Delhi

New Delhi

CC/37/2017

Dr Ritesh Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Citibank N.A & Another - Opp.Party(s)

16 Feb 2017

ORDER

`CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI

(DISTT. NEW DELHI),

 ‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN, I.P.ESTATE,

 NEW DELHI-110001

 

Case No.C.C./37/2017                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

DR. RITESH GUPTA

D-36, Dayanand,

Block Shakarpur,

New Delhi-110092

        ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

 

 

1.     CITIBAN N.A.

        Branch Address:

        124, Jeevan Bharti Building,

        Connaught Place, Connaught Circus,

        New Delhi-110001

 

2.     TRANS UNION CIBIL LIMITED

        Registered Corporate Office:

        Hoechst House, 6^th Floor,

        193 Backbay Reclamation,

        Nariman Point,Mumbai-400021

 

 

 

       .... OPPOSITE PARTY

 

 

MEMBER : H.M. VYAS

ORDER

 

 

This complaint is filed by the complainant against Opposite Parties, claiming the following reliefs:

(a)      Direct OP No. 1 to withdraw its claims of INR 1,94,710.80/- against the complainant;

(b)     Direct the OP No. 2 to clear the complainant/s CIBIL record;

(c)      Director OP No. 1 to pay damages of INR 5,00,000/- to the complainant on account of not being able to secure various loans as a result to deficiencies in service.

(d)     Direct the OP No. 1 to pay damages of INR 5,00,000/- to the complainant on account of mental agony, turmoil and harassment suffered by complainant and his family members on account of grave negligence and deficiencies in service;

(e)      Direct OP No. 1 to pay to the complainant an amount of INR 3,00,000/- towards the legal expenses incurred by the complainant in pursuing the present complaint against the OP.

(f)      Pass any other further order(s) in favour of the complainant in the interest of justice. 

 

The argument of learned counsel for complainant, Mr Ashutosh Nagar Advocate on admission of complaint were heard.

 

As per the case of the complainant, he was issued credit card by the OP bank and the dispute raised by the complainant is of debit entries in the credit card in October 2010. As per paragraph 11 of the complaint OP 2 by email dated 7/2/2014, has invalidated the card and reissued the credit cards on 16/11/2010, 18/11/2010 and 20/11/2010 and the complainant was under the belief of the fact that CC No. 5328 was blocked by OP 1 by November 15, 2010. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has conceded that the complainant came to know about the debit entries through email dated 7/2/2014, but has contended that the cause of action is continuing one, so the complaint is filed within prescribed limitation period. We disagree with the contention of learned counsel for complainant that the cause of action is continuing one. The limitation period for filing the complaint as per Section 24 A of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is two years from the date of accrual of cause of action for filing the complaint. When admittedly by email dated 7/2/2014 complainant came to know about the transaction/debit entries of 2010, the complaint in our view should have been filed by the complainant within two years from 7/2/2014 even if we believe that the complainant came to know about the debit entries regarding transactions of 2010 on 7/2/2014.  The present complaint is filed on 13/2/2017, i.e., more than three years after date of knowledge of the said debit entries against the credit card. So, the same in our view is barred by time prescribed in the said Section 24 A.

 

In view of the above, the complaint is dismissed being barred by time.   A copy of this order be sent to both parties by post free of cost. This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ).

File be consigned to the record room.

   Pronounced in open Forum on 16/02/2017.

 

 

 

(S K SARVARIA)

PRESIDENT

 

                                              (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                 (H M VYAS)

                                                           MEMBER                                   MEMBER