ORDER

28.11.2024

Sh. RAJESH, MEMBER.

1. This order addresses the admissibility of the present complaint filed by the complainant.
2. The complainant has prayed the opposite party to approve his Credit Card application and to award compensation of Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment allegedly suffered due to the wrongful actions of the opposite party.
3. It is detailed that on 06.06.2024, the complainant applied for an SBI Cashback Credit Card through the online application system, identified by application No. 2715813080218.
4. The complainant further asserts that the opposite party wrongfully rejected his application. Additionally, the opposite party failed to return the documents submitted by the complainant, despite several requests for their return.
5. The complainant has not stated that he provided any consideration to the opposite party in connection with the credit card application.
6. The essential issue to address is whether the complainant qualifies as a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, and whether there exists a consumer dispute between the parties.
7. According to the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, a consumer is defined as any person who buys any goods or hires or avails any services for a consideration. In this case, the complainant has not paid any consideration nor availed any services from the opposite party.
8. The act of applying for a credit card is recognized as an offer. An offer, by itself, does not create any legal obligations or consumer rights until it is accepted and a binding agreement is formed. The opposite party's rejection of the complainant's application signifies that no such agreement was formed.
9. The complainant's allegation of wrongful rejection and non-return of documents, while potentially concerning, does not alter the fundamental requirement for consideration or the formation of a contract to establish consumer rights under the Act.
10. In the absence of consideration and an accepted offer, the complainant does not possess the standing of a consumer, and thus, no consumer dispute can be said to exist.
11. Furthermore, the complainant has sought compensation for mental agony and harassment. However, such claims are contingent upon the existence of a valid consumer relationship and dispute, which, as established, do not exist in this case.
12. In this case, the act of the complainant applying for a credit card is considered an 'offer.' This offer was not accepted by the opposite party, resulting in no contract or agreement being formed between the parties. Since the complainant has neither provided any consideration nor availed any services from the opposite party, he does not meet the definition of a 'consumer' under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Consequently, there is no consumer dispute present in this case.
13.  In view of the detailed analysis and legal findings, the complaint is dismissed on the grounds of non-maintainability, as the complainant is not a consumer of the opposite party within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
14. Copy of the order be given to the parties free of cost as per order dated 04.04.2022 of Hon’ble State Commission after receiving the application from the parties in the registry.
15. Order be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on 28.11.2024.

SANJAY KUMAR                 NIPUR  CHANDNA                     RAJESH

PRESIDENT                            MEMBER                             MEMBER