BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

                                        Complaint Case No : 1197 of 2009

                                        Date of Institution   :    21.08.2009

                                        Date of Decision     :    07.12.2009

Kaptan Singh son of Sh.Hari Kishan, Resident of H.No.450/F, Sector 7-A, Chandigarh

….…Complainant

                                V E R S U S

Axis Bank, SCO No.343-344, Sector 35-B, Chandigarh.

                                        ..…Opposite Party

CORAM:    SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL       PRESIDENT

                SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA         MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL              MEMBER

Argued by:        Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Adv. for complainant.

Sh.Ramesh Kumar Bamal, Adv. for OP

PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

                The complainant in Feb., 2008 found one envelope lying in the letter box of his house which was containing one Visa Gold Plus card and letter (Ann.C-1) wherein two addresses were mentioned, the one was of complainant whereas the second address was of some Medical Store, Sector 34, Chandigarh. Complainant on 28.2.2008 approached the OP and informed that he never applied for any such credit card and on the asking of the official of OP Bank, he dropped the said card in their Drop Box.  However, he was surprised to receive the statement (Ann.C-5) dated 10.5.2009 showing the balance amount of Rs.44,308/- and the debit interest as Rs.2,897/- along with Rs.298.48 as service tax.  It is averred that the credit card was never used by the complainant.  The matter was taken up with the OP but nothing positive was done.  A letter was also sent to OP but to no avail.  Hence, the present complaint has been filed alleging the above act of OP as gross deficiency in service and unfair trade practice due to which the complainant had to suffer a lot. 

2]             OP filed reply stating therein that the complainant had applied for the credit card vide application dated 20.9.2007 along with documents i.e. copies of income tax return, identity card of Election Commission of India, PAN Number duly self attested. It is also stated that the complainant did not disclose that he is employed as Constable in Chandigarh Police and rather informed that he is self employed and proprietor of Kaptan Medicos. It is also stated that the card in question was delivered to him on 14.1.2008 and the same was returned after misusing on 27.2.2008 and 28.2.2009.  However, the card was blocked on 28.2.2008 at 12.17 PM when complainant approached the OP Bank. The statements have been sent regularly to the complainant to return/pay the amount of the bank but he instead filed the present complaint.  Rest of the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3]             Parties led evidence in support of their contentions

4]             We have heard the ld.Counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5]             The contention of the complainant is that he never applied for and never approached the OP bank for the credit card, which was received by him in the month of Feb, 08. This contention is factually incorrect.  The OPs have placed on file annexure O-1, which shows that the complainant had applied for the credit card and had given his home address as well the address of the company where he was self employed. Alongwith the application the complainant has given annexure O-2 which is the copy of his PAN card , annexure O-3 which is the photocopy of his Photo identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and annexure O-4 which is the copy of his income tax return. These documents suggest that it was a conscious decision on the part of the complainant in view of which he applied for obtaining the credit card from the OPs. However in the present complaint he has falsely alleged that he had never applied for and never approached the OP bank for issuing of a credit card.

6]             The next contention of the complaint as mentioned in para 3 is that there were two addresses mentioned on the letter through which the credit card was received by him, one was that of the complainant whereas the second address pertained to Kaptan Medicos, a medical store in sector 34, Chandigarh. The learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that the complainant has nothing to do with the second address and therefore the credit card appears to be applied by the owner of the said medical store and not by the complainant.  This fact also is falsified from annexure O-1 which is the application moved by the complainant for obtaining the credit card.  There is a specific column in the application annexure O-1 for furnishing occupation details.  The complainant mentioned himself to be self employed and the name of the company was mentioned as Kaptan Medicos of which he claimed to be the proprietor.  He even mentioned having put in four years in the current job and the total work experience mentioned by him was 16 years.  The office address was mentioned by him as Shop No. 22, 3rd Floor, Thakur Dwara, Manimajra, Chandigarh.  The complainant has attached annexure C-2 which is the photocopy of the letter through which the card was delivered to him in which same  address of Kaptan Medicos has been mentioned and the same is given by the complainant in his application annexure O-1. The complainant has therefore told a lie in this respect also, not only to the OP bank while applying for the credit card but to this Forum also.  He concealed this information form this Forum that he had applied for the credit card  by giving wrong information to the OP bank in which he mentioned himself to be self employed as the proprietor of Kaptan Medicos, whereas in the present complaint in para 3  the complainant has mentioned that he is working with the government department. In response to a query put by the bench the complainant told that he is employed in the police department of U.T Chandigarh. However this information was not given by the complainant in the application annexure O-1 in which he mentioned himself to be the proprietor of Kaptan Medicos, as self employed for the last 4 years. This fact shows that the complainant is a crook, he is apt to tell lies and does not deserve any relief because the entire complaint moved by him is based on falsehood.

7]             The complainant has also mentioned in para 5 of the complaint that the credit card was never used by him and the account statement annexure C-5 received by him is wrong.  This fact also is proved to be false. The OPs have attached with the reply Annexure O-11, the statement dated 10.02.08, showing that the complainant purchased petrol worth Rs.411.2P on 3.02.08, the service tax was levied on him and he was liable to pay annual fee and joining fee.  Annexure O-13 is the statement dated 10.03.08 of the credit card showing that the complainant had purchased petrol, he purchased goods worth Rs.,13,600/- from National Watch House, Chandigarh, on 27.02.08,  he purchased goods worth Rs. 12,180/-  from Electro Pacific, Chandigarh on 27.02.08, he purchased goods worth Rs.820/- on said date from Chandigarh Industrial and T, Chandigarh, he purchased petrol worth Rs.1,025/- on 28.02.08 from IBP petrol pump, PAN and was given credit in petrol in the shape of surcharge  waiver on the  total amount paid by him . Thereafter, the statement annexure O-12 dated 10.05.08, was issued showing that a sum of Rs.44,308.8P was the previous balance due from the complainant and the closing balance was Rs.47,504.40P.  It is clear that after making the purchases the complainant did not make any payment to the OP bank and being in police department he mischievously thought to dodge the bank and also to dodge this Forum by asserting through this complaint, that he had never applied for the credit card and never used the same. The conduct of the complainant shows that the present complaint was filed by him to avoid the payment of the amount due from him. 

8]             The complainant has coined the story that when he received the credit card by post for which he had never applied and never approached the bank for any credit card he came to the OP bank and met Shri Rajesh Mittal and explained to him everything.  According to him the Manager of the bank told the complainant to drop the credit card in the drop box.  The complainant also claim to have written  a letter annexure C-3 and handed  over the same to the OP. In support of his contention the complainant has attached his affidavit which however cannot be relied upon because the complainant has not produced Shri Rajesh Mittal(D.M.) , or his affidavit in support of his assertion that he had contacted the said Shri Rajesh Mittal with any letter, or Shri Rajesh Mittal advised him to drop the credit card in the drop box.  Annexure C-3 appears to have been manufactured by the complainant in support of his contention but it does not prove to have been delivered to the OP bank.  There is no acknowledgment of this letter to have been delivered to the OP. It is also not believable that when the complainant who is employed in police department and who had applied for the credit card and had used the same for making purchases  upon which a sum of Rs. 47,504/- was due from him would drop the credit card in the drop box without obtaining any signatures from any officials of the bank.  It therefore shows that the complainant has manufactured this story wrongly which cannot be believed. In any case the OPs have denied if the contention of the complainant is correct.

9]             The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that when an enquiry was conducted in this respect the complainant had told that his credit card was stolen by the son of his friend who may be using the same.  This fact finds mention in annexure O-7 submitted by the OP.  The complainant however did not produce any evidence in support of his contention, if his credit card was stolen.  Infact, now it is not his case.  According to him he had received the credit card and he had gone to the bank and put the credit card in the drop box of the bank.  The story subsequently coined by him that his credit card was stolen by the son of his friend is therefore a white lie.  Otherwise also in order to prove his allegation, it was necessary for him to mention as to what is the name of his friend and his son who had stolen his credit card and was misusing it. It was  also necessary for him to lodge a repot with the police itself about the theft and the use of the card by his friends son. Nothing was done which shows that the complainant had first tried to feed this wrong information to the OPs that his credit card was stolen and was being misused by his friends son but when he found that this story would not be believed , he changed the story to the present one which is also equally none believable.

10]            In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the present complaint is false and is misuse of the process of law. The complainant has intentionally coined a false story to harass the OPs. The entire complaint is based on falsehood and the complaint is liable to be thrown out of Court.

11]            We therefore have no hesitation in holding that the complaint merits dismissal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The complainant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the OPs for filing this false complaint as provided under section 26 of the CPA.

12]            A copy of this order be sent to the SSP, Chandigarh for taking an appropriate action in the matter, so that the police officials do not misuse their authority to harass others.

                Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.