Orissa

Cuttak

CC/92/2021

Sambhram Pattanayak - Complainant(s)

Versus

Managing Director,Phoenix ARC Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

P K Ray

18 Jan 2023

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                             C.C No.92/2021

              SambhramPattnayak,

S/O:ShriChitta Ranjan Pattanayak,

At: Plot No.2D-800,Sector-11,C.D.A,

P.O/P.S:MarkatNagar,Cuttack,

Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                                                                               ... Complainant.

          Vrs.

1.              Phoenix ARC Pvt. Ltd. having its Regd. Office

At 5^thFloor,Dani Corporate Park,158,C.S.T Road,

Kalina,Santacruz,Mumbai-400098

Represented through its Managing Director/CEO.

3.              Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. having its

Regd. & Corporate office at 27 BKC, C 27,G Block,

BandraKurlaComplex,Bandra( E)Mumbai,

Maharastra-400021 represented through its

Managing Director/CEO.

4.            Branch Manager,Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

22,GroundFloor,ING Vysya House,Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Bengaluru-560001

5.          ANANTH DA, ananth.da@kotak.com

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

#22, Corporate House,4th Floor,M.G.Road,

              Bengaluru-560001,Karnatak

6.         Santosh R                       

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

#22, Corporate House,4th Floor,M.G.Road,

Bengaluru-560001,Karnatak

7.          Karthikeyan GG

                     Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd.,

#22, Corporate House,4th Floor,M.G.Road,

Bengaluru-560001,Karnatak.                                                                 ..Opp. Parties.

Present:            Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                             Sri SibanandaMohanty,Member.

Date of filing:    19.05.2021

Date of Order:  18.01.2023

For the complainant:            Mr. P.K.Roy,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                :None.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President                                      

Case of the complainant as made out from the complaint petition in short is that the complainant had obtained two credit cards from the ABN AMRO Bank and Barclays Bank PLC bearing A/c nos.000542051704521300 and 4339483092246174 respectively.  The complainant had used the said credit cards for some days and had also made the payments in time.  Before leaving Bengaluru in the month of July,2008 he had cleared all the dues and had stopped using the said two credit cards.  Subsequently, a person named Santosh from Kotak Mahindra Bank had sent a WhatsApp message to a friend of the complainant on 4.2.21 at 10.21 A.M mentioning therein that the complainant had used credit card of ABN AMRO Bank and is thereby a defaulter for an amount of Rs.47,406.96p.  It was requested to the friend of the complainant to pass on the said message to the complainant.  The same message was also forwarded to another friend of the complainant namely Nirlipta Mohanty.  The complainant had also received one e.mail on 4.2.21 at 4.28 p.m from the mail id:

          In order to support his case the complainant has filed only copies of intimations as sent to him directly or indirectly by the O.Ps.

2.       Out of the seven O.Ps as arrayed in this case, O.P no.2 has been deleted vide order dt.21.9.22.  Quite strangely none of the O.Ps have contested this case and they have been set exparte.

3.         The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Point no.II.

Out of the three points, point no.ii  being the pertinent one is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

After going through the averments of the complaint petition and the documents as available, this Commission is unable to arrive at a definite conclusion as regards to the deficiency in service if any caused by the O.Ps to the complainant.  It is because, there is no complete proof about the issuance of the Credit Cards in favour of the complainant and about the claim of the complainant that he had no dues to be paid by him to the O.Ps and about the O.Ps sending him messages mentioning about their apologies and  that if infact he had cleared all the dues of the O.Ps which they  were claiming.Accordingly, this point is answered.

            Points no.i& iii.

From the above discussions, it can never be said that the case as filed by the complainant is maintainable and the complainant is entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by him.  Hence it is so ordered;

ORDER

Case is dismissed exparte against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 18^th  day of January,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                                   Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                             President

                                                                                                                 Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                                      Member