Ld. Lawyers of both parties are present today.  The application for challenging the maintainability of the case on the ground of limitation of agreement as filed by the op dated 13.10.2014 is taken up for hearing.  Heard Ld. Lawyers.  Fact remains that in this case this complaint was filed by the complainant on 07.06.2014.  But it is found that complainant was a credit card holder of op/bank and it is evident from the letter dated 22.10.2011 issued by Standard Chartered Bank that the said credit card being No. 4129037082163247 had already been invalidated on and from 04.11.2008 having no balance and by that letter op reported that complainant may collect the status the list of CIBIL and from the CIBIL list it is found that his name is there.  But the whole matter was settled for which status of the complainant is found nil.

          No doubt complainant has not filed the copy of CIBIL list.  But it is produced by the op wherefrom it is found that complainant’s status in the CIBIL list is not noted as defaulter or dues outstanding etc.  So considering that fact, it is clear that Bank authority after discontinuation of the said credit card on and from 04.11.2008 reported the CIBIL Authority and accordingly against the name of the complainant in the CIBIL list no outstanding is shown.  Then invariably complainant had no grievance and complainant was sitting idle and practically since 04.11.2008, complainant is not the consumer under the op and about CIBIL list if there was any grievance, complainant may file such complaint before this Forum invariably within two years from the date of discontinuation of the said credit card i.e. by 04.10.2010.  But complainant did not file such complaint and ultimately this complaint was filed on 07.04.2014 without any application for any condonation of delay as per provision of section 24A of C.P. Act.

          Another factor is that op never claimed any amount from the complainant for clearing the name of the complainant in the CIBIL list but such a plea was taken in para-9, but no such document is produced.  So, it is clear that complainant only for the purpose of creating the cause of action noted down the date 02.05.2014 expressing that op asked for payment of Rs. 40,000/-.  But it is apparently found false in view of the fact that the entire account was closed and credit card was ventilated long prior to that i.e. on 04.11.2008.

          In fact complainant in this complaint has prayed for removing his name from the defaulter list of CIBIL and other agencies.  But complainant has failed to show that in CIBIL list against his name it is noted that it is pending or is defaulter or against his name outstanding is shown.  But actually in the CIBIL list against his name there is not remark that means his status is neither defaulter nor outstanding etc.  So apparently there is no cause of action of this complaint and further complainant is not a consumer under the op on 04.11.2008.  At the same time his name is not found as defaulter or outstanding.  So, there is no question of filing this complaint and apparently there is no cause of action and at the same time this complaint is in all respect barred by limitation in view of the fact that the entire relationship as consumer and service provider in between the both parties ended on 04.11.2008 and about CIBIL list, complainant has failed to show any paper that in the CIBIL list his name is noted as outstanding or as defaulter.

          So, it is clear that Bank authority after invalidation and settlement of the said account of the complainant reported the matter to the CIBIL Department and CIBIL Department deleted his outstanding status.

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that with some ill motive and purpose, this complaint was filed only to harass the bank.  But we have realized that this complaint was filed only on the ground that complainant again in the month of April-2013 applied for op’s credit card when op did not allow such credit card on the ground that complainant did not follow the bank credit card norms and that letter was issued by the bank authority to the complainant.  Whether bank will grant credit card or not, it is up to the administrative decision of the bank/op against that Consumer Forum has nothing to do.  But complainant has suppressed that fact and tried to continue the said matter by sending letters etc. to create a cause of action.  But it is settled principal of law that once a period of limitation is started, it cannot be extended by prolong in between the parties relied upon the ruling IV (2011) CPJ 114 (NC)].

          In the light of the above observation we are convinced to hold that this complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation and at the same time there is no cause of action in the present complaint.

          Accordingly the present complaint is not maintainable and the op’s prayer for dismissal of the complaint on the ground of limitation and cause of action is allowed on contest.

          Hence, it is

ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- as penal cost for filing vexatious and baseless complaint against the ops and the said amount shall be paid by the complainant to this Forum as penal cost within 15 days from the date of this order failing which necessary action shall be started against the complainant.