Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

in part

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Disposition

in part

Attorney(S)
Acts
  • U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of Final Order — District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda

Factual and Procedural Background

The complainant, Anil Kumar, filed a complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, against Axis Bank Ltd. (opposite party No.2 — Axis Bank Bathinda branch). The complaint was filed on 25 November 2019 and decided on 24 April 2024.

Facts alleged by the complainant (as set out in the order): He opened a savings account (No. 242010100121989) with Axis Bank Bathinda branch on 11 July 2008 and was issued a credit card. On 10 December 2018 Axis Bank marked a lien on his account for Rs. 51,929.68 and again on 12 December 2018 for the same amount. The complainant alleges he was not informed prior to the lien(s) or furnished monthly statements regarding the same.

The complainant attended the bank branch and, on request, deposited Rs. 51,000 by cheque No. 84853 on 11 December 2018 as a full and final settlement; the cheque was debited on 15 December 2018. He alleges he thereafter closed his account and stopped using the credit card. In October 2019 he was again contacted by the bank's credit card department for Rs. 17,989.26 and was allegedly harassed by repeated calls and demands. He sent a legal notice on 11 October 2019; the bank replied on 4 November 2019 denying the complainant's claims and again demanding Rs. 17,989 (plus interest).

The complainant sought (inter alia) directions to restrain the bank from the alleged conduct, Rs. 1,00,000 as compensation and Rs. 11,000 as litigation costs. Opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties during the proceeding.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the deposit of Rs. 51,000 by the complainant on 11.12.2018 constituted a one-time/full-and-final settlement of the credit card outstanding such that subsequent demands by the bank (notably for Rs. 17,989) were unjustified.
  2. Whether Axis Bank's subsequent demand and alleged harassment constituted a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice warranting compensation and costs under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
  3. What relief, if any, should be granted to the complainant (including quashing of the demand and award of compensation/costs) and what compliance mechanism should be ordered.

Arguments of the Parties

Complainant's Arguments

  • He had a savings account and was issued a credit card by Axis Bank (account and card records provided as evidence).
  • The bank marked a lien on his account (10.12.2018 and 12.12.2018) without intimating him or issuing statements.
  • On being asked to settle the outstanding, he went to the branch and paid Rs. 51,000 on 11.12.2018 as full and final settlement; the amount was debited on 15.12.2018 and he then closed the account.
  • Despite settling, the bank later demanded Rs. 17,989.26 from him (from 3.10.2019) and harassed him by repeated calls and demands; he never used the credit card after the settlement.
  • He served legal notice (11.10.2019) and sought relief including compensation and litigation costs for alleged harassment and unlawful demands.

Opposite Party No.2 (Axis Bank) Arguments

  • The complaint is filed to injure the bank's goodwill and reputation; the complainant's case is false, frivolous and vexatious.
  • The bank asserted that Rs. 59,666 was due and recoverable as on 12.12.2018; after adjustment and the Rs. 51,000 payment, an amount of Rs. 17,989 was due as on 12.8.2019 (and future interest remained payable).
  • The bank submitted that accounts are maintained in regular course of business and that the matter involves intricate questions of law and voluminous documents not suitable for the summary procedure under the Act, suggesting the proper forum might be civil court.
  • It contended there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice and sought dismissal of the complaint; it also sought costs under Section 26 of the Act.
  • The bank placed on record an affidavit of Varinder Garg (dated 15.1.2020) and documents (Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/17) to rebut the complainant's evidence.

Table of Precedents Cited

The provided opinion does not cite any case law or precedents within the text.

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

(This section follows the Commission's step-by-step reasoning as recorded in the order.)

  1. The Commission first recorded the admitted facts: the complainant held the stated savings account and was issued a credit card by the bank (evidence identified as Ex.C2).
  2. It noted the bank had marked a lien in the complainant's account for Rs. 51,929.68 on 10.12.2018 and again on 12.12.2018, and that the bank asked the complainant to visit the branch for full and final settlement.
  3. The complainant deposited Rs. 51,000 on 11.12.2018 by cheque (cheque No. 84853), and the amount was debited on 15.12.2018 as per the account statement (Ex.OP2/7). After this payment the complainant did not transact further on the credit card and closed the account.
  4. The Commission reasoned that the sequence of events — lien marked, the complainant paying Rs. 51,000 as a one-time settlement, the bank debiting the cheque, and the complainant ceasing card use — established that a one-time settlement had been reached and implemented.
  5. Given that settlement, the Commission held that a subsequent demand by the bank for Rs. 17,989 (said to be on account of interest and penalty) could not stand; the Commission described such a demand as unjustified and the imposition of penalty as illegal.
  6. On the basis of these findings, and noting the bank's subsequent demands and conduct, the Commission concluded that the complainant suffered harassment warranting imposition of cost and compensation on the bank.
  7. The factual findings relied on the parties' pleadings, the account statement evidence, the timing of the cheque debit, and the absence of further card transactions by the complainant after the settlement payment.

Holding and Implications

Holding (core ruling): The complaint was partly accepted. The Commission quashed the demand of Rs. 17,989 against the complainant and awarded Rs. 7,000 as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 (Axis Bank).

Direct consequences ordered by the Commission

  • Axis Bank (opposite party No.2) is directed to comply with the order within 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
  • If the bank fails to comply within the stipulated period, an additional cost of Rs. 10,000 will be payable by opposite party No.2 to the complainant.
  • The Commission recorded that the complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.
  • Copies of the order are to be sent to the parties free of cost and the file consigned to the record room.

Broader implications

The order does not state that it establishes any novel legal precedent. Its practical effect is limited to quashing the specific demand for Rs. 17,989 in this case, awarding Rs. 7,000 to the complainant, and prescribing compliance steps and a financial penalty for non-compliance. The Commission did not articulate any new doctrine or binding principle beyond its application of consumer-protection remedies to the facts before it.

Decision announced: 24-04-2024. Members signing the order: Priti Malhotra (President) and Sharda Attri (Member).

Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    YASH SAHU v. ETA GENERAL PVT LTD.

    Final Order of DISTT.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, Court Room No.19, Block-C,Judicial Court Complex, BATHINDA-151001 (PUNJAB)

    PUNJAB

    Complaint Case No. CC/19/312 ( Date of Filing : 25 Nov 2019 )

    1. Anil Kumar #27980, Main Road Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda ...........Complainant(s) Versus

    1. Axis Bank Axis Bank House,C-2, Wadia International, Pandurang budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai ............Opp.Party(s)

    BEFORE:

    HON'BLE MRS. Priti Malhotra PRESIDENT HON'BLE MRS. Sharda Attari MEMBER PRESENT:Varun Bansal, Advocate for the Complainant 1 Dated : 24 Apr 2024

    Final Order / Judgement

    DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

    BATHINDA

    C.C.No. 312 of 25-11-2019 Decided on : 24-04-2024

    Anil Kumar aged about 50 years S/o Chetan Sarup Gupta R/o # 27980, Main Road, Lal Singh Basti, Bathinda-151001 .

    ........Complainant Versus

    Axis Bank Ltd, Axis House, C-2, Wadia International Centre, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai-400025, through its Managing Director. (Deleted)

    1.

    1

    Axis Bank Bathinda (Branch Code-242), MC Building No.2089, The Mall Pocket No.6, TP Scheme, Bathinda, Punjab-151005, through its Manager.

    2.

    .......Opposite parties Complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

    QUORUM

    Smt. Priti Malhotra, President Smt. Sharda Attri, Member

    Present :

    For the complainant : Sh.Varun Bansal, Advocate. For opposite parties : Opposite party No.1 deleted. Sh.R.K Rampal, counsel for opposite party No.2.

    ORDER

    Priti Malhotra, President

    The complainant Anil Kumar (here-in-after referred to as complainant) has filed this complaint U/s 35 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (here-in after referred to as 'Act') before this Commission against Axis Bank Ltd, and another (here-in- after referred to as opposite parties).

    1.

    Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that he opened one saving account 2.

    2

    bearing No.242010100121989 having customer Id 242014397 with opposite party No.2 branch on 11.7.2008. Opposite parties issued one credit card to the complainant after giving many assurances regarding facilities and regular statements. He was using the credit card time to time as and when he was in its need and deposited the due amount within time.

    It is alleged that on 10.12.2018, opposite parties marked lien in the account of the complainant with amount Rs.51,929.68/-. Subsequently after two days, on 12.12.2018, they again marked lien in his account with the same amount of Rs.51,929.68/-. Opposite parties never intimated the complainant before marking the lien in the account and never issued him any monthly statement regarding this. The complainant received the information about lien marked over phone call from opposite parties, they invited him in their bank branch for full and final settlement of outstanding payment of credit card.

    3.

    It is further alleged that the complainant visited opposite party No.2 bank branch on 11.12.2018 so that he can submit the full and final settled payment that was outstanding towards him. Opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to deposit the full and final settled amount of Rs.51,000/-. Accordingly, he deposited this amount immediately vide cheque No.84853 of Rs.51,000/- on 11.12.2018 without any delay and opposite party No.2 settled his account. This amount was deducted by the bank on dated 15.12.2018. The complainant closed his account from the bank of opposite parties after settlement of the amount.

    4.

    It is further alleged that once again, opposite parties credit card department started harassing the complainant without any valid reason as on 3.10.2019, opposite parties were again demanding Rs.17,989.26/- from the complainant and called him on daily basis and offering him to settle this amount by visiting their bank branch. The complainant never used the credit card after last full and final settlement of payment in December 2018. Besides this, opposite parties are asking for full and final settlement and repeating the same scene already done in 2018. Opposite parties never issued any statement regarding this to the complainant from the very first day.

    5.

    It is also alleged that the complainant got issued the legal notice to opposite parties on 11.10.2019 through his counsel. Opposite parties have given reply to the legal notice vide letter dated 4.11.2019 thorugh counsel in which they have

    6.

    3

    denied the grounds/prayers of the legal notice and demanding Rs.17,989/- once again alongwith interest that proves their malafide intention regarding their ill will and extortion of money in illegal way.

    On this backdrop of facts, the complainant has prayed for directioos to opposite parties to desist from indulging in such activity as has been suffered by him and pleaded as above and to pay Rs.1 lakhs as compensation and Rs.11,000/- as cost of litigation.

    In view of statement suffered by learned counsel for complainant on 27.11.2029, the name of opposite party No.1 was deleted from the array of opposite parties.

    7.

    Upon notice, opposite party No.2 appeared through counsel and contested the complaint by filing written version and raising legal objections that the complaint has been filed by the complainant only to injure its goodwill and reputatioil. Even otherwise, the complaint is false, frivolous and vexatious to the knowledge of the complainant. As such, opposite party No.2 is entitled to special costs from the complainant U/s 26 of 'Act' to the tune of Rs.10,000/-. The intricate questions of law and facts are involved in the complaint. They require voluminous documents and evidence for determination. It is not possible in the summary procedure under 'Act' and appropriate remedy, if any, lies only in the civil court. The complainant has concealed the material facts and documents from this Forum, as such, he is not entitled to any relief.

    Further legal objections are that opposite party No.2 is a Public Limited Bank and its accounts are maintaining in its regular course of business as per the norms of Reserve Bank. The complainant was having saving bank account bearing No.242010100121989 and customer ID 242014397 and he approached opposite party No.2 for credit card facility and accordingly, after getting the requisite formalities completed, opposite party No.2 provided the credit card facility to the complainant and after adjusting all the debit and credit entries pertaining to the credit card facility availed by the complainant, an amount of Rs.59,666/- was due and recoverable from him as on 12.12.2018, out of which, he deposited an amount of Rs.51,000/- on 15.12.2018 with opposite party No.2 vide cheque No.84853 and after debiting the amount on account of interest, an amount of Rs.17,989/- was due as on 12.8.2019 and recoverable from the complainant besides future interest that he has not deposited. Opposite party No.2 asked the

    8.

    4

    complainant for the deposit of due amount, but he instead of depositing the due amount, he firstly got issued a legal notice to it that was duly replied by it and now, he has filed the complaint before this court on flimsy grounds by concealing all the true and material facts. He is estopped by his own act, conduct and acquiescence from filing the complaint. He has no locus-standi or cause-of- action to file the complaint against opposite party No.2. The complaint is not maintainable in its present form. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of opposite party No.2.

    On merits, opposite party No.2 has reiterated its version as taken in the legal objection as detailed above and controverted all other averments of the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

    9.

    In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence his affidavit dated 23.11.2019 (Ex.C1) and documents, (Ex.C2 to Ex.C10).

    10.

    In order to rebut the evidence of complainant, opposite party No.2 has tendered into evidence affidavit of Varinder Garg dated 15.1.2020 (Ex.OP2/1) and documents, (Ex.OP2/2 to Ex.OP2/17).

    11.

    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the file carefully.12. Learned counsel for parties have reiterated their stand as taken in their respective pleadings as detailed above.

    13.

    We have given careful consideration to these submissions.14. Admittedly, the complainant had one saving account bearing No.242010100121989 with opposite party No.2 branch on 11.7.2008. Opposite party No.2 issued one credit card to the complainant. Ex.C2 proves this fact.

    15.

    As per complainant, opposite party No.2 marked lien in the account of the complainant on 10.12.2018 with amount Rs.51,929.68/-. Opposite party No.2 asked the complainant to visit in its bank branch for full and final settlement of outstanding payment of credit card. On asking of opposite party No.2, the complainant deposited Rs.51,000/- as full and final settlement amount with it on 11.12.2018 vide cheque, which was debited from his account on 15.12.2018 as per account statement, (Ex.OP2/7). When settled amount was deposited by the

    16.

    5

    complainant with opposite party No.2, thereafter opposite party No.2 never ever demanded the alleged due amount nor put lien in his account for any of the outstanding alleged amount, which clearly is suffice to establish that the complainant with due understanding with the bank entered into one time settlement and thus he deposited Rs.51,000/- against the outstanding amount towards his credit card account. The record reveals that opposite party No.2 demanded amount of Rs.51,929.68/-on 10.12.2018 whereas the complainant has already deposited one time settlement amount of Rs.51,000/- on 11.12.2018 and thereafter he never made any transaction from his credit card, which further establishes that he opted for closure for the credit card after payment of settled amount.

    We reiterate that once opposite party No.2 marked lien to the tune of Rs.51,929.68/- in the account of complainant and got deposited Rs.51,000/- as full and final settlement amount from him, then later on, opposite party No.2 cannot be supposed to demand more money i.e. Rs.17,989/- on account of interest and penalty from the complainant. This demand is unjustified for outstanding amount and imposed of penalty is illegal. For harassing the complainant, opposite party No.2 can be burdened with cost and compensation to the tune of Rs.7000/-.

    17.

    In view of what has been discussed above, this complaint is partly accepted with Rs.7000/- as cost and compensation against opposite party No.2 and demand of Rs.17,989/- is quashed.

    18.

    The compliance of this order be made within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

    19.

    In case of non-compliance of the order within the stipulated period, thereafter opposite party No.2 will be liable to pay additional cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.

    20.

    The complaint could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of cases.

    21.

    Copy of order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned to the record room.

    22.

    6

    Announced 24-04-2024

    (Priti Malhotra)1. President

    (Sharda Attri) Member

    [HON'BLE MRS. Priti Malhotra]

    PRESIDENT

    [HON'BLE MRS. Sharda Attari]

    MEMBER

    7

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    YASH SAHU v. ETA GENERAL PVT LTD.
    (Apr 24, 2024)