National Consumer Disputes Redressal
M/S. Hdfc Bank vs Anish Munjal on 23 January, 2019
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 1737 OF 2013 (Against the Order dated 22/02/2013 in Appeal No. 1722/2011 of the State Commission Rajasthan) 1. M/S. HDFC BANK THROUGH ITS LEGAL MANAGER, SH ANIL KUMAR VERMA, B-28, 2ND FLOOR, B-BLOCK MARKET, B-1 COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI NEW DELHI - 110058 ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. ANISH MUNJAL PROPRIETOR SATYAM CARRIER, SHOP NO-18, SHAH SHOPPING CENTRE, NEAR RSEB OFFICE VKI AREA ROAD NO-5 JAIPUR RAJASTHAN ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : Mr. Joydip Bhattacharya, Advocate
Mr. Hitesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. Umesh Nagpal, Advocate
Dated : 23 Jan 2019 ORDER
JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER(ORAL)
The complainant / respondent had a saving bank account with Centurian Bank of Punjab, which was later on taken over by the petitioner HDFC Bank in May, 2008. The complainant / respondent had also obtained a credit card from HDFC Bank. The case of the petitioner bank is that the credit card bills having not been paid by the respondent / complainant, dues amounting to Rs.53,043.68 were deducted from the balance in his saving account. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid deduction, the complainant / respondent approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint.
2. The consumer complaint was resisted by the petitioner bank, which inter-alia alleged that the credit card dues having not been paid, they were justified in deducting the same from the saving bank account of the respondent. The District Forum having ruled in favour of the complainant, the petitioner bank approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner bank is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
3. It is not in dispute that the respondent / complainant had obtained a credit card from the HDFC Bank. It is also not in dispute that he had a saving account with Centurian bank of Punjab, which was later on taken over by the HDFC bank.
4. In the consumer complaint filed by him, the complainant / respondent specifically stated in para-3 of the said complaint that he had taken credit card form respondent No.1, which had been lastly used in December, 2005 and as per the demand of respondent No.1, he had paid the amount and got the said card cancelled. Thus, the issuance of the credit card as well as its use by the complainant till December, 2005 is not in dispute.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the credit card statements issued from time to time to the complainant. A perusal of the credit card statement dated 5.8.2004 would show that he made purchase of Rs.1598/- from Koutons Gallery, Jaipur on 01.8.2004. A persual of the statement dated 05.9.2004 shows that he made purchase of Rs.2312/- from Hollywood Shoes on 25.8.2004. The statement dated 05.12.2004 shows that he made two purchases from Rational Handloom Company Jaipur on 1.12.2004. The total dues claimed in the statement dated 5.12.2004 were Rs.9979.85 including the finance charges levied by the petitioner bank from time to time. The said dues kept on increasing on account of addition of late fee, over limit fee and finance charges though no fresh purchase was made by the complainant / respondent after 2nd December, 2004. The complainant made payment of Rs.520/- on 21.11.2005, which is reflected in the statement dated 05.12.2005. He made payment of Rs.510/- on 26.9.2005, which was reflected in the statement dated 05.10.2005. He also made payment of Rs.500/- on 26.8.2005, which was reflected in the statement dated 5.9.2005. The complainant also made one payment of Rs. 520/- on 25.5.2005 which was reflected in the statement dated 5.6.2005. He made payment of Rs.1020/- on 23.3.2005 which was reflected in the statement dated 5.4.2005. Payment of Rs.470/- was reflected in the statement dated 5.3.2005. He also paid Rs.500/- on 29.12.2004, which was reflected in the statement dated 5.1.2005. It would thus be seen that the complainant / respondent had made purchase and also made part payments. However, he having not made full payment of the credit card dues, the finance charges and late fee etc. continued to be added to his credit card account and as a consequence, the said dues increased to Rs.53,043.68, till the date the said dues were deducted from his saving bank account.
6. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent / complainant stated during the course of arguments that the purchases referred in the statements were not made by the complainant, the said statement being beyond the record cannot be accepted. The complainant himself has expressly stated in the consumer complaint that he had been using the credit card and making the payment till December, 2005. He did not dispute any of the purchases made prior to December, 2005 in the consumer complaint filed by him and this is not the case of the petitioner bank that the complainant / respondent had made any fresh purchase after December, 2005.
7. The next question which arises for consideration is as to whether the petitioner bank was entitled to deduct the card dues from the saving bank account of the complainant. The learned counsel for the petitioner has therefore drawn my attention to Clause-6 of the terms and conditions on which the credit card was issued. The said condition reads as under:
"6. Right of Lien The bank, at any time and without notice will have lien and right to set-off on all monies belonging to the Card member and / or add on Card member standing to their credit in any account / custody of the bank, if upon demand by the bank, the balance amount on the card account is not repaid within the prescribed time."
In view of the aforesaid clause, the petitioner bank was entitled to set off the credit card dues at any point of time, without any notice to the complainant. Therefore, deduction of the amount of Rs.53,043.68 from the saving bank account of the complainant was in consonance with the above referred condition stipulated by the bank, while issuing the credit card to the complainant / respondent.
8. The learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent states that the dues had already become time barred at the time they were deducted from the saving bank account of the complainant and the said deduction was illegal. I however find no merit in the contention. Though the petitioner bank might not have been successful had it filed a civil suit against the respondent / complainant for recovery of the credit card dues, on the date the said dues were deducted from saving bank account, the law of limitation did not come in the way of the petitioner bank to deduct the aforesaid dues from the funds, which were already available to it in the saving bank account of the complainant / respondent.
9. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no deficiency on behalf of the petitioner bank in rendering service to the complainant / respondent. The impugned orders therefore cannot be sustained and the same are accordingly set aside. The consumer complaint is consequently dismissed, with no order as to costs.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER