Delhi

StateCommission

CC/98/2017

DEEP NARAYAN GOYAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC BANK LTD. & ANR. - Opp.Party(s)

PADAM SINGH AGGARWAL

10 Feb 2017

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

 

                                                     Date of Arguments: 10.02.2017

                                                             Date of decision    :  16.02.2017

Complaint No. 98/2017

In the matter of:

Shri Deep Narayan Goyal

S/o Late Sh. Madan  Lal Goyal

R/o GF, H.No. F-22/143, Sector-3

Rohini, Delhi-110085

Also at:

R/o B-27, Tagore Road

Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033                                                                     …….Complaint                                                        

                                                                        Versus

1.         HDFC Bank

            Through its Managing Director

            Credit Card Division

            Rajouri Garden, New Delhi-27

 

2.         Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd.

            Through its Managing Director

            6^th Floor, Hoechst House

            193, Backbay Reclamation

            Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021.                                           …….Opposite Parties

  CORAM

                                                                                              

SHRI O.P. GUPTA, MEMBER(JUDICIAL)

SHRI ANIL SRIVASTAVA, MEMBER      

1.     ^{Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the}   

^{Judgement?  Yes}

^{2.      To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes}

               

                                                               JUDGEMENT

Shri O.P.GUPTA

            The case presented by the complainant is that he had gold master card No. 5560 4220 0024 9514 having credit limit of Rs. 1,40,000/-.  Due to non-receipt of statement of account, a sum of Rs. 12,546.61 including late fee of Rs. 350/- and finance charges of Rs.342.03 became due vide statement dated 08.12.11.  He paid Rs. 12,500/- to agent of OP No. 1. Yet agent of  OP 1 kept making threatening telephonic calls to him.  He was constrained to write e-mail dated 10.01.12 which was replied by OP No. 1 in a mechanical manner. Vide statement dated 08.03.12 OP 1 acknowledged receipt of payment made on 17.12.11 but raised frivolous charges of Rs. 803.73p.

2.         Complainant applied for issue of credit card by SBI to augment his self employment income.  SBI declined the same due to issues viz CIBIL.  He addressed e-mail dated 01.07.14 to OP No. 1 raising concern over false report of credit card dues to OP No. 2.  He wrote to OP No. 2 who sent a report dated 13.04.16 that amount pending in his credit card account has been written off.  Hence this complaint for directions to the OP to pay Rs. 90,00,000/-  towards compensation for suffering lot on account of mental pain, agony and financial turmoil as well as business loss.  He has also claimed Rs. 1,00,000/- as litigation charges and directions to OP No. 2 to delete the name of complainant from their department and communicate the same to bank.

3.         We have heard the counsel for the complainant at the admission stage itself.  Firstly the complaint is barred by limitation.  At the most the cause of action arose to the complainant when he wrote an e-mail dated 01.07.14 to OP No. 1 raising concern over false reporting of his card dues to OP No. 2.  Complaint filed on 20.01.17 is barred by limitation of 2 years u/s 24(A)  Consumer Protection Act. Complainant has not moved any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint.  Hence the  complaint is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone as per decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. B.K.Sood (2006) 1 SCC164.

4.         The other obstacle in the case of complainant is that compensation is highly exaggerated.  The counsel for complainant submitted that complainant has income of Rs. 1,09,12,693/- during financial year 2012-13, Rs.65,72,284/- during the financial year 2013-2014 and Rs. 1,37,19,738/- during the financial year 2014-2015. On the average of the same he has claimed the compensation.  We do not feel that Returned income is criteria for claiming compensation.  Moreover figures quoted by the complainant are against his own documents.  Copy of income tax return for 2013-14 at page 57 shows gross total income as Rs. 9,22,866/-, copy of return for 2014-2015 at page 60 shows gross total income of Rs.10,41,150/-  and that of the year 2015-2016 shows gross total income of Rs. 20,64,867/-.

5.         Exaggerated value can be checked at this stage itself as per following decision of National Commission.

(i)         CC135/11 Ramesh Kumar Vs. Goyal Eye Institute dated 30.03.12.

(ii)        CC No. 196/12 Kumari Femari vs. Kavita V.K.(Dr & Others) decided on 13.12.12.

(iii)       FA 95/01 Anil Kr. Jain vs. DDA decided on 22.02.07.

(iv)       CC No. 506/15 Vikas Singh vs. BMW India Pvt. Ltd. Decided on 25.08.15.

(v)        CC No. 1520/15 Ashok Kr. Goyal vs. Branch Manager ICICI decided on 21.01.16.

6.         Last but not least it is the fact that credit card was applied for augmenting business income.  So it comes out of the purview of consumer u/s 2 (1) (d) of Consumer Protection Act.  In SBI vs. Anurag 1(2015)CPJ 86 National Commission held that cash credit limit for business is commercial transaction.  In Gangar Opticians Pvt. Ltd. Vs. HDFC Bank III (2012) CPJ 687 National Commission held that merchant overdraft facility directly related to business is outside Consumer Protection Act.  In II (2013) CPJ 56 titled as Shiv Shankar Lal Gupta vs. Kotak Mahendra Bank Ltd. and II (2014) CPJ 137 Saurabh Gupta & Ors. Vs. Hasti Petro  Chemicals and Shipping Ltd. National Commission held that loan for commercial purpose and machine for commercial purpose is not covered under consumer protection Act.

7.         Viewed from any angle the complaint is liable to be dismissed,  The same is dismissed in limini.

            Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                                                                      (O.P.GUPTA)

MEMBER                                                                                          MEMBER(JUDICIAL)