By. Smt. Beena. M, President(I/C):-
This is a complaint preferred under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.
2. Brief facts of the case are given below:-
The case of the Complainant is that the First Opposite Party contacted the Complainant and described the benefits of credit card and suggested to take their card and as a result, the complainant had taken a credit card numbered as 4577041000492289 in the month of April 2013 with credit limit of Rs.42,500/-. Then the First Complainant used the card from 02-12-2014. The First Complainant is maintaining the bank account with the Opposite Party and also having another account in the name of the Second Complainant, A.S. Trading Company. Subsequently, the Opposite Party, through its Chennai office, issued a letter to the First Complainant stating that there were dues of Rs.42,500/- and directed to pay the same by way of 6 instalments. Out of which the Complainant had paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- and only Rs.35,500/- were left. On verifying the account extract of A.S Trading Company in November 2017, it was seen that the Opposite Party collected a sum of Rs.92,832.66/- and Rs.1,392.40/- on 06.02.2015. The Opposite Party have no right to recover any amount more than Rs.35,500/-. The Opposite Party levied Rs.94,225.15/- instead of the actual charge of Rs.35,500/-. The said act of the Opposite Party amounts to deficiency in service and this caused mental agony to the Complainant. So, the Opposite Party is liable to refund excess amount of Rs.58,725.15/-. Hence, the Complainant filed this Complaint for refund of Rs.58,725.15/-with 12% interest p.a. from the date of 07.02.2015 till the date of payment, Rs.5000/-towards compensation, Rs.2,000/-towards mental agony and Rs.3,000/- for the cost of the proceedings.
3. After the admission of the Complaint, this Commission issued summons to the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties entered appearance and filed version stating the following contentions.
4. The Opposite Party submitted that the Complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the dispute alleged is not a consumer dispute, the Complainant neither hired any service nor has purchased any goods form the Opposite Parties. Further averred that the Complainant is a businessman and had availed credit card facility for business purpose. M/s A.S Trading Company is a business entity engaged in various trading activities for commercial purpose. As M/s A.S Trading ompany is not arrayed as a party in the petition, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party. The Complaint is liable to be dismissed that it is barred by limitation. Since the Opposite Party failed to remit the arrear amount after several notice, the Opposite Party had exercised right to lien over the fund in the Complainant’s account maintained with Opposite Party bank as envisaged under Banker’s right to lien and set off. There is no deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. Therefore, the Opposite Parties prayed for the dismissal of the Complaint.
5. The Opposite Party filed version denying the allegation. But they failed to cross examine the Complainant. The Complainant’s evidence was closed and since then the case was adjourned for the evidence of the Opposite Party, they have also not availed the Opportunities given to them for filing affidavit and documents. Mere denial of the allegation by the Opposite Party without adducing any supporting evidence to substantiate their contention is not sufficient to disprove the Complainant’s case.
6. The Complainant has filed chief affidavit and Ext.A1 to A3 marked. The Opposite Party after filing version has not turned up on the date of evidence. Opposite Party has not filed affidavit/evidence in support of their defense. The Opposite Party remained absent on the date of hearing and nobody represented on behalf of Opposite Party.
7. Heard the counsel for the Complainant and perused the record of the case. The allegation of the Complainant is that on 06.02.2015, the Opposite Party collected Rs.92,832.66/- as excess amount, the cause of action for the Complaint was on 06.02.2015, but the Complaint was filed on 19.12.2017. The Limitation period for filing Complaint U/s 24A of the Consumer Protection Act is two years from the date on which the cause of action arose. As the cause of action arose on 06.02.2015, the Complaint ought to have filed before 06.02.2017 it shows that there is a delay of 10 months and 13 days. Hence the Complaint is barred by Limitation. Further on perusal of the Complaint, it reveals that Complainant has not filed any delay condonation application. As such, we are of the view that the Complaint is time barred and thus not maintainable.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 7th day of July 2023.
Date of filing:- 09.12.2017.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. Ansar. Business.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
Exhibits for the Complainant:
A1. Provisional Credit Card Payment Advise Customer Copy.
Dt:20.10.2014.
A2. Copy of Letter. Dt:15.10.2014.
A3. Account Statement from 20.10.2014 to 30.06.2015.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT(I/C) :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
