ICICI BANK LIMITED vs SRINIVASA RAJAN

Sh. Srinivasa Rajan, the complainant was issued a credit card by M/s Tata Finance Ltd. Vide notice dated 14.11.2002, Tata Finance Ltd. informed the complainant to pay Rs.74,516.45 towards various charges and fees for retention and the use of the said credit card. Vide letter dated 25.11.2002, the complainant was intimated by Tata Finance Ltd. that all services on the card were suspended. The last letter sent by the Tata Finance Ltd. to the complainant was dated 24.12.2002. According to the complainant, the cause of action arose on 25.11.2002 when the account was suspended. No action was taken within three years.

Thereafter, the account was transferred to ICICI Bank. The ICICI Bank unilaterally blocked the amount exceeding Rs.80,000/-. The OP had taken over the credit card division of Tata Finance Ltd. on 25.04.2006. The OP issued a legal notice on 25.04.2006 to the complainant demanding an outstanding due of Rs.1,58,093.95 with regard to the credit card i.e. after the expiry of period of limitation. The complainant had an account with the OP and on 23.08.2008, the OP unilaterally debited an amount of Rs.1,58,093.95 from the complainant''s account.

The complainant issued a cheque in his wife''s name and the said cheque was subsequently dis-honoured. The complaint was filed before the District Forum on 26.02.2009 with the following prayers:- "(i) remove the blocking of the amounts lying in the complainant''s savings account No. 000901538728, at their branch;

(ii) to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards compensation for loss of business;

(iii) to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for the loss of name, social standing and as compensation for the mental agony and pain;

(iv) costs of this complaint

(v) abide by such other Relief/s deemed fit and proper by this Hon''ble Forum, under the circumstances and thus render justice".

As a matter of fact, the matter was settled with M/s Tata Finance Ltd. and it was agreed that the complainant would pay Rs.36,000/- in full and final settlement of the dispute. There is an entry that the complainant paid Rs.18,000/- but as a matter of fact that there is no proof that Rs.18,000/- were paid. The complainant did not deposit the sum of Rs.36,000/-. That deed of infinite significance dated 28.03.2003 has been produced on the record. The said letter runs as follows:- "SUB: CARD NO. 377041110376950

With reference to the discussions had with you regarding the above mentioned card, we accept to pay a sum of Rs.36,000/- (thirty six thousand only) as full and final payment of the above card. It is mutually agreed that a fresh card will be issued within 14 days from today as the amount of Rs.36,000/- is being paid by cash as requested by you. It is also mutually agreed that both parties will stop all legal action with immediate effect and no damages shall be claimed.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,

Srinivasa Rajan"

The District Forum dismissed the complaint but the State Commission allowed the same.

We have heard the counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the complainant/respondent vehemently argued that the transfer of accounts was made from M/s Tata Finance Limited to ICICI Bank Ltd. unilaterally and without his notice. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant had written a letter to the Manager, ICICI Bank on 07.08.2008, wherein he was aware of this fact. The said letter has been placed on the record.

However, this is crystal clear that the demand raised by the OP is barred by time. Para No. 6 of the State Commission is relevant and is hereby reproduced as under:- "6. On perusal of Ex.A5, we find that the Tata Finance Company Ltd., had received Rs.18000/- on 28.3.2003, on the basis of the discussions, regarding the settlement of Rs.36,000/- as full and final settlement, and agreed for the issue of fresh credit card within 14 days from 28.3.2003, on payment of Rs.36000/- by cash, as requested by the complainant. In this letter, an endorsement was made for receipt of Rs.18000/-, further stating that the balance of Rs.18000/- to be paid on receipt of new card. This letter was addressed on 28.3.2003. On basis of this letter it is clear that the complainant has not paid the entire due amount, and paid only half of the amount, which was also disputed by the opposite party, stating that the endorsement was made by the alleged agent, which was not brought to the notice of the opposite party, with which we are not concerned at this stage. From these details it is clear that there is dispute relating to the payment of money towards Tata Finance Ltd., which was subsequently undertaken by the ICICI Bank, and in these circumstances, the opposite party has not come forward to prove regarding earlier notice for taking over the Tata Finance Ltd., and on the date of taking over, what are the dues payable by the complainant. Except pre debit intimation under Ex.B2, by stating that the complainant had not cleared the dues outstanding, and not responded to the correspondence, and reminding to have the minimum balance, to continue the account, no earlier correspondence were made. The alleged demand said to have been made in the year 2003, for the dues payable in the year 2002-2003, and the complainant contended that the opposite party has to proceed against the complainant, if there is any dues by him towards M/s Tata Finance Ltd., as per law. But when the dues are in dispute and alleged to have settled as per Ex.A5, they have no right to block the amount from his SB Account, and with these contentions, we are in full agreement, since the amount alleged to have been payable by the complainant is related to the takeover company of M/s Tata Finance Ltd. It is the duty of the opposite party to proceed against the debtor only through the process known to law, and they cannot have any lien in the absence of agreement between the complainant and the opposite party in this regard to block the money in the SB account of the complainant".

The State Commission passed the following order:- "xxxxxxxxxx The opposite party is directed to remove the blocking of the amounts lying in the complainant''s SB Account No.000901538728, at their branch, forthwith, and to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards compensation, and Rs.3000/- towards cost, and the opposite party is at liberty to proceed against the complainant for the recovery of the amounts if any payable towards Tata Finance Ltd., in their credit card No. 377041110376950 as per law, through the appropriate forum".

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the order of the State Commission and dismiss the Revision Petition with costs in the sum of Rs.10,000/- U/s 26 of C.P. Act, which will be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within a period of 45 days from the receipt of this order, otherwise it will carry interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.