Smt. Sangita Paul, Member

That the case was filed on 23.10.2019.  The case was admitted on 14.11.2019.  On 14.01.2020, OP files W/V.  On 17.02.2020, the complainant prays for treating his complaint petition as evidence.  On 04.03.2020, OP files questionnaire.  On 28.09.2020, the complainant files reply.  On 14.01.2021, OP files evidence on affidavit.  On 10.05.2022, the OP files BNA.   The complainant took no steps.  On 06.02.2023, the complainant files BNA.  Argument of both parties was heard.  Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.

This is a case filed by Rana Mistry, S/o. Lakhan Mistry, resident of 140 Prince Anwar Shah Road, Kolkata-700 045 presently resides at Chanditala Park, P.S.-Subhashgram, Kolkata-700 147, West Bengal against Branch Manager / Regional Head, ICICI Bank, with a prayer for directing the OPs to withdraw the charge of overdue amount of Rs.2,20,300/- and clear the same from the complainant’s CIBIL report, to direct the OPs to pay the litigation cost.

OP No.1 is the Branch Manager / Regional Head, ICICI Bank.  Hall 2, Anderson Building, 31, Chowringhee Road, Kolkata-700 016, West Bengal.

The complainant, by filing this case states that on 19.05.2015, ICICI issued a Credit Card in the name of the complainant.  The credit limit of this card of this is Rs.20,400/-.  It was continuing up-to-date.  Suddenly the complainant was informed a whopping amount of Rs.2,30,300/- is pending.

The card was disbursed on 16.01.2008 without taking any consent of the complainant.  The Complainant never filed any application.

Thereafter the complainant visited the ICICI Bank, Chowringhee Branch.  He tried to discuss the matter.  But they neither entertained them nor did they receive any complaint for the disputed credit card.

Finding no other way, the complainant issued another legal notice on 02.09.2019. That the cause of action arose on 02.09.2019, which is still subsisting, unless the prayer is allowed, the complainant would suffer irreparable loss and damage.

Under this circumstances, the complainant humbly prays for directing the OPs to withdraw the charge of overdue amount of Rs.2,20,300/- and clear the name from the complainant’s CIBIL Report and to pay the litigation cost. 

The OP in its written version states that the complaint is not maintainable both in facts or in law.

That the complaint is barred by the principles of waiver, estoppels acquiescence.  That the complaint petition is not entertainable by this Forum.  Ld. Forum has no jurisdiction to try such case.  The OP is carrying on business from Chowringhee Road, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.  It is outside the jurisdiction of Ld. Forum.  The complainant did not inform about his change of address to ICICI Bank.

The complainant defaulted in making payment.  So the said credit card became irregular.  The sum of Rs.2,20,300/- is payable in respect of the 1^st Credit Card being No.5176 5338 8534 0007.  As a result his name is listed in the CIBIL.  If he paid the entire dues, his names would be removed from CIBIL.  A defaulter cannot maintain a consumer complaint, because, a defaulter cannot seek equitable relief from a court of law.

The OP did not receive any legal notice.  The complainant has failed to repay the dues and his name has been included in the CIBIL.  It is not the deficiency in service of the OP.

That the complaint is not entitled to get any relief in respect of the 1^st Credit Card.

The complainant has come to the Forum with unclean hands.  The complainant failed to discharge his liability towards payment.  The OP cannot withdraw the charge of Rsw.2,20,300/-.  The action of the bank is not mala fide.  It is the complainant’s duty to pay the dues.

Hence, the complaint case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost.

That the case was filed on 23.10.2019.  The case was admitted on 14.11.2019.  On 14.01.2020, OP files W/V.  On 17.02.2020, the complainant prays for treating his complaint petition as evidence.  On 04.03.2020, OP files questionnaire.  On 28.09.2020, the complainant files reply.  On 14.01.2021, OP files evidence on affidavit.  On 10.05.2022, the OP files BNA.  The complainant took no steps.  On 06.02.2023, the complainant files BNA.  Argument of both parties was heard.  Accordingly, we proceeded for giving judgement.

                                     Points for consideration :-

1. Is the complainant, a consumer?
2. Is there any deficiency of service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OP?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons :-

Point No.1:- 

On perusal of the documents and records, it appears that the complainant applied for one Credit Card on 29.12.2007 and on 10.05.2015 another Credit Card was issued  to the complainant from ICICI Bank.  As the complainant is the holder of two Credit Cards, he is a consumer U/S 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019.  Hence, the first point is decided in favour of the complainant.

Point No:2 : 

A Credit Card issued to the complainant on December 28, 2007.  The complainant failed to pay due amount in respect of the credit card A/C No:5176 5338 8534 0007.  His name has been included in the CIBIL as per RBI regulation.  The second credit card No:4375 5119 7831 6003 was issued to the complainant on the basis of the application form submitted by him.  The second credit card is secured by an FDR pleadged by the complainant.  The FDR amounts to Rs.24,000/- only.  The second credit card is regular and it is still continuing.  In case of any default, the proceeds of FDR will be adjusted against the outstanding due.  The due amount of Rs.2,20,300/- is due and payable by the complainant in respect of the first credit card account No:5176 5338 8534 0007.  The complainant applied for the first credit card and the second credit card.  He took the second credit card.  That does not imply the complainant would not clear the dues payable in respect of the first credit card.  No deficiency in service and unfair trade practice are apparent on the part of the OP.  Hence, the 2^nd point is decided in favour of the OP.

Point No.03 :-

As there is no deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OP, the complainant is not entitled to any relief as prayed for.  Hence, the 3^rd point is decided in favour of the OP.

In the result, the complaint case fails.

Fees paid is correct.

Hence, it is,

                                                                                  ORDERED

That the case be and the same is dismissed on contest.

No order as to cost.

Ld. Member Sri Partha Kumar Basu joined on 11.04.2023 and he did not take part in hearing the argument of the case.  As such he did not sign the judgement and order passed on this day. 

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties concerned free of cost. 

That the final order will be available in the following website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.  

Sangita Paul                   

               Member