Delhi

New Delhi

CC/911/2010

Pankul Rathore - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

13 Mar 2019

ORDER

 

CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-VI 

‘M’ BLOCK, 1^STFLOOR, VIKAS BHAWAN,

I.P.ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.

 

Case No.CC.911/2010                                                                                 Dated:

In the matter of:

Sh. Pankul Rathore,

R/o House No.2,

Charak Enclave,

Jammu Cantt., J&K-180004.

 

Also at:

 

 Pankul Rathore,

Spaak Forum 50, BLK NO.5,

Ground Floor, Erose Garden,

Charmwood, Faridabad, Haryana-121004.

                           ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

HSBC Bank Ltd.

Credit Card Department

25, Barakhamba Road,

New Delhi-110001.

                      Opposite Party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

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 was a credit card holder of OP Bank vide credit card bearing no. 5548512005293347. The complainant has cleared all the outstanding dues of OP for above mentioned credit card and the credit card is showing nil balance.  Further when the complainant applied for the credit card for business purpose and some personal use from some other bank, the application of complainant was immediately rejected by the other bank due to reasons that the name of complainant was falling under the category of the list of the defaulters, which leads complainant to face extreme humiliation not only in front of his friends but also in front of Business Associates. The legal notices dated 18.06.09 and 18.08.2010 sent to the OP with the direction to withdraw the name of the complainant from the CIBIL defaulter list, but OP neither replied to the legal notice nor had complied the same, hence this complaint.

 2.     Complaint has been contested by the OP. In its reply OP stated that as per the provision of the Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005, this Forum does not have jurisdiction over matters regarding reporting of credit information to any Credit Information Company. It is submitted that CIBIL does not maintain any Defaulter List.  CIBIL just provides a credit information of the borrowers to the Credit Institutions in order to enable them to determine the credit worthiness of borrower, therefore, the averment of the complainant  on the basis of which he seeks removal of his name from CIBIL’s record is wrong and baseless.  It is further stated that it has always acted in accordance with the CIP(Credit Information Companies (Regulation) Act 2005 as well as guidelines of RBI.  It is also submitted that the complainant has deliberately  concealed the fact that he had been regularly defaulting in repaying dues towards the Credit Card. Complainant made a representation/request to the OP bank that he is unable to pay the entire outstanding dues on his credit card, as such pursuant to his request, OP bank settle the said dues at Rs. 1,54,000/- the alleged settlement was subject to the condition that the credit history of the complainant in respect to the default in payment is being reported to all the relevant credit agencies. Accordingly, a settlement letter dated 27/12/2007 was issued to the complainant alongwith terms and conditions of the settlement which was duly accepted by the complainant. In terms of the letter dated 27/12/2007, the present complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation.

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 the when he applied for the credit card for business purpose and some personal use from some other bank, his application was immediately rejected by the other bank due to reasons that the name of complainant was falling under the category of the list of the defaulters, which lead complainant to face extreme humiliation not only in front of his friends but also in front of Business Associates.

8. The complainant has settled his credit card dues with OP vide settlement letter dated 27/12/2007 vide which he agreed to pay the outstanding dues to the OP bank in two instalment of Rs. 65,000/- & 89,000/-. He also signed the settlement letter, which shows that the complainant was aware about the terms of the settlement that the credit history of the complainant in respect to the default in payment is being reported to all the relevant credit agencies. These terms were included in the letter and signed by the complainant himself, if the complainant was not satisfied with the settlement terms, he should have approached this Forum within 2 years of the settlement. The complainant has filed the present complaint on 14/07/2010 whereas the cause of action i.e. the settlement between the parties arrived on 27/12/2007 i.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 cause of action for filing the present complaint accrued vide letter dated 27.12.2014,  the present complaint was filed on 14/07/2010.  The 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  13/03/2019.

                                      (ARUN KUMAR ARYA

                                              PRESIDENT

(NIPUR CHANDNA)                                                 (H.M. VYAS)

       MEMBER                                                                MEMBER