The complaint case no CC/18/2023 is filed on 19.01.2023 by the complainant against the OP bank for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
Gist of the complainant case as averred in complaint petition is that the complainant Binoy Krishna Das S/o Bijoy Krishna Das residing at Gorkhara Uttarayan Pally, PO & PS – Sonarpur, Dist: South 24 Parganas, Kolkata 700150 went to OP bank namely IDFC First Bank, 7th floor Apeejay House, 15 Park Street, Kolkata 700016 and came to know about his ineligibility of get a loan due to poor CIBIL rating pending another loan. The said loan bearing no. 5257866 got opened on 18.02.2016 which was sanctioned for Rs.19,990/- with a residual balance Rs.13,324/- and an overdue amount of Rs.36,055/- against a loan on consumer durables with 18 months tenure against purchase of a Sony music system that was issued in the name of one Binoy Krishna Das. The complainant in his petition affirmed that the said consumer durable loan was sanctioned with mention of his personal details like PAN no., Aadhar no. and SBI a/c statement. As per said deposition, the personal details of the loaner e.g. address, mobile number and date of birth do not match with the complainant as mentioned in that credit account information in CIBIL statement. However the complainant adduced evidence that his PAN number and the SBI a/c number are duly reflected in the CIBIL document. The complainant claimed that he never applied or supplied such papers to the OP bank. The complainant further stated that OP bank deducted Rs.1,111/- on 08.04.2016 and a protest letter was sent to SBI on 10.04.2016 to close the account. Another protest letter was sent to OP bank on 06.01.2020 for deduction of Rs. 1111/- and a cheque dishonour charge of Rs.590/-. The complainant filed complaint before Consumer Affairs & Fair Business Practices dept. on 16.03.2022 which called both the parties for mediation but OP bank did not turn up.
The consumer complaint was filed for issuance of NOC by the OP bank against said loan account together with an annual interest @10% and a compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith a litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-. The Complainant also sought condonation of delay in filing the consumer case from the date of cause of action on 08.04.2016. Complainant filed exhibits alongwith complainant petion comprising 21 pages under firisti.
The service return on the OP IDFC bank was completed as per postal track receipt. The OP bank also appeared. But due to not filing written version within statutory period, the case had been running ex-parte. A MA/27/2023 dated 17.05.2023 was filed by the OP bank before this district commission to set aside the ex-parte order but the said Misc. application was rejected as it has been settled by a catena of judgments that the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Commissions do not have the power to set aside the ex-parte orders passed by themselves. Either no Appeal was filed within 30 days or even so, then, no contra order from any higher forum was communicated to this district commission by the OP bank. If the complaint fails, the OP has the scope of 30 days from the date the of the ex-parte order passed to file an appeal before the SCDRC or to make a direct complaint.
The final hearing was fixed on 25.08.2023 on ex-parte basis when argument of Ld. advocate of the complaint was heard and BNA got filed.
However as there is a continuous cause of action since 18.02.2016 hence the complaint petition should not be hit with the limitation act. But in a consumer complaint filed under CP Act, the complainant whether a ‘consumer’ needs to be determined at it’s first place along with other factors. During hearing it got unfolded that, in the instant case, it is the admitted position of the complainant that the he has not taken any loan from the OP bank. There is also not a single scrap of document which was exhibited depicting that the complainant is a customer or a consumer of OP bank. Rather the complainant has categorically denied having either any relationship or having taken any loan from the OP bank. Hence the complainant is not a consumer as per the definition of the CP Act 2019. Hence it appears that the complainant is not a consumer u/s 7(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
So far as the contention of the Complainant is concerned, his money was deducted from his bank account maintained at SBI. But the complaint petition neither seeks relief nor made SBI an opposite party or proforma OP and as per the factum of the case it may not be possible to arrive at any outcome conclusively without getting the version of SBI from where the repayment of the said loan was deducted or recovered. As such the complaint petition is suffering from the deficiency with regard to non-joinder of necessary parties.
The complainant has failed to make out a case prima facie and as such he is not entitled to get any relief as prayed for. The case has no leg to stand upon. It is a fit case for dismissal.
Hence, it is ordered that :-
Ordered
the case be and the same is dismissed on ex-parte basis with a liberty to the complainant to proceed before appropriate court of law. The complainant will be free to file a fresh complaint, if any, which will not be affected or hit by the Limitation Act in computing the period of limitation, by excluding the span during which this consumer case was under adjudication.
Let a plain copy of this Order be provided to both the parties free of cost as per CPR.
