Delhi

New Delhi

CC/1455/2009

Gaurav Khanna - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S. HSBC Bank Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

22 May 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI (DISTT. NEW DELHI),

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.1455/2009                                                                   Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Gaurav Khanna,

S/o Sh. D.R. Khanna

C/o General Manager(Finance)

Matrix Cellular Services Pvt. Ltd.,

7, Khullar Farms Mandi Road,

Mehrauli, New Delhi-110030.

                   ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

HSBC Bank Ltd.

Birla Towers, 

25, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

                      Opposite Party

 

ARUN KUMAR ARYA, PRESIDENT

 

ORDER

 

The complainant has filed the present complaint against the OP under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The brief facts as alleged in the complaint are that the complainant received a credit card no.4384599998215015 in the year 2006 from the OP and till date he is using the said credit card and paying the bills regularly. The complainant was shocked to receive a bill of Rs.49,809/- in respect of another credit card No.4384599912897278 which was in his name as an “add on” credit card.  Although, the complainant never applied or signed any document for availing “add on” credit card from the OP, nor the complainant received any such type of credit card till date.  After  few months, the complainant received an unusually exaggerated  bill of Rs.1,71,534.13/- for which the complainant wrote a letter to the OP seeking clarification and the charge slips which the complainant must have signed at the time of using the disputed “add on” credit card but the OP did not respond to the same.  The OP did not even stop there and forwarded the name of the complainant to CIBIL.  Due to acts of OP, the complainant was deprecated in front of his colleagues and his relatives.  The  complainant was harassed and cheated by the acts of OP, as such many letters were sent to them but none of them has been replied by the OP which amounts to deficiency in services, hence this complaint.

 2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP. It has filed its written statement, wherein it denied any deficiency in services on its part.  It was denied that the complainant was shocked to received bill of Rs.49,809/- in respect of subject card which was reportedly in the name of complainant.  It was also denied that the complainant never received the subject card.  It is submitted that the subject card was issued on existing relationship of the complainant with the OP bank and thus no application form was required to be filled in and submitted for processing the new card.    It is also submitted that subject card is not an ADD on card but it is a primary card and same was duly communicated to the complainant vide letter dt.28.7.2009.  It is stated that no letter was ever received by the OP.  It is further stated that as per agreement and an important term highlighted vide every monthly card statement specifies that such disputes should be raised within 30 days from the date of receipt of statement.  It is submitted that bare perusal of transaction listing, it is clear that purchases were made by the complainant  from different merchants through the subject card. It is further stated that the present complaint is barred by limitation, therefore, be dismissed. 

3.     Both the parties have filed their evidences by way of Affidavits.

4.     We have heard the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the record.

5.  The counsel for OP has strongly challenged the question of limitation hence, need to be decided first.   

 

 As per section 24(A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : -

1. The District Forum, the state commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.

 

2. Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1). A complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the state commission or the National Comission , as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period: provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission , the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be records its reason form condoning such delay.

6.     On the point of limitation, we are guided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case title State Bank of India Vs. M/s B.S. Agriculture Industries 2009 STPL 6945 SC – in that case in para 12 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under :-

“As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merit only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reason recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer Fora to take notice of section 24 A and give effect to it.

7.     In the present complaint the complainant has alleged that he received the first statement of the credit card in question in the month of July 2006, he lodged a complaint regarding the credit card in question to the OP on 25.7.2006, thereafter, the complainant remained silent.  The OP bank vide its letter dt. 1.3.2007, 8.3.2007, 18.7.2007 19.4.2008 and 7.5.2009, reminded the complainant to make the payment outstanding on the credit card in question.  The complainant itself attached the copy of the credit card statement as well as the letters of the OP raising the demand but the complainant had not protested against the said demand letters. 

8.     Hence, in our view, the cause of action for filing the present complaint for the first time accrued on 25.7.2006. The complainant ought to have approached this Forum within 2 years of the accrual of cause of action i.e. the receipt of the first statement of credit card in question. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 14/07/2010 whereas the cause of action accrued in the year 2006i.e  beyond the period of two years of the accrual cause of action.

9.     In view of the above discussion and the judgment cited above,  we are of the considered opinion that the present complaint is barred by limitation, therefore, we find no merits in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 This final order be sent to server (www.confonet.nic.in ). A copy each of this order each be sent to both parties free of cost by post.  File be consigned to Record Room.

 

Announced in open Forum on 22/05/2019.

                                     (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                                                PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                 (H.M. VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER