DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, GURGAON-122001.
Consumer Complaint No: 86 of 2009 Date of Institution: 30.01.2009 Date of Decision: 02.11.2015.
Lalit Sharma R/o 373/28, Jyoti Park, Near Sector-7 Extn, Gurgaon, Haryana.
……Complainant.
Versus
- Barclays Bank, Barclays Bank Ltd, 1st Floor, Eros Corp. Tower, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 through its Manager.
- Barclays Finance Ltd, SCO-48-49, Sector-15, Old Judicial Complex, Near Mor Chowk, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Manager.
..Opposite parties
Complaint under Sections 12 & 14 of Consumer Protection Act,1986
BEFORE: SH.SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
SMT JYOTI SIWACH, MEMBER
SH.SURENDER SINGH BALYAN, MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Vinay Partap Singh, Adv for the complainant.
Sh. Harish Malhotra, Adv for the opposite parties
ORDER; SUBHASH GOYAL, PRESIDENT.
The case of the complainant, in brief, is that he has applied for credit card but the same was not delivered to the complainant’s residential address. After some time he himself collected the credit card packet from the courier Express IT in Jan, 2008 which bear No.4339480892936285 with credit limit of Rs.81,000/-. The complainant used the card in Big Bazar on 26.01.2008 and purchased items Rs.1718/- and on 16.02.2008 the complainant also purchased the items for Rs.2255/- from Gupta Medical Hall but the Bank did not give any statement to the complainant. On 06.03.2008 the complainant called upon the customer care and asked for payment of due date. The bank representative informed the complainant that the due date was 10th March, 2008. On 07.03.2008 the complainant dropped a cheque for Rs.3974/- in Sky Pak Box at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. At that time there was no other method to pay the amount. The complainant received the statement up to 15th March, 2008 which showed the payment of Rs.3974/- and late fee of Rs.450/- in the month of April, 2008. In July, 2008 the limit on the credit card was revised from Rs.81,000/- to Rs.8000/-. In the year 2008 the opposite party put the name of the complainant on Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd (CIBIL). When the complainant applied for the personal loan in Fullerton India Ltd he knew that his name was in CIBIL. Fullerton India Ltd rejected his loan because his name was in CIBIL. The complainant requested the opposite parties to withdraw the entire late fee charges and to maintain the initial debit limit of Rs.81,000/- and to delete the name of the complainant on the CIBIL net but of no use. Thus, the opposite parties are deficient in providing services to the complainant. On the aforesaid allegations the complainant filed the present complaint against the opposite parties. The complaint is supported with an affidavit and the documents placed on file.
2 The OPs in their written reply have alleged that as per the Bank’s records the cheque was collected on 13.03.2008 deposited on 14.03.2008 and cleared on 15.03.2008 and the same is duly credited to the account. The complainant’s cheque was cleared on 15.03.2008 and due date was 10.03.2008 and late payment fee and interest was charged as per terms and conditions. The complainant has utilized the card for shopping purposes even in July and August, 2008 and August, 2008. Since the complainant was defaulted in payment of not only of interest and charges but also in the payment of the principal amount, there is no reason for him to object to reporting to CIBIL. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.
3 We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record available on file carefully.
4 Therefore, from the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence on the file and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the complainant has filed the present complaint against the OPs alleging deficiency of service on their part on the ground that on 07.03.2008 he dropped a cheque of Rs.3974/- in Sky Pak Box at Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon but the opposite parties charged late fee of Rs.450/- and wrongly put the name of the complainant in CIBIL list.
5 However, the contention of the opposite party is that as per the Bank’s records the cheque was collected on 13.03.2008 deposited on 14.03.2008 and cleared on 15.03.2008 and the same is duly credited to the account. The complainant’s cheque was cleared on 15.03.2008 and due date was 10.03.2008 and late payment fee and interest was charged as per terms and conditions. However, learned counsel for the opposite party has also contended that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter because the provisions of Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 has specifically excluded the jurisdiction of courts or any other authority.
6 Therefore, after going through the facts and circumstances of the case and the provisions of Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005, we have to decide first as to whether this Forum has jurisdiction to decide the present matter or not. Thus, the provisions of Section 31 of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 are reproduced as under:-
“31.Bar of jurisdiction-No court or authority shall have, or be entitled to exercise, any jurisdiction, powers or authority, except the Supreme Court and a High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of the Constitution, in relation to the matters referred to in Sections 4,5,6,7 and 18.”
Therefore, in view of clear cut bar of the jurisdiction before this Forum the complaint is not maintainable and the same is hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The parties concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and the file be consigned to the records after due compliance.
Announced (Subhash Goyal)
02.11.2015 President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Gurgaon
(Jyoti Siwach) (Surender Singh Balyan)
Member Member
