Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2338

SARAFRAZ FAROOKHI - Complainant(s)

Versus

HDFC CREDIT CARD - Opp.Party(s)

31 May 2024

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

 

FIRST APPEAL NO. 2338 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 22.10.2013 passed in C.C.No.1792/2009 by District Commission, Indore)

 

SARFARZ FAROOQUI,

S/O SHRI HAZI MEHMOOD HUSSAIN FAROOQUI

R/O 252, LABHARIA BHERU, DHAR ROAD,

INDORE (M.P.)                                                                                                          … APPELLANT.

 

         Versus

 

HDFC CREDIT CARD BRANCH,

NEAR BOMBAY HOSPITAL, HDFC BUILDING,

VIJAY NAGAR BY PASS ROAD, INDORE (M.P.)                                                     ...   RESPONDENT.  

 

BEFORE :

 

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :       ACTING PRESIDENT

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY              :    MEMBER

               

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

            Ms. Sangeeta  Moharir, learned counsel for the appellant.

            None for the respondent..

 

O R D E R

(Passed On 31.05.2024)

                                The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member: 

                   The complainant/appellant has filed this appeal against the order dated 22.10.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Indore (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.1792/2009 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by him.

2.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he had applied with the opposite party for supply of Credit Card but he did not receive the same. Later he came to know credit card of his name was

-2-

using by some another person of which he lodged a complaint with the Police Station-Chhatripura, Indore. It is alleged that the opposite party did not take any action and continuously sending the statements for recovery of the amount. Also his name was sent to Cibil List. It is alleged that some other person by using the credit card embezzled the amount which has no connection with the complainant. There is deficiency in service on part of the bank. He therefore by filing the present complaint before the District Commission sought relief of stop the recovery proceedings from him, to remove his name from the Cibil list and the opposite party be directed to pay compensation and costs.

3.                The opposite party denying the allegations made in the complaint submitted that the opposite party bank issued credit card to the complainant under the banking policy and the bank is recovering the amount spent on purchasing by the said credit card, thus the bank has not committed any deficiency in service. The complainant is making false statements and he paid some of the amount towards recovery from which it is clear that the complainant had used the credit card. Since the complainant is defaulter in making payment of the amount, therefore his name was forwarded to Cibil list. There has been no deficiency in service on part of the opposite party. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

-3-

4.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint as aforesaid.

5.                Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.

6.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission did not consider this important aspect that on making an application for issuance of credit card by the complainant, the opposite party did not produce any evidence as to when the opposite party send credit card to the complainant and by which means. She argued that the complainant by the letter produced by the opposite party came to know that a credit card having limit of Rs.1,25,000/- has been issued to him and if the complainant did not want to repay the amount, why did he make embezzlement of Rs.30,000/- only, this fact was also not considered by the District Commission. She argued that the opposite party has filed a settlement letter but the opposite party failed to establish that from where the aforesaid credit card came and who had deposited the amount whereas the complainant never made any settlement. This fact was also not considered by the District Commission. She therefore prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for allowing the complaint. 

7.                We have carefully perused the record as also the impugned order. On perusal of the record, we find that the allegation of the complainant is that after making application for issuance of credit card he never received the same. He has also stated that when he did not receive

-4-

the same, the question of using the credit card does not arise. He also alleged that despite his repeated requests, the bank did not take any action with regard to the complaints made by him for the credit card.

8.                It is true that the complainant made complaints to different authorities of the bank as also on National Consumer Help Line and he must have suffer inconvenience and harassment.

9.                It is also pertinent to mention here that the complainant has made a criminal complaint against the bank with regard to cheating and fraud to SHO, Police Station, Chhatripura, Indore.  There is no outcome or result of the said complaint is on record. In such circumstances, when the dispute is pending in criminal complaint with regard to incident, the District Commission is not supposed to decide the complaint.

10.              The complaints alleging cheating, fraud and embezzlement are not maintainable before the District Commission. Also with regard to the credit card, the relation between the complainant and the opposite party is of debtor and creditor and therefore cannot be termed as a consumer dispute.

11.              In view of the above discussion, we find that the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint. We do not find any cogent reason to take a different view of the matter looking to the facts and

 

-5-

circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby affirmed.

12.              In the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.  No order as to costs.

               (A. K. Tiwari)                          (Dr. Srikant Pandey)

            Acting President                              Member