Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/827/2015

Shri Kaushal Popli - Complainant(s)

Versus

Citibank N.A., - Opp.Party(s)

Meenakshi Pahwa Adv & Gaurav Saini Adv.

10 Nov 2016

ORDER

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

============

Consumer Complaint  No	:	CC/827/2015
Date  of  Institution	:	14/12/2015
Date   of   Decision	:	10/11/2016

 

 

 

 

 

Kaushal Popli S/o Sh. Kailash Chander Popli, R/o H.No.2326, Sector 23-C, Chandigarh.

 …………… Complainant.

 

VERSUS

 

(1)  Citibank N.A., SCO 132-133-134, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, Sector 9, Chandigarh – 160009, through its Branch Manager.

 

(2)  Citibank N.A., Mail Room, No.2, Club Road House, Chennai – 600002, through its Manager.

 

……………  Opposite Parties

BEFORE:    DR. MANJIT SINGH          PRESIDENT

           MRS.SURJEET KAUR           MEMBER

SH.SURESH KUMAR SARDANA    MEMBER

 

For Complainant	:	Sh. Sandeep Gupta, Advocate.
For Opposite Party	:	Ms. Akriti Razdan, Advocate.

 

PER SURESH KUMAR SARDANA, MEMBER

 

 

          The factual matrix in epigrammatic form of the present Complaint are that in Nov. 2012, a transaction of Rs.10,000/- had been made from the Credit Card No. 4386280521814610 of Complainant at Gurgaon. The Complainant contacted the Opposite Party for not releasing the payment and to block the said credit card. Thereafter, the said credit card of Complainant was blocked and a new credit card bearing No. 4386280522391493 was issued to him. On 16.5.2014, on receiving the monthly statement of the said credit card, the Complainant noticed that despite specific request to stop the payment for the aforesaid transaction, the Opposite Parties released the amount of Rs.10,000/- and debited the amount to the Complainant, which according to the Complainant amounts to unfair trade practice and clear cut negligence on the part of the Opposite Parties. The Complainant even served a legal notice dated 28.08.2014 upon the Opposite Parties, but the same failed to fructify. With the cup of woes brimming, the Complainant has filed the instant consumer complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.

 

2.      Notice of the complaint was sent to Opposite Parties seeking their version of the case.

 

3.      Opposite Parties contested the Complaint and filed their joint written statement, inter alia, pleading that on Complainant’s representation, the impugned credit card no. 4386280521814610 which was allegedly used at Gurgaon, was blocked and temporary credit of Rs.10,000/- was provided to him on 15.12.2012. However, on investigation, the disputed transaction was found to be valid and in view of the same, the provisional credit of Rs.10,000/- towards the disputed transaction was reversed and debited on the Complainant’s card account on 23.02.2013. The Complainant was even extended complete cooperation and was also offered support to law enforcement authorities for investigation in the impugned transaction. However, for the reasons best known to him, the Complainant opted to file the instant Complaint to harass the answering Opposite Parties. Denying all other allegations and stating that there is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part, Opposite Parties have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

 

4.      Parties were permitted to place their respective evidence on record in support of their contentions.

 

5.      We have carefully considered the rival contentions and have also perused the record with utmost care and circumspection.

 

6.      We find that the present case involves complicated questions of facts and law. It also involves the issues, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, and the same cannot be decided by the Consumer Forum, proceedings before which are summary in nature. It is noteworthy that the Complainant has also specifically alleged that someone might had cloned his credit card and was using the same, which caused him financial loss and harassment.

 

7.      In Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Munimahesh Patel 2006 (2) CPC 668 (SC), Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1998) CPJ 13, a case decided by a four Member Bench of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi and  M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd. Vs United Commercial Bank III (1992) CPJ 50, a case decided by a three member Bench of  the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, it was held  that when there are allegations of forgery, fraud and cheating, adjudication whereof, requires elaborate evidence, the  same cannot be decided by a Consumer Fora, proceedings before which, are summary in nature.  The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed Civil Appeal bearing No.4091 of 2006, in the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the proceedings, before the Commission were essentially summary in nature. It was further held that the factual position was required to be established by documents.  It was further held that, in view of the complex factual position, the matter could not be examined, by the Consumer Fora, and the appropriate Forum, was the Civil Court. In Reliance Industries Ltd.’s case (supra), it was held that when the questions of fraud and cheating are involved, in regard to the claim of the complainant, which require thorough scrutiny, including the examination of various documents, and supporting oral evidence, the Consumer Fora cannot adjudicate upon the matter. It was further held that the questions of forgery/fraud, cheating and conspiracy, could be satisfactorily resolved, by the Civil Court. Similar principle of law, was laid down, in M/s Singhal Swaroop Ispat Ltd.’s case (supra) decided by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi.

 

8.      We are of the concerted view that the principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid cases, is fully applicable to the facts of the instant case. Since in the instant case, the disputed and complicated questions of fact and law are involved and for proving the allegations of the Complainant, thorough analysis of voluminous documents and elaborate examination of the witnesses and their cross examination is required, we feel that the case cannot be adjudicated upon by this Forum, proceedings before which are summary in nature.

 

9.      For the reasons recorded above, we find that this Complaint before this Forum is not maintainable and the issues involved in the Complaint can be decided by the Civil Court. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed, with liberty to the Complainant to seek his remedy before the Civil Court/ appropriate Forum. Parties are left to bear their own costs.

 

10.      Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

 

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
10/11/2016	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Dr. Manjit Singh]
	Member	Member	President