Delhi

StateCommission

A/497/2018

RAJIV GAUTAM - Complainant(s)

Versus

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - Opp.Party(s)

RAJESH KUMAR SHARMA

13 Dec 2018

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :13.12.2018

Date of Decision : 19.12.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.497/2018

In the matter of:

 

Rajiv Gautam,

R/o. 28A, Neelkanth Apartment,

46 I.P. Extension, Patparganj,

New Delhi-110092.                                                         …..Appellant

                                                Versus                                   

 

Punjab National Bank Ltd,

CGHS Patparganj,

In front of St. Andrews School,

New Delhi-110092.                                                          …….Respondent

 

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                               Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                        Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The complainant has come forward in the present appeal against order date 29.05.18 dismissing the complaint. The facts giving rise to the filing of the complaint are that complainant got credit card issued from the OP. He was shocked to know that a sum of Rs.10/- has been debited on his account on 10.03.15 at 04:40 p.m. He immediately made a call to the customer care of the OP and was told that amount of Rs.19,500/- had been deducted in his account at  around 04:45 p.m. He contacted the OP and blocked his credit card. He prayed for directing the OP to pay Rs.80,000/- as compensation for harassment, mental agony and pain. Pay Rs.15,000/-  as cost of litigation.
2. Respondent filed the WS stating that the transaction took place through POS terminal of M/s. Nisha Garments. On receiving the transaction dispute form of the complainant, OP raised retrieval request with VISA (settlement agency) for transaction charge slip. Acquiring bank of the merchant provided copy of charge slip and same was sent to complainant alongwith letter 27.06.15. Complainant was the only person aware of pin of his credit card. Acquiring bank of the merchant being transiting bank was a necessary party. It was not impleaded  as a party.
3. Complainant filed his evidence by affidavit. OP examined Shri Upender Singh, Sr. Manager. After going through the material on record the District Forum found that for Rs.19,500/- credit card has been used in J&K Bank. On receiving charge slip from said collecting bank, OP was obliged to remit the amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of OP.
4. I have gone through the material on record and heard arguments for the purpose of admission. The appellant did not care to impleaded M/s. Nisha Garments or J&K Bank as OP inspite of objection by OP in WS. It has not given any explanation for not doing so. They were necessary party and complaint is liable to be dismissed on this score alone.
5.  Moreover the appeal has been filed on 30.11.18. The same is after about 6 months of impugned order and is barred by limitation. There is no application for condonation of delay. The appeal is liable to be dismissed as being barred by limitation. The appellant tried to make out that certified copy was received by it on 11.10.18. But what happened to the free copy sent by the District Forum, is not mentioned in the appeal.
6. The appeal has no merits and is dismissed in limine.
7. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
8. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.

File be consigned to record room.

 

 

                                                                                              (O.P. GUPTA)                                                                                                                                                                                       MEMBER (JUDICIAL)