IN THE TAMILNADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

Present: Hon’ble THIRU.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH: PRESIDENT F.A. No. 697 of 2023 [Against the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in C.C.No.194 of

2022 by the DCDRC, Villupuram]

(Old C.C.No.399/2015 on the file of DCRDC, Chennai (South)

Monday, the 27^thday of January 2025

1. M/s. HDFC Bank Limited, Represented by its Manager, Ashok Nagar Branch, No.53, Plot No.B41, 4th avenue, Ashok Nagar, Chennai – 83.

2. Registered Address, HDFC Bank House, Senapthi Bapt Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013. … Appellants/Opposite parties - Vs –

U.Sugirtha, S/o. M.Ulaganathan, No.32, 2^nd Cross Street, Shankar Nagar, Pammal, Chennai -600 075. ... Respondent/Complainant Counsel for Appellants : M/s.N.Muthukumaran Counsel for the Respondent: Served. PP effected.

Called absent.

This appeal came up for final hearing today 27.01.2025 and on hearing the arguments of the counsel for the Appellants/opposite parties and on perusing the material records, this Commission made the following Order in the Open Court:-

ORDER

R.SUBBIAH J., PRESIDENT (Open Court)

This appeal has been filed by the opposite parties as against the order dated 09.12.2022 passed in C.C. No.194 of 2022 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram, allowing the complaint filed by the Respondent herein in part.

The appellants are the opposite parties and the Respondent is the complainant before the District Consumer Commission. For the sake of convenience the parties in the course of this order will be referred as per their respective rankings before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Villupuram.

2. It is the crux of the complaint filed before the District Commission that the complainant, who had availed credit facility from the OPs in the year - 2007 by way of Credit Card No.4346 7720 0863 1276 with a credit ceiling of Rs.15,000/-, was excessively charged during the years 2010, 2011 and 2012 more than the loan amount with the exorbitant demands made through the OP’s collection agent/Colossus Consulting, who threatened her to meet those demands that had caused mental agony to her; that, even after collecting excessive amounts, on 16.02.2013 and on 20.07.2013, a sum of Rs.5,952/- and Rs.18,598/- respectively were auto-debited from her account and resultantly, she was left with zero balance not even able to meet food and medicine expenses; that despite collecting such exorbitant interest, the OPs had sent a demand notice on 11.06.2015 calling upon the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.33,677.72 towards pending dues or else to face legal action, for which, the complainant sent a reply legal notice on 05.07.2015, seeking compensation against the Bank’s unfair trade practice in making wrongful demands, however, there was no reply which impelled her to file the complaint, seeking a compensation of Rs.5 lakh for the unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank, refund of Rs.41,631/- which was collected beyond the loan amount and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation expenses.

3. In their written version, the OPs inter alia stated that the complainant committed default which is evident from the statement of accounts and no excessive amount whatsoever was collected as alleged by her; that, by invoking Clause No.6 of the Most Important Terms and Conditions that deal with the Bank’s right of lien, a sum of Rs.5,952/- was debited from her account on 16.02.2013 and another sum of Rs.18,598/- on 20.07.2013; that thereafter, the credit card in question was blocked on 28.02.2014; that regarding the liability of the complainant for a sum of Rs.33,677.72, a demand notice was issued on 11.06.2015 and, in her vexatious reply notice, the complainant had sought for a compensation of Rs.5 lakh; and that, in the face of ‘loaded balance’ as on January-2016 to the tune of Rs.37,377.04, the case of the complainant, who is a defaulter, is nothing but a vexatious litigation and the complaint being a clear abuse of process of consumer law,