FA.No.846/2008 AGAINST C.C.No.638/2007  DISTRICT FORUM-II, VISAKHAPATNAM.

Between:

Sri Mandava Suresh Babu

S/o.late Veera Raghava Swamy

Hindu, aged 48 years, Employee

Residing at S-5, Srinivasa Apartments,

Visahapatnam.                                                                                                   Appellant/

                                                                                                                            Complainant

                   A N D

ICICI Bank Limited,

Rep. by its Branch Manager

D.No.47-14-18, Isnar Satyasri Complex,

Main Road, Dwarakanagar,

Visakhapatnam-16.                                                                                           Respondent/

                                                                                                                             Opposite party

Counsel for the Appellant:Mr.Ch.R.Vasanth Kumar

Counsel for the Respondent:Mr.S.Gopal Singh

QUORUM:      SMT.M.SHREESHA,  MEMBER

&

SRI K.SATYANAND, MEMBER

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF OCTOBER,

TWO THOUSAND NINE

Oral Order( Per Sri K.Satyanand,Hon’ble Member)
***

This is an appeal  filed by the unsuccessful complainant assailing the order of the District Forum and as a sequal requesting this Commission to allow his complaint before the District Forum.

The facts that led to filing this appeal are briefly as follows:

The complainant is a customer of the opposite party bank. It seems the complainant was holding a credit card from SBI credit card and used to make payments outstanding due to the credit card account by issuing cheques on  his account with the opposite party bank.  He claimed to have issued cheque bearing No. 115969 to the credit card account.  Soon the said SBI credit card department issued an account statement with a remark to the effect that the said cheque was returned unpaid on account of insufficient funds.  So the complainant claimed to have issued yet another cheque bearing No.115971 for Rs.4,000 favouring the credit card account.  The opposite party bank itself had shown the clearance of the said cheque in the statement of account for the period from 1-7-2004 to 30-9-2004.  But there was no corresponding credit according to him in his credit card account.  Thereupon he claimed to have immediately enquired the same with the opposite party which firmly maintained that the amount had been paid to the SBI credit card people and added ‘that all the three transaction on 10-8-2004 was through’  some time later the complainant received a notice dated 3-3-06 from the SBI Credit Card Division demanding an amount of Rs.11,271-50 ps.  Two months later, it was followed by yet another notice, this time demanding Rs.16,8080-79 as on 19-5-2005.  According to the complainant the said demand mounted up as a result of the non payment of the cheque of Rs.4,000/- by the opposite party and in this regard he submitted that though he sought from the opposite party details as to the payment of the amounts by the opposite party to the SBI credit card division, the opposite party remained silent and even his application to the opposite party under the right to information Act did not yield any fruit.  This circumstance is characterized by the complainant as signifying the deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and on the foot of that allegation, he claimed the whole amount claimed by the SBI account against him, besides compensation of Rs.50,000 as also costs of Rs.5,000, in all an amount of Rs.71,808-79 ps.

This claim came to be resisted by the opposite party stating that the allegations were utterly false and cheque bearing No.115971 was already encashed on 10-8-2004 as per the statement issued by them in this regard dispelling all the charges of deficiency in service on their part.

          In support of his case, the complainant field affidavit and also relied upon documents Exs.A1 to A8.  The opposite party relied upon Ex.B1 document for the purpose of showing the transaction of the cheque bearing No. 115971        dated 10-8-2004.

          On hearing both sides and taking into consideration the entire evidence the District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the very contention of the complainant that because of a wrong entry made by the opposite party, the complainant’s liability towards SBI credit card had abnormally arose to Rs.16,000./- was totally unsustainable.

          Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed the present  appeal urging the usual grounds. 

          Heard. 

The point for consideration is whether there are any good grounds to interfere with the order of the District Forum?

          The District Forum dismissed the complaint holding that the complainant dismally failed in proving that the so called lapse on the part of the opposite party  was never proved as instrumental in hiking up the liability of the complainant towards the SBI credit card he was holding.  Even according to the complainant the conduct of the opposite party was called in question only in respect of one cheque issued by him on the said bank namely 115971 for Rs.4,000/-. Ex.B1 promptly showed the said cheque being honoured by it and the cash being credited to the SBI credit card.  No doubt the complainant issued an earlier cheque in favour of the SBI credit card which came to be dishonoured for want of sufficient funds, for that he has to blame himself.  The second cheque that he issued is the one that is the subject matter for comment by him in this entire episode.  Ex.B1 made it clear that the SBI card division encahsed the cheque No. 115971 on 10^th august. This revelation cuts at the very root of the case of the complainant .  Thus this is a very peculiar case in which the complainant engineered a case where he could hardly show any correlation between the SBI credit card and non furnishing of the details in regard to the cheque in question which was in fact encashed by his credit card bankers.  This is a fit case in which the complainant ought to have sorted out the differences if any with the SBI credit card division and it is not unreasonable to think that he deliberately picked up a dispute with the opposite party perhaps in order to make good the liability that he was already burdened with by virtue of the demand made by his credit card banker.  This kind of course of action certainly smacks of a deliberate attempt to abuse the process of law.  Thus while giving finding that there are no merits in the appeal, it is also necessary to impose some costs against the unsuccessful appellant, which we normally avoid to do, as the appellant herein pursued a litigation without any merits whatsoever.  Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs in a sum of Rs.1,000./- which the complainant shall pay to the opposite party within six weeks after receipt of this order.

 Sd/

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                                  Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                MEMBER.

Jm                                                                                                                                            Dt.29-10-2009