DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.667 of 2015
Date of institution: 10.12.2015 Date of decision : 16.03.2018
Dinesh Kumar Saini son of Shri Hukam Chand Saini, H.No.33, 2nd Floor, Phase-XI, SAS Nagar, Mohali 160062.
…….Complainant
Vs
Barclays Bank Plc, Barclays Bank PLC – India Head Office, 801-808 Ceejay House, Shivsagar Estate, Dr. Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400018.
……..Opposite Party No.1.
Phoenix ARC Private Limited, Dani Corporate Park, 7th Floor, 158, C.S.T. Road, Kalina, Santa Cruz (E), Mumbai 400 098 India.
……..Opposite Party No.2.
Complaint under Section 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri G.K. Dhir, President,
Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member
Mrs. Natasha Chopra, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Vikram R., counsel for OP No.1.
OP No.2 Ex-parte
Order by :- Shri G.K. Dhir, President.
Order
Complainant received credit card from Barclays Bank PLC in 2010 bearing number mentioned in Para No.1 of the complaint. A letter enclosing this card was addressed to the addressee having slight resemblance to the complainant’s office address. Complainant claims to have never applied for this card and that is why immediately after receiving the card, he destroyed it. Complainant claims that thereafter he contacted Barclays Bank PLC customer care through phone to close associated account running in his name. Complainant was informed that the card has an insurance associated with it and as such he has to pay premium for closing it. Despite repeated requests of complainant to OP bank to close the account, they did not pay heed. Thereafter, complainant sent many requests to OP No.1 and its associate OP No.2 for sending copy of his signed application for this credit card, but they failed to send the same and as such it is claimed that virtually no application available with OPs. Complainant’s CIBIL TUSCR score stood severely affected by report of OPs resulting in loss of trustworthiness/creditworthiness of complainant. Loan application submitted by complainant was declined due to wrong information provided to CIBIL by OPs. Complainant felt cheated by OPs. The credit card was received by complainant in his office at Mohali and payment of Rs.3,200/- had to be made by him through NEFT at Mohali on 05.02.2015 as demanded by OPs for rectification of information to be sent to CIBIL. Prayer made for directing OPs to correct their records and give true report to CIBIL. Compensation for mental harassment and agony alongwith litigation expenses also claimed.
2. OP No.1 filed reply for claiming that complaint is false, vexatious and frivolous because no cause of action accrued in favour of complainant. OP No.1 was having card business in 2011, but same was assigned and transferred to OP No.2 and as such it is claimed that no relief can be granted against OP No.1 regarding card in question. Main grievance of the complainant alleged to be against OP No.2 because settlement is not reflected in CIBIL records. CIBIL report is to be submitted by OP No.2. Complainant was desirous of obtaining credit card facility from OP No.1 and that is why he was informed about the various credit card products offered by OP No.1 through telephonic conversation. Complainant after considering the various options opted to avail the credit card product offered by OP No.1. Thereafter credit card alongwith covering letter, application form and credit card membership rules and regulations were sent at the address as provided by complainant. It is claimed that complainant has not made payment of outstanding dues on the card. However, it is claimed that the claim in relation to said card has been settled by OP No.2 with complainant. OP No.1 has not collected any amount from complainant and as such it is not responsible for CIBIL reporting. Complaint alleged to be filed with malafide intention for tarnishing image of OP No.1. Alleged cause of action accrued to complainant in year 2010, when he received the credit card from OP No.1, but complaint is filed in 2015 and as such complaint alleged to be barred by limitation. Even the demand in respect of insurance transaction was put forth by OP No.1 in 2010 and as such cause of action accrued in 2010. As the present complaint is filed after more than 5 years from the date accrual of cause of action and as such prayer made for dismissing the same by invoking Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, which prescribes period of two years for filing consumer complaint from the date of accrual of cause of action. No application for condonation of delay even has been filed by complainant. The dispute raised by complainant for removing his name from CIBIL record requires to be resolved in terms of provisions of Section 18 of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 and in view of bar contained in Section 31 of the said Act, this Forum has no jurisdiction. No act of OP No.1 caused mental agony and financial loss to complainant at any point of time and as such by denying other facts of the complaint, prayer made for dismissal of the complaint.
3. OP No.2 is ex-parte in this case.
4. Complainant to prove his case tendered in evidence two affidavits i.e. affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 of Deepak Sah, Constituted Attorney of Barclays Bank as well as his own affidavit Ex.CW-1/12 and after tendering documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-4 he closed evidence. On the other hand, counsel for OP No.1 tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.OP-1/1 of Deepak Sah, and then closed evidence.
5. Written arguments not submitted by the parties, but oral arguments of complainant and counsel for OP No.1 heard and records gone through.
6. After perusal of the complaint and supporting affidavit Ex.CW-1/2 of complainant, it is made out that OP No.1 Bank issued credit card in question in 2010 and complainant destroyed the same immediately after receipt of same by claiming as if he has never applied for this card. It was after destruction of this card by complainant that he contacted OP No.1 though customer care call centre for claiming that he has never applied for the card, but got information as if the card is insurance associated and as such complainant should pay premium before closure of the same. So certainly submissions advanced by counsel for OP No.1 has force that cause of action accrued to complainant in 2010, when he received the credit card in question despite the fact that he did not apply for the same. A credit card always remains the property of the bank, but the complainant destroyed the same without concurrence of the issuing bank or the financial institution to which rights assigned by issuing bank and as such virtually complainant destroyed the property of the OP by destroying card in question. If really, the card in question would not have been applied by complainant, then it was his duty to return back the card to the issuing branch for asserting that the card is not required by him. That has not been done, but complainant at his own destroyed the credit card in question and as such he himself committed offence of destroying the property i.e. credit card owned by issuing bank branch.
7. Copy of the balance sheet Ex.C-1 of account of complainant shows as if Rs.7,467.07 N.P. was standing balance in his account as on 31.10.2011. Number of credit card in this balance sheet is same as is mentioned by complainant in Para No.1 of his complaint. So on getting of this balance sheet in October, 2011, certainly complainant got knowledge as if the credit card in question issued in his name, number of which specifically mentioned in this balance sheet Ex.C-1. What steps were taken by complainant after receipt of the worked out balance outstanding amount in his account on 31.10.2011, qua that nothing disclosed by complainant and as such it is obvious that complainant despite getting of knowledge of issue of credit card in his name took no steps virtually for claiming that application for issue of credit card has not been sent by him. Cause of action accrued to complainant in 2010 in the first instance, when the credit card was received and destroyed by him and as such for the deficient services provided by OP No.1 in issuing the card in his name with the address of his office, cause of action accrued to complainant for getting credit card cancelled by returning back the credit card. That credit card never returned by complainant, but he destroyed the same and as such certainly this complaint filed on 10.12.2015 after lapse of 5 years of accrual of cause of action, is barred by limitation in view of Section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, which provides that consumer complaint must be filed within two years of accrual of cause of action, but in case there is sufficiency of cause for not filing the complaint within limitation, then application for condonation of delay should be filed. No application for condonation of delay has been filed by complainant and nor reasons for late filing of this complaint virtually disclosed properly and as such certainly complaint is barred by limitation.
8. As per procedure for obtaining Barclays credit card extracted from internet, it is made out that a person applying for a credit card with Barclays Bank must be an Indian resident in the age ranging from 18 to 70 years and he for proof of address, he should submit the bank statement or ration card or phone or electricity bill. Besides for proof of identity, the applicant concerned has to submit passport or voter card or driving license. Even proof of income in the shape of Form-16 or last month’s salary slip, if salaried, or ITR for last two years (for self employed) or job appointment letter (for recently appointed) to be submitted. If such proofs of address, identity and income required for issue of credit card by Barclays Bank, then certainly OP No.1 bank would not have issued the credit card in the name of complainant by mentioning his account number unless complainant would have applied for the same. So the assertion of complainant that he did not apply for the credit card is not enough, more so when he himself committed offence of destroying the credit card belonging to bank, as discussed in detail above.
9. Second grievance of complainant is that he had to pay insurance amount of Rs.3,200/- demanded by OP bank on 05.02.2015. That amount was claimed as an insurance premium amount payable on the credit card in question. If really the credit card in question would not have been got issued by the complainant, then he need not have paid the premium amount. However, complainant contends that the said amount had to be paid by him forcibly, so that he may get due favourable CIBIL report for showing his credit worthiness. Ex.C-2 is copy of CIBIL Consumer Credit Information report dated 24.03.2015, which shows score of the complainant as 00650. After going through this report, it is made out that complainant also availed housing loan, which account later on after payment stood closed. So credit score of complainant did not become unworthy of credence just because of issue of credit card in his favour, but the same was also depending on payment or non payment in time of the housing loan amount.
10. Ex.C-3 is receipt dated 05.02.2015 showing as if complainant had to pay Rs.3,200/- through NEFT transaction. Ex.C-4 is e-mail correspondence entered by complainant for seeking upgradation of CIBIL status report. So virtually complainant seeking settlement of the dispute with respect to his CIBIL score ratings. This dispute pertains to credit information settlement of complainant as made available to CIBIL. Section 18 of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005 provides that if any dispute amongst credit card information companies, credit institutions, borrowers and clients on matters relating to business of credit information is raised, then the parties to the dispute may consent in writing for determination of such dispute through conciliation proceedings as may be got initiated under provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. That arbitrator to be appointed by Reserve Bank or as per the mode provided under Section 18 of this Act. The dispute in the present case also raised by complainant as borrower of OP No.1 bank regarding the credit information supplied by bank, a company of CIBIL. So the dispute falls within the domain of Section 18 of Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act, 2005. Section 31 of this Act further provides that no court or authority shall be entitled to exercise any jurisdiction, powers or authority in relation to the matters referred in Section 18 of this Act except the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226 and 227 of Constitution of India. In view of bar created by Section 31 of this Act, this Forum cannot ascertain the dispute regarding erroneousness or otherwise of the credit information supplied by OPs to CIBIL regarding credit worthiness of complainant, as borrower of OP No.1 bank. The deficiency in service in such circumstances by complainant not proved and complaint otherwise is also barred by limitation, so the same merits dismissal.
11. As a sequel of above discussion, complaint dismissed without any order as to costs. Certified copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.
Announced
March 16, 2018.
(G.K. Dhir)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu) Member
(Mrs. Natasha Chopra)
Member
