Delhi

New Delhi

CC/125/2011

Rakesh Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

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

02 Aug 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.125/2011                             Dated:

In the matter of:

                Sh. Rakesh Kumar Gupta,

                 R/o Y 12, Green Park Main, Delhi-16.

                          ……..COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

1.  Kotak  Mahindra Bank  Ltd.,
2.   Manager (Legal),

Ground Floor,

Ambadeep, 14, Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-01.

 

2.    Kotak Mahindra Bank Lt.,

Sanjeev Sood,

Dy./Collection Manager,

Pamposh Enclave

                      Opposite Party

 

NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

   ORDER

The complainant has   filed the present complaint against the OPs

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 bearing No.0004166451400020076.  The complainant used the above credit card for his personal use regularly.  Despite making regular payment, the officials of OP bank started threatening him and his family for the payment which he has already made.  The complainant  has also informed the Head office of OP Bank that he received the above credit card in year 2008 with the maximum limit of Rs.1,26,000/-.  Thereafter, the complainant used this card for R.18,000/- in the month of July 2008 and another amount of Rs.40,000/- in the month of November, 2008.   The complainant has used total amount of Rs.58,000/- only but he had paid Rs.59,037/- which is an excess of Rs.1,037/-.  The complainant made several request to the OP to resolve the issue but nothing has been done by the OP. The  illegal demand of money raised by the OP against the credit card in question despite making the payment constitute gross deficient services and unfair trade practice on the part OP. The complainant, therefore, approached this Forum for redressal of his grievance. 

 2.    Complaint has been contested by the OPs.  In its reply OP denied any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.  It is stated that there is no privity of contract between the parties as the credit card in question was not operative w.e.f. July 2009. The complainant committing a fundamental breach of contract between the parties and subsequently the final settlement voluntarily entered into by the complainant was also not honoured and as such  OPs opted to close the account and validity of card  on persistent default by the card holder.  It is denied that some persons of OP bank threatened to the complainant or his family members. It is further stated that the present complaint has become in fructuous, as the complainant admitted the liability outstanding  against him on 5^th March 2011 and the same was  cleared by him vide statement generated on 5.9.2011 and the total amount due against recorded with the OPs was Nil and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

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 complainant in the present complaint has prayed at Para-2 that direction be given to the OP bank not to take the legal action against the legal demand notice dt. 24.6.2010.  We have gone through the demand letter dt. 24.6.2010 issued by OP to the complainant, the same is in regard to the dishonoured of the payment cheque issued by the complainant to the OP.  The complainant had himself failed to honour the payment due against him, in such a situation, the issuance of demand letter by the OP does not constitute any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on behalf of OP.   Moreover,  we have gone through the credit card statement dt. 5.9.2011. Perusal of the same shows that there was no outstanding on the alleged card in question, and the card in question already stands closed.

 

6.     In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the complainant has failed to establish the case of deficiency in services against the OPs.  We find no merit in the present complaint, same is hereby dismissed.

 

Copy of the order may be forwarded to the parties to the case free of cost as statutorily required. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.  File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Forum on 02/08/2019. 

 

 

            (ARUN KUMAR ARYA)

                     PRESIDENT

                                (NIPUR CHANDNA)                                   (HM VYAS)

                                 MEMBER                                                      MEMBER