DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (CENTRAL)
ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI
CC/137/2015
No. DF/ Central/ Date
Sh. Gaurav Singhal
S/o Sh. Suresh Singhal
R/o H. No. C-42, Naraina Vihar,
South West, Delhi-110028. …..COMPLAINANT
VERSUS
The Deputy General Manager
ICICI Bank Ltd.
Videocon Tower, Karol Bagh,
New Delhi. …..OPPOSITE PARTY
Quorum : Ms. Rekha Rani, President
Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member
ORDER
Ms. Rekha Rani, President
- Instant complaint was filed by Sh. Gaurav Singhal (in short the complainant) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up to date pleading therein that complainant is holder of Credit Card No. 4477463960235006 of ICICI Bank Ltd. (in short the OP). He received statement of account issued by OP of the aforesaid credit card for the period 22.12.2003 to 10.05.2004 showing total outstanding amount of Rs. 1,197/- with due date 30.05.2004. Complainant issued a cheque bearing no. 990228 dated 30.02.2004 and dropped the same in the drop box of the OP bank. Thereafter he received another statement of account of the credit card for the period 11.05.2004 to 10.06.2004 showing an outstanding amount of Rs. 2,537/- with due date 30.06.2004 which included the amount of previous statement as well as late payment charges and interest. He had already paid Rs. 1,197/- so he paid Rs.1,190.60/- in favour of OP. Due to some error on part of the OP, the cheque issued by the complainant for an amount of Rs. 1,197/- could not be presented and encashed in time but later on it was cleared in the account of the OP on 22.06.2004 and was clearly shown by OP in its statement of account for the period 11.06.2004 to 10.07.2004. On receiving the statement of account for the period 11.05.2004 to 10.06.2004, the complainant contacted OP on its helpline number and informed it that a cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,197/- had been dropped by him therefore charging Rs. 150/- towards late payment and also interest is totally illegal. On receiving billing statement for the next month complainant again requested OP for reversal of late payment charges and interest levied in the statement of account from 11.05.2004 to 10.06.2004.
OP kept on charging late payment and interest on the disputed amount and on account of its negligence disputed amount accumulated to a huge amount of Rs.59,478.23/-.
Complainant is also maintaining a separate current account bearing no. 033505500281 with one of the branch of the OP at Naraina Vihar. OP deducted an amount of Rs. 59,478.23/- from the above said bank account without complainant’s knowledge which came to his knowledge only in the last week of September 2014. Complainant has been pursuing reversal of the illegal entries since May 2004 but OP did not pay any heed. Hence the instant complaint was filed seeking direction to OP to pay him a sum of Rs. 59,478.23/- deducted by OP, Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony along with litigation expenses.
- OP contested the claim vide its written statement inter-alia on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation as the disputed entry was of the year 2004 and the instant complaint has been filed in 2015. It is also stated that this Forum has no jurisdiction as there are various disputed facts which cannot be dealt with effectively in the present proceedings and that only civil court has jurisdiction to adjudicate on the same. It is further stated that at the time of issuance of the credit card, complainant was provided with a welcome booklet containing terms and conditions for the usage of the credit card and use of the credit card for the first time means acceptance of the said terms and conditions. It is also stated that complainant was aware of the fact that OP has the right to use the proceeds in respect of any balance that may be due from the customer by way of reduction of customer debit balance.
- We have perused the case file and heard Suresh Kumar Singhal, AR of complainant and Sh. Tushar Sharma, counsel for OP.
- It is complainant’s own case that dispute with OP commenced way back in 2004 when on receipt of statement of account for the period 11.05.2004 to 10.06.2004 he protested & requested for reversal of late payment charges & interest levied (Para 9 of the complaint). It is complainant’s case that statement of account for 11.05.2004 to 10.06.2004 showed Rs. 1,197/- payable by 30.05.2004. It is his case that he dropped cheque bearing no. 990228 dated 30.05.2004 in drop box of OP Bank. It is further his case that due to error on part of the OP, the cheque issued by the complainant for an amount of Rs. 1,197/- could not be presented and encashed in time but later on it was cleared in the account of the OP on 22.06.2004.
Complainant has not explained as to when he dropped the cheque for an amount of Rs. 1,197/- in the drop box of the OP. No date or month is mentioned. It is further not explained as to why the complainant kept silent for about a month when his cheque for the above said amount was not encashed by OP.
It is further his case that disputed amount of only Rs. 150/- accumulated to huge amount of Rs. 59,478.23/- on account of illegal late payment and interest charges (Para 11 of the complaint).
Why the complainant kept silent w.e.f. 2004 to 2015 for more than a decade. He had been receiving statement of accounts in respect of the above said credit card from time to time which indicated the amount due and the due date for payment. A few such statements of account are placed on record by the complainant himself. One such statement is dated 10.09.2005 showing due amount as Rs. 11,424.84/- due date for which was 30.09.2005. Another stated is dated 11.04.2006 showing due amount as Rs. 27,509.91/- due date of which was 30.04.2006. Statement of account dated 11.01.2007 is also placed on record which indicates due amount as Rs.36,778.05/- due date for which was 30.01.2007. Another statement of account dated 10.02.2007 showing due amount as Rs.41,992.14/- payable by 02.03.2007. One such statement is dated 11.05.2007 showing due amount as Rs.38,583.79/- with due date as 30.05.2007. Statement dated 11.10.2007 indicates total amount payable as 40,855.91/- by due date 30.10.2007. Statement dated 11.06.2008 indicated total amount due as Rs.56,030.98/- to be paid immediately.
- It shows that complainant has been receiving statements of account periodically which indicated the amount payable and the due dates for payment. The above said statements of account also give details of the late payment fee and interest charges. The complainant kept silent and has woken up after a long slumber of more than a decade only when OP deducted an amount of Rs. 59,478.23/- from his current account in September 2014. In his complaint he has clearly mentioned that the dispute commenced in the year 2004. It is also his case that OP kept charging late payment and interest and the disputed amount which was initially only Rs. 150/- accumulated to a huge amount of Rs. 59,478.23/- .
- OP has taken a plea in its written statement that complaint is barred by limitation as the dispute arose in the year 2004 and the complaint has been filed after more than a decade(Para 12).
Complainant has not explained the delay in the corresponding Para 12 of his rejoinder nor is the same explained in the complaint.
7. In Office Of The Chief Post Master General & Ors Vs Living Media India Ltd. & Anr., II (2012) SLT 312 it was held by the Apex Court that unless there is
8. In Cicily Kallarackal Vs Vehicle Factory , IV (2012) CPJ 1 (SC)=VIII (2012) SLT 585, Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that while dealing with the application for condonation of delay special courts/ tribunals must keep in mind the special period of limitation prescribed under the statue(s) and further that condoning inordinate delay without any sufficient cause would amount to substituting the period of limitation in place of the period prescribed by the Legislature when the statures so prescribes.
9. In C.H. Vittal Ready Vs. The Manager, District vide order dated 04.12.2002 the Hon’ble NCDRC observed as under:
“Condonation of delay when it is the complaint has to be taken very seriously and that is why proviso to sub section (2) of Section 24A mandates recording of reasons. It must be understood that a suit filed in a Civil Court after the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act has to be dismissed and there is no provision for condoning the delay on the ground of any sufficient cause being shown for not filing the suit within the period of limitation. This is the law which is in force since 1908 when the Limitation Act, 1908 came into force and same is the position of the Limitation Act, 1963. Sub section (2) of Section 24Ais a departure to the well settled law that a suit beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act has to be dismissed. A Consumer Forum has, therefore, to guard itself against the misuse of sub-section (2) of Section 24A and should not be quick to condone the delay unless cogent and verifiable reasons exist to condone the delay.”
10. In Baswaraj Vs. Spl.Land Acquisition Officer 2013 (14) SCC 81 the Hon’ble Supreme court held that it is settled legal proposal that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party so it has to be applied with all its rigor when the statute so prescribes.
11. In Sanjay Sidgonda Patil Vs National Insurance Co. Ltd & Ors, the Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 37183 of 2013 decided on 17.12.2013, upheld the order of the National Commission wherein delay of 13 days was not condoned.
12. Accordingly in view of the aforesaid, the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation. Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.
Announced on _____ Day of _____ 2019.
