The central legal point established in the judgment is that the bank's actions must adhere to the principles of natural justice, and the absence of documentary evidence to support its actions renders them erroneous.

ORDER

Narendra Kawde, Member - This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.4.2012 in Consumer Complaint No. 224/2010, Smt. Arati Krishnan v. H.D.F.C. Bank, passed by Mumbai Suburban District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Mumbai (in short District Forum ). The District Forum dismissed the consumer complaint filed by the present appellant/original complainant with certain observations that the respondent bank empowered to keep lien on the bank account of the complainant Under Section 171 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 for recovery of the dues from the complainant allegedly debited on account of use of credit card by the complainant. The complainant aggrieved by the decision of the District Forum and preferred this appeal on the ground that final settlement of dues was worked out to Rs. 29,000 as against the alleged outstanding amount of Rs. 51,098. As per the terms of settlement, the first instalment of Rs. 4,000 was paid to the opponent bank and rest amount of Rs. 25,000 was to be paid in three instalments. Though the first instalment of Rs. 4,000 was paid, it was not credited to her account and on relevant date, the outstanding balance was shown to Rs. 50,802.41 instead of Rs. 25,000 as per the settlement. The opponent bank did not pay any heed to the request made subsequently and insisted for payment Rs. 50,802.41. The District Forum did not appreciate the facts of the case in proper perspective though the bank is clearly deficient in rendering service and erroneously passed the impugned order dismissing the consumer complaint as averred in appeal.

Undisputed facts are that:

2. The appellant/complainant is a consumer of opponent HDFC Bank in her capacity as account holder. The appellant/complainant was availing the credit card facility by using credit card issued in her name. The first credit card was lost on 25.4.2006 and therefore on intimation, the credit car was cancelled and de-activated w.e.f. 25.4.2006 and the new credit card was issued. There was dispute about the outstanding dues against the use of previous card. Later on, the settlement reached between the parties and the amount settled was arrived at Rs. 29,000. Out of this, first instalment of Rs. 4,000 was paid and accepted by the opponent bank leaving Rs. 25,000 balance as outstanding. Undisputedly, this balance of Rs. 25,000 was to be paid in three monthly equal instalments. However, though the amount was settled at 25,000 after receiving payment of Rs. 4,000 (Rs. 29,000 Rs. 25,000) and yet outstanding amount to the complainant's account was shown as Rs. 50,802.41. The appellant/complainant made grievance and refrained from settling this exaggerated amount of Rs. 50,802.41. Having paid Rs. 4,000 against Rs. 29,000, the balance outstanding amount ought to have been shown as Rs. 25,000. However, the bank statement reflects outstanding amount as Rs. 50,802.41 as on 17.6.2006. The complainant did not make further payment of balance dues as per settlement and therefore at this point, dispute arose between the parties. Subsequently, without notice to the appellant/complainant, the opponent bank froze complainant's S/B account and later on withdrew Rs. 80,488.62 from the S/B account of the complainant for settlement of alleged dues. Additionally, an amount of Rs. 350 was debited against the complainant S/B account.

3. Heard the Advocates of the parties and perused the record placed before us. The learned Advocate of the opponent HDFC Bank tried to bring to our notice the amount of settlement against the outstanding dues and particularly, to para 14 of the written version which empowers the bank to act without notice to create lien and right to set off for recovery of dues. We have carefully gone through the provisions enumerated in the written version. Copy of the agreement executed between the parties is not placed before us which provides for right of lien a