrieved by that order the Opposite Party has preferred the instant appeal on the grounds viz. the Ld. District Forum failed to appreciate that the parties agreed to be bound by the terms and conditions of Card Members Agreement and as per terms of the Card Members Agreement the appellant Bank sent Lien notice to the Complainant mentioning that Rs.110389.52 was due in respect of the Complainants Credit Card and ultimately realized Rs.
32,152.89 from another account.
Case of the Complainant (Respondent herein) in brief, is that the Complainant obtained a Credit Card with a credit limit of Rs. 1,35,000/- issued by the Opposite Party Bank (Appellant herein) and a credit card account being No. 5243681101017039 was opened accordingly. However, the Statement dated 4th June, 2010 showed that the credit limit was reduced to Rs.93,000/- from Rs.1,35,000/- . The Complainant also found that the Opposite Party Bank imposed several charges in respect of the said credit card which under no circumstances were permissible at all and seeing the attitude of the Opposite Party Bank the Complainant decided not to use the said credit card and a talk of settlement between the parties was on. In the meantime, the Complainant got a job at Bengaluru and opened a salary account with the Opposite Party Bank.
But to his utter surprise the Complainant found that the Opposite Party Bank placed his salary account on hold and subsequently intimated the said incident to the Complainant by a letter dated 31.10.2010 making an illegal demand of Rs.110398.52 towards outstanding dues. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party Bank exercised the unauthorized right and, therefore, the Complainant filed the Complaint case praying for direction upon the Opposite Party Bank to withdraw the letter dated 31.10.2010 and thus to withdraw illegal demand of Rs.110398.52, to refund Rs. 32152.89, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and to pay the litigation cost.
The Opposite Party Bank appeared and contested the case by filing Written Version stating, inter alia that on request of the Complainant a credit card bearing No. 5243 6811 0101 7339 was issued to the Complainant. the O.P. Bank further stated that the Complainant was of well aware of the terms and conditions of usage of the said credit card but did not pay the various charges imposed by the O.P. Bank towards his outstanding dues and thus, an amount of Rs.78,245.63 remained due. The O.P. Bank further stated that the Complainant had no cause of action and thus the complaint should be dismissed.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Appellant has submitted that as per Section 171 of the Contract Act, the Bank has lien on the salary account of the Respondent and thus the Bank realized the outstanding amount from the salary account of the Complainant.
Ld. Advocate for the Respondent has submitted that the O.P. Bank has no right of lien on the salary account of the Respondent. However, the Bank could have adopted other ways of realization of outstanding dues.
Having heard submissions made by the parties and on perusal of record it appears that the Respondent obtained a credit issued by the Appellant Bank and had been using the same for a consideration spell of time. Admitted, there were some outstanding dues in respect of the said credit card payable by the Respondent. The Respondent disputed some charges imposed by the Appellant Bank and the Bank had stated that as per terms of the Credit Card Members Agreement it imposed the charges.
It is also contended by the Bank that the Bank had realized the due amount from the salary account of the Respondent since lien on the said account existed. Now, the moot point is whether the salary account can be under lien.
Section 171 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides as General lien of bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys and policy-brokers. Bankers, factors, wharfingers, attorneys of a High Court and policy-brokers may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, retain as a security for a general balance of account, any goods bailed to them; but no other persons have a right to retain, as a security for such balance, goods bailed to them, unless there is an express contract to that effect.
This section creates a particular lien on the part of the bank but salary is the means of subsistence of a person it should be exempted from the provision of lien unless there is an expressed provision to that effect.
In the instant case no such expressed provision is there so that it could be construed that the salary account was under lien.
In view of that we are of opinion that there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgement and order.
In the result, the appeal fails.
Hence, ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs. The impugned judgement is affirmed.
MEMBER MEMBER