ICICI Bank to pay Rs 50,000 for unfair trade practice
The ICICI Bank has been ordered by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 50,000 to one of its account holders for recovering purported credit card dues from his savings account more than three years after issuing him a no dues certificate.
New Delhi: The ICICI Bank has been ordered by a consumer forum here to pay Rs 50,000 to one of its account holders for recovering purported credit card dues from his savings account more than three years after issuing him a no dues certificate.
The South West District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum said the credit card account was no more in existence once the bank had settled the dues with the savings account holder in 2004 and had issued him a no dues certificate.
"After executing such certificate, the opposite party (ICICI Bank) cannot exercise bankers lien over the savings bank account of complainant (account holder). The action taken by the bank is quite illegal, malicious and against the ethics of the banking business.
"We hold the bank responsible for deficiency in service and guilty of unfair trade practice. We, therefore, direct it to reimburse amount of Rs 20,678 (debited from complainant's savings account). We also direct it to pay Rs 25,000 towards compensation along with Rs 5,000 as cost of litigation," the bench presided by Narendra Kumar said.
The forum's order came on the plea of Delhi resident Pavitro Paul, who had alleged in his complaint that ICICI Bank had in 2007 illegally recovered Rs 20,678 from his savings account with it after it had issued him a no dues certificate in 2004.
The certificate was issued after he had paid Rs 19,500 as full and final settlement of his credit card dues, Paul had said in his complaint adding that his repeated requests to the bank to return the recovered amount received no response.
In its defence, ICICI Bank had contended that Paul was irregular in his credit card payments and there was an outstanding of Rs 20,678 in his card account which it had recovered from his savings account. The forum rejected it saying the contention has no force.