APPEARED AT THE TIME OF ARGUMENTS

PRONOUNCED ON : 25^TH APRIL 2018

O R D E R

PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER

          This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 27.09.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 500/2013, “Gyanendra Narain Tripathi versus Citi Bank”, vide which, while rejecting the said appeal, the order dated 09.04.2013, passed by the District Forum Jaipur-IV, in consumer complaint No. 1187/2012, filed by the present petitioner, dismissing the said complaint, was upheld.

2.       The petitioner/complainant Gyanendra Narain Tripathi filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum on 09.07.2010, stating that he had obtained two credit cards from the respondent/OP Citi Bank and that he had been depositing the amounts due on the said cards from time to time.  However, the OP Bank sent a legal notice to him through Advocate for depositing a sum of ₹1,17,701/-, which caused mental agony to him.  Thereafter, a compromise was effected on 10.01.2005 between the complainant and the Bank, according to which, the complainant was to deposit a sum of ₹25,000/- with the Bank in instalments within two months.  The complainant deposited the first instalment of ₹12,000/- on 12.01.2005.  However, before he could deposit the second instalment, the OP Bank sent him a notice on 01.04.2005 for depositing a sum of ₹2,70,701/-.  Thereafter, the Bank sent him another notice on 12.12.2008 asking him to deposit a sum of ₹6,23,382/-.  Alleging that the OP Bank had violated the conditions of the agreement, which caused huge mental agony to the complainant and his family, the complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking compensation of ₹2 lakh from the OP bank for mental agony and financial loss.

3.       The complaint was resisted by the OP Bank by filing a written statement before the District Forum, in which they stated that the complainant had been making default in the payment of money advanced to him through the two credit cards.  The Bank sent him a legal notice dated 12.05.2003, calling upon him to bring about an amicable settlement mutually acceptable to both the parties.  After considering the circumstances explained by the complainant, the Bank sent a letter dated 10.01.2005 to him, making offer of a “Structured Payment Plan” of ₹25,000/-, which was payable in two monthly instalments, as full and final settlement of dues against the complainant.  The OP Bank stated that the complainant made payment of first instalment only on 12.01.2005 but admittedly, he refrained from payment of rest of the amount, with the implication that the settlement between the parties had been annulled.  The Bank stated that the consumer complaint in question should be dismissed, because the complainant was duty bound to make payment of dues to the Bank.

4.       The District Forum vide their order dated 09.04.2013 dismissed the consumer complaint, saying that the complainant had failed to make payment in accordance with the settlement arrived at with the Bank and hence, he could not be given any relief as stated in the consumer complaint.  Being aggrieved against the order of the District Forum, the complainant challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission.  Vide impugned order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal, saying that the consumer complaint in question was barred by limitation and also, the complainant had failed to make payment to the Bank in accordance with the settlement arrived at with them.  Being aggrieved against the impugned order of the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of the present revision petition. 

5.       During arguments before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the State Commission was vague and sketchy and hence, the same should be set aside.  The learned counsel stated that the petitioner was an old man of about 87 years and hence, the Bank should be considerate enough to accept the balance payment from him as per the settlement, and close the matter.  Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent stated that in view of the concurrent findings made by the consumer fora below, the petition was not maintainable.  Moreover, the State Commission had adequately discussed the issue of limitation and non-payment of the balance amount and hence, there was no shortcoming in the impugned order and the same was in accordance with law. 

6.       We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.

7.       The admitted facts of the case are that the petitioner/complainant had obtained two credit cards from the OP Citi Bank and had been availing himself of certain advances from the Bank on these credit cards.  It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner/appellant became defaulter in the repayment of the money, taken as advance from the Bank.  As stated in the consumer complaint itself, there was compromise settlement between the petitioner and the Bank on 10.01.2005, as per which, the petitioner was asked to deposit ₹25,000/- in instalments within two months as full and final settlement of the dues towards the Bank.  The petitioner deposited the first instalment of ₹12,000/- on 12.01.2005, but did not deposit the balance money, as made out from the facts on record.  The Bank was, therefore, very much within its rights to claim the amount due from him in accordance with the terms and conditions, governing the issuance of the two credit cards.  The petitioner has not given any reason in his consumer complaint, the memo of appeal or the memo of revision petition etc. as to how he is not required to make payment of the amount legitimately due to the Bank.  In so far as the compromise settlement of ₹25,000/- is concerned, since the petitioner himself did not deposit the balance amount within the time agreed with the Bank, the Bank cannot be asked to follow the said settlement at this stage.  It is held, therefore, that the Bank has every right to recover their money alongwith interest as per the terms and conditions, governing the issuance of the credit cards and there is no deficiency in service in any manner on their part. 

8.       Further, the State Commission rightly observed that the consumer complaint having been filed in the year 2010, is clearly barred by limitation.  As per section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, a consumer complaint can be filed only within 2 years of the cause of action.  In the present case, the settlement was arrived at between the parties on 10.01.2005, in pursuance of which, the first instalment of ₹12,000/- was deposited by the petitioner Bank as stated already.  In case, the petitioner was aggrieved in any manner by the action of the Bank, he could have filed the consumer complaint within the time permissible under the Act.  The consumer complaint, having been filed in the year 2010, is therefore, not maintainable, being barred by limitation. 

9.       Based on the discussion above, it is very clear that there is no infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings given by the consumer fora below and there is absolutely no justification for giving relief to the petitioner/complainant in any manner.  The revision petition is, therefore, ordered to be dismissed and the orders passed by the Consumer Fora below are upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.