1)                   Sri S. Mukhopadhyay,

            P-39, Arcadia, Behala, Kolkata-700034.                                                  _______ Complainant

____Versus___

1)                   ICICI Bank Limited,

ICICI BankTowers, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051.

2)                   ICICI Bank Limited (Collector Centre),

127A, Sarat Bose Road, Kolkata-700029.

3)                   Manager / Authorised Officer, ICICI Bank Ltd., Service Branch,

1/1, Ashutosh Chaudhury Avenue, Kolkata-700019.                                 _______ Opposite Party

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Smt.  Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member

Order No.   20    Dated  15/01/2014.

          The case of the complainant in short is that complainant availed of services from o.p. bank in the nature of credit facility extended by the bank on a credit card bearing no.4477470192776004. In purported discharge of the amount supposed to be due on the said credit card o.p. bank presented a cheque issued by some other bearing no.482418 dt.10.1.09 drawn on UCO Bank, Bowbazar, Kolkata for Rs.4000/- for realization. The cheque was not issued by the complainant. Upon dishonour of the said cheque o.p. sent a notice to the complainant demanding payment of dishonoured cheque amount of Rs.4000/-. The complainant became surprised. On receipt of the said notice u/s 138B of N.I. Act, the complainant contacted with ICICI Bank, Upperwood Street, Kolkata-17 for clarification since complainant had no account with UCO Bank, Bowbazar Branch. But o.p. bank still insisted to make payment by the complainant. On 6.3.09 complainant sent an advocate’s letter which was received by o.p. bank on 17.3.09, but o.p. bank filed a criminal complaint before Metropolitan Magistrate by suppressing the true and correct facts. The summon was served to the complainant in August, 2009. Complainant appeared before Ld. Magistrate, prayed for bail and bail was granted. Thereafter o.p. bank failed to take steps for prosecution of above case and accordingly on 28.9.10 the case was dismissed for non prosecution and Ld. Magistrate acquitted the complainant. Due to this type of deficiency in service complainant was harassed and his social prestige had been greatly hampered. Hence the application with prayer for compensation of Rs.1 lakh for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice of o.ps. and Rs.1,40,000/- for prolonged harassment and incomparable mental agony and Rs.4,50,000/- for loss complainant’s social prestige and status and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

            O.ps. appeared before the Forum and filed their w/v. In their w/v o.ps. have stated that there is no hiring of service by the complainant in respect of the matter in issue and the complainant is not a consumer. As the cheque was dishonoured the notice was issued. There was no intentional negligence on the part of o.p. bank. O.p. nos.1, 2 and 3 filed a case u/s 138 of N.I. Act as the cheque was dishonoured. Complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps. and therefore, the Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. so the case should be dismissed with exemplary cost.

Decision with reasons:

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular.

            It is admitted fact that complainant was a credit card holder of ICICI Bank. According to the complainant towards repayment of credit card dues one cheque was issued by someone drawn on UCO Bank, Bowbazar Branch. But the complainant has not made UCO Bank, Bowbazar Branch as a party. As the cheque was dishonoured, following the banking rules o.p. bank sent a notice u/s138 of N.I. Act. Whenever a case was fled summons are issued by the Court and the procedures are practiced by the Court. In this case also as the o.p. bank filed a case against the complainant for dishonoured cheque. Accordingly, Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate issued the summon. During the pendency of the present complaint the complainant has made settlement with ICICI Bank in respect of his credit card account no.4477470192776001. Therefore the relation between the complainant and o.p. bank has ended with the closure procedure of the credit card account. Therefore the complainant is not a consumer. The present complaint relates to dishonour of cheque as summon was issued to complainant u/s 138B of N.I. Act. Complainant has also alleged that complainant’s social prestige has been hampered since he had to attend the Criminal Court and faced unpleasant consequences. Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter for aforesaid reasons. As the complainant failed to pay the credit card amount o.p. bank filed the criminal case. The credit card account was closed in 2011 by settlement. After that the complainant has filed the instant case. So complainant has no locus standi as a consumer of o.p. bank. O.p. bank did not proceed the case before Ld. Metropolitan Magistrate as the matter of dispute had been settled between the parties. There is no scrap of paper filed by the complainant which showed that complainant faced prolonged harassment rather o.p. bank offered him easy terms for settlement. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of o.p. bank and for that reason complainant is not entitled to get any relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.