Consumer Complaint No. C.C- 01/2021
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant:- Sri. Arabind Kumai & Ors
Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps:- Adv. Sattyam Allay & Vatsal Verma.
An application has been filed by the Complainant U/S 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service therefore the Complainant prays for the direction to be given to the O.Ps to pay the said debited amount of Rs.57,752/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two) only, with bank interest and to rectify the error stated in the record and to allow damage sustained by the Complainant both monitory loss and mental agony due to failure and negligence on the Part of the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
The gist fact of the case is that the Complainant is the Saving Bank account holder, being Account No. 20053064984 of the State Bank of India, Jalapahar (07445) Branch, Dist Darjeeling, jointly with his wife Ms. Prabha Sherpa since 13/04/2018. The said branch of the S.B.I bank issued one Credit Card being no. 4687-4360-7517-6691 in the name of the Complainant. Further the Complainant stated that to the utter surprise that the Complainant found on Verification of the Bank Statement that an amount of Rs.57,752/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two) only was debited on different dates which has been reflected in the Pass Book from the S.B.I Credit Card ending with no. 7445.
Thereafter, the Bank intimated to the Complainant through message on the registered mobile of the Complainant that the outstanding due was of Rs. 94,156.43 (Rupees Ninety Four Thousand One Hundred Fifty Six Rupees and forty three paisa only) was lying outstanding in the said account of the Complainant.
It is further stated by the Complainant that he has neither used the said cards i.e. Credit cards issued by the SBI Bank nor has purchased anything through online using the said Credit Cards. Hence, the deduction of said amount of Rs.57,752/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Two only) from the Complainant’s Account and also showing the outstanding due of Rs. Rs. 94,156.43 was lying outstanding in said account of the Complainant was in fact a huge shock to the Complainant in person.
It is the contention of the Complainant that he visited the office of the O.Ps several times and requested to rectify the said error and refund the said debited amount which was taken out from the account of the Complainant, but all the efforts were in vain.
The Complainant being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the O.Ps submitted a Complaint letter to the Chief Manager, S.B.I, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri in respect of the said disputed matter. But here too the Complainant met with dissatisfaction as no positive response was received from the O.Ps. It was finally through email the Complainant received a message from customer service S.B.I dated 27/10/2020 stating that the disputed matter is under investigation process.
The Complainant has alleged deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps, and dilly dallying the said rectification and refund of said amount of Rs, Rs.57,752/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two) only causing irreparable monitory loss and mental agony. There was no reason whatsoever to deny the claim of the respondent and thus files this case for proper redressal and prays for the relief as under -
The Complainant prays for the following reliefs:
- That direction to be given to the O.Ps to pay the said debited amount of Rs.57,752/- (Rupees Fifty Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Two) only, with bank interest and to rectify the error stated in the record to the Complainant,
- To allow damage sustained by the Complainant both monitory loss and mental agony due to failure,
- Negligence on the Part of the O.Ps to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees One Lakh only) and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only).
List of documents filed by the Complainant as under:-
- Copy of Pass Book of the Complainant.
- Aadhar Card of the Complainant
- Email receipt dated 27/10/2020.
Initially, there were only two O.Ps i.e. O.P no.1 and 2 mentioned in the Complaint filed by the Complainant. O.P no. 3 was not mentioned as a third party. Hence, after the admission of the case the first notice has been issued to the Opposite Parties no.1 and 2 from the office of this Commission, Darjeeling. The said notice dated 24/02/2021 was sent to O.Ps no.1 and 2. It appears from the case record vide order no.3 dated 04/03/2021 that the O.Ps no.1 and 2 received the copy of the Complaint by putting endorsement on the Original Complaint directing the O.Ps no.1 and 2 to file W/V by 19/03/2021 but it can been seen again from the case record that the O.Ps no.1 and 2 has sought time for filing Written Version on numerous times from the date of receiving the copy of Complaint and no W/V was filed within the statutory period of 45 days.
together due to the lockdown called up because of the havoc caused by the Covid 19, no proceedings could take place accordingly.
It was only after the life turning back to normal after the tumult caused by the Covid 19 the O.Ps appeared before the Commission on 08/12/2021 and again sought time for filing it, accordingly the further date was fixed on 20/01/2022 for filing the same.
It was on 20/01/2022 the Branch Manager, Jalapahar Branch; Darjeeling Mr. Abhishek Kumar appeared before this Commission and submitted that the Managing Director deals with S.B.I cards and services Ltd, having its office at DLF Infinity Tower C, 12th Floor, Block 2 Building 3 DLF Cyber City Gurgaon 122002, Haryana. Hence, the Complainant felt it necessary to add Managing Director, SBI cards and services Ltd as a necessary party to the instant case. Therefore, this Commission after hearing ordered the said Managing Director, SBI cards and services Ltd to be added as O.P no.3. Besides, it was ordered that both O.P no.1 and 2 are the proper parties in whose presence the case needs to be decided consequently. Hence, accordingly the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Complainant was being ordered by this Commission to amend the Complaint u/o 6,rule 17 of the C.P.C by 24/01/2022 positively. After amending/adding the details of the said Managing Director, the Complainant was ordered to send copy of the amended plaint along with the requisites to all the O.P no.1, 2 and 3. Accordingly this Commission granted next date 18/02/2022 to Complainant for it.
But however the Complainant delayed in filing amended complaint for two dates as allowed by the Commission. It was on 21/03/2022 the Complainant filed
the amended complaint and served copy upon the Ld. Advocates of the O.Ps including O.P no.3 was ordered to file Written Version by 13/04/2022.
On 13/04/2022 the O.P no.3 filed Written Version. The O.P no.1 and 2 submitted before this Commission on 13/05/2022 that both O.P no.1 and 2 have been supporting O.P no.3 and hence relied upon the same Written Version filed by the O.P 3.
The Complainant as per the order of this Commission was to file evidence-in-Chief by 21/06/2023 However, the Complainant filed time petition many times on various ground which were allowed. It was ultimately on 19/09/2022 the Advocate on behalf of the Complainant filed Evidence-in-Chief and the copy of the same was served to all the O.Ps. Hence, accordingly next date was allowed to the O.P no.1, 2, and 3 for filing questionnaire.
But on 26/09/2022, this Commission while going through the case record found that the Complainant had filed Amended Version of the Complaint on 21/03/2022 but was not supported with an Affidavit. It could be further seen by this Commission from the case record that the Evidence-in- Chief filed by the Complainant on 19.09.2022 but there was no signature of the Complainant on each and every page of the written-evidence-in-Chief. Hence, this Commission directed the Complainant fixing 19/10/2022 for filing afresh written Affidavit-in-Chief, filing Amended Version of the Complaint supported by an Affidavit and hearing of the petition dated 08/12/2021 and Questionnaire and passing further orders.
The Ld. Advocate for the Complainant filed amended version of the complaint on 13/12/2022 supported by an Affidavit. The copy of which was supplied to the O.Ps. The Complainant filed another petition praying for filing original documents
in order to prove his case. This Commission did allow the Complainant time for filing documents by the Complainant. The O.Ps raised no objection. It was on 22/02/2023 the Ld. Adv for the Complainant filed original documents through Annexure with two sets of copies with it for the O.Ps.
Following it as per the order dated 22/03/2023, this case was fixed for filling questionnaire by all the O.Ps against the Evidence-in- Chief of the Complainant on 18/04/2023.
On 18/04/2023 however the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the O.P no 1,2 and 3 sought for time for filing questionnaire on the ground that he did not get copy of evidence of the Complainant along with the relevant documents from the Complainant. Hence, next date was fixed on 24/04/2023 for questionnaire by all the O.Ps against the evidence of the Complainant.
The matter was also fixed for settlement through Lok Adalat which was held on 13/05/2023.
But on the date fixed for Lok Adalat none of the O.Ps remained present and hence the case record was placed to the regular affairs of this Commission for further proceedings and fixed 18/05/2023.
It was on 18/05/2023 Ld. Adv on behalf of the O.P no.3 filed questionnaire, while the Ld. Advocate on behalf of the O.P no.1 and 2 filed a petition stating inertia that he wants to adopt the questionnaire put by the O.P no.3. Ld. Advocate for O.P no 1 and 2 submitted that he would not put any separate questionnaire in order to cross examine the evidence of the complainant and he wants to simply adopt the questionnaire as said forth by the O.P no.3.
The Commission allowed the same. The copy of it was served upon the Complainant and accordingly next date was fixed on 22/06/2023 for filing reply with an affidavit by the Complainant. But on the date fixed the Complainant filed a time petition but the petition was allowed subject to the payment of the cost of Rs. 300/- to be deposited to the State Consumer Legal Aid Account by the Complainant.
On the next date 04/07/2023 Complainant filed the reply with an Affidavit before this Commission and also made a payment of cost of Rs.300/-
The copy of the reply was served to the O.Ps and which was received by the Ld. Advocate of the O.Ps. The Evidence of the complainant was closed fixing 24/07/2023 for filing Evidence-in- Chief by the OPs.
It was on 08/08/2023 the Advocate on behalf of the O.P no and 2 has filed an authorization letter dated 07/08/2023 issued by the O.P no.2 authorizing O.P no.1 to appear on behalf of it in this concerned matter before this Commission. On the same date the O.P no.1,2 and 3 failed to file Evidence-in- Chief and as such last chance was given to the OPs to file Evidence-in-Chief.
On 17/08/2023, the Ld. Advocate for the O.P no.1 and 2 filed Written Examination-in-Chief (DW-1) while the Ld. Advocate for the O.P no 3 filed time petition. Considering the prayer, no objection was raised by the Complainant.
In the Written Version filed by the O.P No.3, the O.Ps denied all the material allegations of the Complaint petition and stated that the case is not maintainable in the eye of law.
The O.P no.3 denies all the allegations made by the Complainant as false, frivolous and concocted and submits that the story cooked up by the complainant as false and unbelievable.
The O.P denies the allegations holding it requiring strict proof to substantiate the allegation as labeled against the O.P no.1. The O.P further submits that it is the Complainant who has committed fraud and as such he is not entitled to relief as claimed by him and hence the case filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs to the O.Ps. Further, the O.P stated in the Written Version that the case of the Complainant is not maintainable in the back drop of the settled principles of law and there is no deficiency of service caused by the O.P in any way. The O.Ps therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the case.
During hearing of the case:
The Complainant adduced evidence and filed Written Examination-in-Chief supported by an affidavit on 12/12/2022 and further submitted original documents was submitted on 22/02/2023 by making Annexure.
The O.P no.3 filed Questionnaires on 18/05/2023. The O.P no.1 and 2 filed one petition stating inter-alia that he wants to adopt the questionnaire put by the O.P no.3. Ld Advocate for O.P no.1 and 2 submitted that he would not put any separate questionnaire in order to cross examine the Evidence of the Complainant.
The Complainant also made reply to those questionnaire filed by O.P no.3 on 04/07/2023. The evidence of the Complainant was closed then. Hence, accordingly O.P no 1, 2 and 3 was to file Evidence –in-Chief.
It is revealed from the case record that The Authorization letter dated 07/08/2023 was filed by O.P no.2 before this Commission on 08/08/2023 authorizing O.P no.1 to appear on behalf of O.P no.2 for the concerned matter before this Commission.
It can be seen from Written Examination-in-Chief (DW1) filed by the O.P no.1 on 17/08/2023 before this Commission as per its order. In the said Written Examination-in-Chief filed by O.P no.1 (Branch Manager) it is clearly accepted that the Complainant is an account holder of the O.P no.1 and that the O.P no.3 SBI credit card is different entity. That O.P no.3 (Managing Director, SBI Credit Card and Payment Services Ltd) has been added in the case in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the case. According to O.P no.1 the real dispute is in between the Complainant and the O.P no.3. The amount of Rs.57,752/- only was deducted from the account of the Complainant. It was deducted by O.P no.3 and O.P no.1 and 2 has no role on said deduction.
But the Ld. Advocate for O.P no.3 filed one time petition praying for adducing Evidence on behalf of the O.P no.3 after the closing of the Evidence of the O.P no.1 and 2.
Accordingly, next date was fixed by this Commission on 01/09/2023 for filing questionnaire by the Complainant against Evidence-in-Chief of the O.P no.1 and 2 and for filling Evidence-in- Chief by the O.P no.3. But on the said date fixed by this Commission, the Advocate for the Complainant filed a time petition seeking further time for filing questionnaire on the ground i.e. after the filing of the Evidence-in-Chief by the O.P no.3. Hence, allowing this petition last chance was given to the O.P no.3 for filing Evidence-in-Chief.
It is revealed after going through this case record that since the O.P no.3 did not file evidence irrespective of the order no.45 dated 14/09/2023, the Evidence of the O.P no.3 remained closed. Hence, accordingly the Complainant was to file questionnaire against the Evidence-in- Chief filed by the O.P no.1 and 2.
It is seen from case record that as per order no.47 dated 03/10/2023, the Evidence of the O.P no.3 is closed as the O.P no.3 did not file the evidence irrespective of previous orders.
On going through this case record it can be seen that the Ld. Advocate for the O.P no.3 filed one application on 23/11/2023 before this Commission for re-opening the Evidence of the O.P no.3 and prayed for acceptance of the evidence of the O.P no3. The Ld. Advocate for the O.P no.3 submitted Written Affidavit-in-Chief. The copy of it was served to the Complainant and the Complainant had no objection.
It can be seen from Written Examination-in-Chief (DW1) filed by the O.P no.3 on 23/11/2023 before this Commission that the O.P no.3 had issued SBI card bearing no. 0004687436075176691 to complainant on the basis of receipt of duly filled up application form received in the month of August 2018. That the Complainant had used the card and as per auto debit instruction mandate which was opted by the complainant while applying the card was initiated but the same gets bounced. The transaction details have been mentioned in the Written Examination-in-Chief. According to the O.P, the SBI cardholder are advised to pay the amount due as per monthly statements to avoid any charges or have the option to pay at least minimum amount due to avoid late payment charges.
According to the O.P no.3, it is clearly mentioned in the Written Examination-in-Chief that, in case the payments are missed or outstanding on the card is
received less than the total amount due then interest charges are applied on the balance amount, this is applicable on all the fresh charges incurred in the same month. The finance charge will be levied at 3.35% per month plus service tax as per applicable charges. According to O.P no.3 since the payment for the amount was not received therefore the SSP payment was activated and as per the product construct to keep the account updated and non-delinquent Auto Sweep (henceforth SSP) of the minimum amount due was activated based on the authorization letter submitted by cardholder while applying the card.
The SSP option states that in absence of the payment on the SBI Card account for more than 3 days from payment due date, complainant authorizes us to debit the amount from their given bank account at the time of card application.
O.P no.3 mentioned that as per card holder agreement the SBI Card shall be absolutely entitled to sell, assign or transfer in any manner the outstanding dues of a card holder to any third party of SBICPSL. Hence as such the card account of the Complainant is sold to Enforce Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd on March 30, 2021 and same was communicated to the Complainant. As per the O.P no.3 the card agreement comes within the preview of Sec 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which is binding upon the parties. Therefore, no cause of action in the favour of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The Complainant filed questionnaire and the copy of it was served upon O.P no.3 on 06/11/2024. It was on 05/01/2024 that the O.P no.3 filed reply to the questionnaire with an affidavit and also the receipt of payment of cost of Rs.400/- before the Commission.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant and also Ld. Advocate for the O.P no.1,2 and 3 filed BNA before this Commission on 14/03/2024. The BNA so filed was ordered by this Commission to be kept with the record of the case.
O.P no.1 and 2 in the BNA has argued that the real dispute is in between the Complainant and the O.P no.3. That the amount of Rs. 57,752 was deducted from the account of the Complainant by the O.P no.3 and O.P no.1 and 2 have no role of the said deduction. There is no negligence or any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and hence the instant complaint case is liable to be dismissed.
According to O.P no.3 in the BNA the credit card was issued to the Complainant on the basis of application form duly filled up and signed by the Complainant. The Complainant in spite of using the SBI credit card has falsely claimed that he has not used the said credit card for any online transactions. The O.P no.3 firmly pointed out that the Complainant has used the card several times on the online platforms as Paytm, Flipkart etc. The Complainant has not cleared the outstanding bill of the credit card on time and for that reason the auto debit scheme was enforced on the basis of the authorization given by the complainant at the time of application of the card.
O.P argued that the Complainant has used the credit card for online transactions and as such the outstanding payable in the credit card is reflective in the card of the Complainant. As per the Card Holder Agreement the SBI Card shall be absolutely entitled to sell, assign or transfer in any manner the outstanding dues of the card Holder to any third party of SBICPSL choice, the card holder accept such third party as a creditor and the outstanding payable by the card holder will be paid to the third party. As such the card account of the Complainant is sold to Enforce Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd. The same was communicated to the Complainant on 30th March 2021.
The O.P no.3 has argued that the Complainant has indulged into illegal acts and conducts amounting to overreaching this Hon’ble Commission and causing obstruction in the administration of justice by this Commission (S.P Chenalvarya Naidu Vs Jagannath and othrs AIR 1994 SC 853).
The O.P no.3 argued that the burden of deficiency of services is on the complainant and the Complainant has failed to discharge the same (Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ravneet Singh Bagga Vs. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines(2000)1SCC 66).
Heard the argument of the case from Complainant and also from O.P no.1, 2 and 3 on 18/04/2024.
From the Complaint Petition, W/V of the O.Ps, evidence of both the parties and other materials on record, the following points have been framed:-
- Is the Complainant a Consumer?
- Are the Opposite Parties deficient in providing service towards the Complainant?
- Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:
All the points are taken together for the sake of brevity, avoidance of repetition of facts, convenience for discussion and arriving at a just decision of the case.
In order to unearth the point whether the present Complainant is a consumer
or not, we have to scan the evidence of the complainant and other documents filed from which it is detected that the Complainant is the Saving Bank account holder, being Account no. 20053064984 with Opposite Party no.1 i.e. State Bank of India, Jalapahar (07445) Branch, Dist Darjeeling, jointly with his wife Ms. Prabha Sherpa, since 13/04/2018. While the Opposite Party no.2 is a Chief Manager, S.B.I., Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, District Darjeeling. The Opposite Party has not denied the fact that the Complainant is the Saving Bank Account holder. The O.Ps also provided a credit card, being no. 4687-4360-7517-6691 in the name of the Complainant.
Therefore, in our considered view the Complainant is a Consumer within the meaning and definition given U/S 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
Now, in order to ascertain whether the O.Ps were negligent or deficient in service or not we have to gauge the evidence of the parties once again.
It is seen from the evidence of the Complainant and the O.Ps that the Complainant is the Saving Bank Account Holder being Account No. 200530649984 in the SBI, Jalpahar (07445) Branch P.O, P.S and Dist Darjeeling jointly with his wife since 13/04/2018. The Complainant has filed an original copy of the SBI S.B A/C Pass Book,being Account No. 200530649984. He also filed the Credit card issued by the SBI bearing no. 4687436075176691. According to the Complainant he had send a Complaint letter to the Chief Manager, SBI, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, Dist Darjeeling and also one letter to the area Sale SBI Siliguri, through post bearing Consignment no: RW734959192IN dated 21/10/2020. The Complainant has filed only the original copy of the Postal receipt in respect of the letter sent to the Area Sale SBI Siliguri. But no where there is filing of the Complaint letter sent
to the Chief Manager, SBI, Hill Cart Road, Siliguri, Dist Darjeeling. The Complainant has also filed the original copy of email dated 27/10/2020 received from customer service SBI Card. Adhar card of the Complainant and also PAN card of the Complainant. Bearing no:- CRLPS7704R.
It is seen from the pass book of the Complainant that on 08.10.2018 an amount of Rs. 1768.82 was deducted from the bank account of the Complainant as credit card payment.
Again, it is seen that on 18.12.2019, an amount of Rs. Rs. 1768.82 was deducted from his bank account for credit card payment. Again on 09.03.2020, an amount of Rs.118 was deducted on account of credit card payment. Again, on 13.04.2020 an amount of Rs. 5096/ was debited from his account for SBI credit card payment.
Again on 12.05.2020, an amount of Rs.6700/ was debited from this account for SBI credit card payment.
Again on 11.06.2020 an amount of Rs.17,302/ was debited from his account for SBI credit card payment.
Again on 25.09.2020 an amount of Rs. 25,116/ was debited from his account for SBI Credit Card.
Therefore, it is seen that the Complainant has made several purchases through online mode by using the credit card. The Complainant had never made any complaint before the authority concerned that his credit card had been used unauthorizedly. During the entire tenure of transactions and deductions being made, as stated above, the Complainant had never approached the Bank and made any complaint that he had not purchased anything by using the said credit
card, though he had prior knowledge of the same. He had not mentioned anywhere that his credit card was lost or used by someone else unauthorizedly. If the bank had been debiting amounts from his account due to purchase through credit card, which according to him was not used by him in any way, then why he did not go to the bank for blocking the card after getting knowledge of the same at the initial stages. The evidence led by the Complainant is not satisfactory.
On the other hand, it is seen from the evidence of the O.P No:3 that the O.P no.3 had issued SBI card bearing no. 0004687436075176691 to the complainant on the basis of receipt of duly filled up application form received in the month of August 2018 and the Complainant had used the card and as per auto debit instruction mandate which was opted by the complainant while applying the card was initiated but the same gets bounced. The transaction details have been mentioned in the Written Examination-in-Chief. According to the O.P, the SBI cardholder are advised to pay the amount due as per monthly statements to avoid any charges or have the option to pay at least minimum amount due to avoid late payment charges.
According to the O.P no.3, it is clearly mentioned in the Written Examination-in-Chief that, in case the payments are missed or outstanding on the card is received less than the total amount due then interest charges are applied on the balance amount, this is applicable on all the fresh charges incurred in the same month. The finance charge will be levied at 3.35% per month plus service tax as per applicable charges. According to O.P no.3 since the payment for the amount was not received therefore the SSP payment was activated and as per the product construct to keep the account updated and non-delinquent Auto Sweep
(henceforth SSP) of the minimum amount due was activated based on the authorization letter submitted by cardholder while applying the card.
The SSP option states that in absence of the payment on the SBI Card account for more than 3 days from payment due date, complainant authorizes us to debit the amount from their given bank account at the time of card application.
O.P no.3 mentioned that as per card holder agreement the SBI Card shall be absolutely entitled to sell, assign or transfer in any manner the outstanding dues of a card holder to any third party of SBICPSL. Hence as such the card account of the Complainant is sold to Enforce Asset Reconstruction Co. Pvt. Ltd on March 30, 2021 and same was communicated to the Complainant. As per the O.P no.3 the card agreement comes within the preview of Sec 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which is binding upon the parties. Therefore, no cause of action in the favour of the complainant and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
After going through the entire case record specially considering the evidence led by the parties It is seen that the Complainant could not able to prove his case because he did not file the relevant documents to support the Complaint which he had made to the Bank, according to him. The burden of proving the case lies upon the Complainant only. But he has miserably failed to prove his case. From the documents filed by the parties and after going through the copy of pass book, it is seen by us that the Complainant had used the credit card on various times. But, he failed to prove that it was not used by him. Considering the preponderance of evidence of the parties, it is seen that the evidence of the O.Ps has more weight and convincing in comparison to the Complainant.
The Complainant has failed to prove his case.
Hence, the case of the Complainant deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly,
It is ordered that the Consumer Complaint, being No:- C.C- 01 of 2021 is dismissed on contest. No order as to cost.
Let free copies be given to the parties concerned as per C.P.R,2020.
