VARADARAJAN Vs. HDFC BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Shri Varadarajan having suffered two successive setbacks; one from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore (the District Forum for short) and the other from the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (the State Commission hereinafter for short), has filed this revision petition challenging the dismissal of his complaint by both these fora.

(2.) There is a delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition. This delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

(3.) Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had obtained a credit card of the respondent Bank. This credit card was linked to his savings bank account maintained with the respondent Bank. Until 2005, he was availing the credit facilities and was clearing the dues regularly. When the respondent Bank floated a scheme called 'Smart Pay Facility', under which a credit card holder could pass on his liability for payment of the LIC premiums to the Bank, who would make the payment of such premiums directly to the LIC, and the policy holder under the scheme would be entitled to a period of 45 days of credit for clearing the dues to the Bank; the petitioner opted for the scheme. According to the petitioner, he had informed the respondent Bank that he had a LIC policy, the premium of which at the rate of Rs.2500/- was to be paid every quarter. However, when he received the bill of the respondent Bank on the 23rd of December, 2005, to his surprise, he noticed that the respondent Bank had charged an amount of Rs.5033.50 on account of payment of premium towards his insurance policy. He promptly protested against the over-payment and claims to have cleared the dues after deducting the amount paid over and above Rs.2500/- from the bill. He further requested the respondent Bank to withdraw the 'Smart Pay Facility' which was done by the respondent Bank w.e.f. 18th of January, 2006. However, the respondent Bank did not reverse the entry with regard to the over-payment and continued to charge interest and late fees even thereafter. Despite his repeated approach and legal notice, the respondent Bank did not budge from its stand and a stage came when the petitioner-complainant was threatened on telephone to either pay up or face the consequences. Finally, the respondent Bank issued a notice to exercise their right of lien and set off the amount available in his savings bank account against the dues.