ICICI Bank Inflated Mere Balance Of ₹0.35 To ₹595 After Customer's Request To Surrender Credit Card, Unfair Trade Practice: Bengaluru Consumer Court

A Consumer Court in Bengaluru has held that ICICI Bank indulged in unfair trade practices by excessively charging a senior citizen who had closed his credit card issued by the bank, thus causing mental distress and inconvenience. The III Additional Bangalore Urban District Consumer District Redressal Commission headed by President Shivrama K, partly allowed the complaint petition filed by P V Ramesh Kumar, observing:“The opposite party excessively charged the complainant, causing mental distress and inconvenience. The opposite party transformed a balance of rupees 0.35 into an inflated sum of rupees 595, while the complainant asserts that the opposite party demanded Rs. 6000 without providing substantial evidence. It is evident that the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices.” Accordingly, it directed the concerned officer of the ICICI Bank Credit Card Care officer and Shruthi, the officer in charge, Credit Card Division Manager, to make a payment of Rs.5,000 and to issue a No Due Certificate to the complainant. It said, “This amount encompasses the financial hardships, mental agony, and inconveniences endured by the complainant.” As per the complainant, he had been utilising a credit card provided by the opposite party for several years. Without fail, the complainant adhered to the terms by consistently clearing the dues. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the complainant formally approached the opposite party to terminate the credit card facility. In response, the opposite party allegedly advised the complainant to render the card unusable by breaking it into two pieces, following which the fragments were to be left at the counter due to pandemic-related safety precautions.Following this, the credit card is said to have remained dormant and unused for an uninterrupted span of two years. However, the opposite party continued to levy charges and the complainant faced unwarranted duress through coercive measures, including menacing calls that demanded unjustified payments, it is alleged. Following the opposite party's instructions, on September 16th, 2021, the complainant made the stipulated payment.The complaint was opposed by the respondents contending that under the terms and conditions, if the customer pays only the minimum amount due, any amount less than the whole amount due will result in appropriate charges and interest being assessed on the account. Accordingly, on 24/01/2020 the complainant's credit card account had a credit balance of 0.35 and an annual fee for the 7th year was charged for the credit card on 26/01/2020. On the same day, the situation was reversed. Then the complainant opted to receive more reward points resulting in redemption charges of Rs 25 and Rs 4.5 towards GST. Further, it said since the amount was below Rs 100, no statement was issued. However, on January 25, 2021, the annual fee was levied and thus the amount due was Rs 619.15. Owing to non-payment of dues, interest amount and late payment fees were added. It was said that the complainant made a cash payment of Rs 595 on September 17, 2021, Thereafter, as a courtesy, the opposing party had the card outstanding zeroed out on April 25, 2022. The forum on going through the records said, “The opposite in their written statement, it was initially mentioned that there was a credit card due of 0.35, later changing to the complainant opting for more reward points on April 28, 2020, resulting in an outstanding amount of rupees 29.15. However, the opposite party was unable to substantiate the existence of the outstanding amount.” It then held “A mere balance of Rs. 0.35 was manipulated by the opposite party into a bill amounting to rupees 595. This occurred despite the complainant's request for the credit card's cancellation.” Noting that the outstanding amount was set to zero on April 25, 2022, subsequent to the complainant filed under the Consumer Protection Act on April 5, 2022, the complaint was allowed in part. Case Title: P V Ramesh Kumar And The Officer Concerned & ANRCase No: CC No 74/2022.Decided on: 28-08-2023Appearance: Advocate B Somashekhar Associated for Complainant.Advocate J M Patil & Associates for OP 1Manjunath, Manager Legal, ICICI, OP2Click Here To Read/Download Order

ICICI Bank Inflated Mere Balance Of ₹0.35 To ₹595 After Customer's Request To Surrender Credit Card, Unfair Trade Practice: Bengaluru Consumer Court

Mustafa Plumber

Tags