View 5452 Cases Against HDFC Bank
PRATUL KUMAR MONDAL filed a consumer case on 02 Sep 2016 against HDFC BANK LTD. in the South 24 Parganas Consumer Court. The case no is CC/435/2014 and the judgment uploaded on 07 Sep 2016.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
Amantran Complex, Baruipur, Kolkata - 144
C.C. CASE NO. _435 OF ___2014____
DATE OF FILING : 11.9.2014 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 02.09.2016
Present President : Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Member(s) : Smt. Sharmi Basu
COMPLAINANT : Pratul Kumar Mondal,of E/4/1, Baghajatin Pally, P.S. Patuli, Kol-86
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : 1. HDFC Bank Limited.
2. The Manager Credit Card Division
3. The Manager Customer Service, All the O.Ps are of Gillanders house, 1st Floor, Netaji Subhash Chandra Bose Road, Kolkata-1.
________________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
In a nutshell the case of the complainant is that he is a business man and he opened an account vide Account no.20979448 on being influenced by the men of the O.Ps and took a car loan from the said Bank and all the EMI @ 6922/- has been paying through the bank in every month . The positive case of the complainant is that he was astonished receiving one Credit Card vide no.45770410 0045 0212 without any application . On 12.11.2013 complainant received a letter from one Advocate Mr. D Satyaraj of no.11/1, P.A.N Rajarathinam 4th Lane, G.A Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai-600021 where Ld. Advocate claims a sum of Rs.14,955/- as dues against the said credit card. Complainant replied through his Advocate’s letter dated 4.1.2014 that he has received only the Credit Card but no transaction and/or operation has been made by this card. Complainant requested the O.Ps to stop and/r withdrawal the said Credit Card but the O.P did not response. Thereafter, on 18.8.2014 complainant again received a letter from one Advocate Mr. S. Vidhya where the ld. Advocate claims a sum of Rs.17,099.29 as dues against the said Credit Card. Several attempts/representations made by the complainant to the O.ps to stop and./or withdrawal the said Credit Card failed. Hence, this case praying for withdrawal and/or stop in respect of the said Credit Card and cost , compensation.
The O.Ps contested the case filing written version denying all the material allegations contending inter alia that this Forum is devoid of any jurisdiction to try ,entertain this case as because at the time of providing the credit card in question it was expressly agreed by and between the parties that if any dispute or differences arises at any point of time with regard to the Credit Card, the same will be adjudicated by the competent court of Law in Chennai only . It is also the case of the O.Ps that Credit card was issued after fill-up the Credit Card application Form. O.Ps pray for dismissal of this case.
Points for Decision
Decision with reasons
To defied whether the complainant is a “Consumer” or not, the first point for discussion , following discussion is advanced.
From the record in its entirety and hearing from the Ld. Advocates for both the parties it is crystal clear that the complainant has received a Credit Card sent by the O.Ps HDFC Bank limited but he has not opened the envelop and the same was opened in open Forum as per direction of this bench for proper adjudication of the instant case and it ahs been revealed that the card in question is unused , nor even the required authenticated signature of the complainant in that credit card is vacant as the envelop along with the Credit Card was not opened by the complainant till the date of hearing of argument.
In light of the above discussion it is crystal clear that firstly it is an admitted point that he has not paid any consideration for having the credit card in question . Secondly he has never undergone any transaction through the Credit Card. Therefore, it is opined by this Bench that the complainant has neither “used” the Credit Card in dispute nor paid any ‘consideration’ to the O.P to have the card in his name.
Therefore, he is not ‘consumer” under the purview of the O.Ps and it is also beyond doubt that the allegation of the O.Ps that the complainant has made a transaction through that card has no leg to stand.
Therefore, the complainant as per section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P Act, 1986 is not a ‘consumer” and the case of the complainant is not adjudicable by this Forum.
Thus the point no.1 is discussed and the same is not in favour of the complainant and as such complaint case is dismissed against the O.Ps without cost for want of jurisdiction.
Hence,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed for want of jurisdiction without cost.
Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.
Member President
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
The judgment in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,
Ordered
That the case be and the same is dismissed for want of jurisdiction without cost.
Let a plain copy of Judgment be supplied to the parties free of cost as per rule.
Member President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.