Delhi

StateCommission

A/10/847

CITI BANK NA - Complainant(s)

Versus

PURAN CHAND TAMTA - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2016

ORDER

IN THE STATE COMMISSION: DELHI

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

 

Date of Decision: 31.08.2016

 

First Appeal No. 847/2010

 

        In the Matter of:

 

                Citibank, N.A.

          4^th Floor, Jeevasn Bharati Building

          124, Connought Circus

          New Delhi- 110 001

 

          Also At:

          Citibank, N.A. (Head Office)

          P.O. Ananasalai, Chennai- 600 002

 

……Appellant    Versus   Puran Chand Tamta R/o AJ- 47A, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi                                                                                 ….. Respondent

CORAM

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Salma Noor, Member

1.   Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the   judgment? 

2.   To be referred to the reporter or not?

 

N P Kaushik, Member (Judicial)

Present appeal is directed against orders dated 15.10.2010 passed by the District Forum- I, New Delhi. Vide impugned orders Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint. OP/appellant was directed to issue to the complainant/respondent, a new credit or reactivated credit card being enjoyed by him. Further directions were given to CIBIL to remove the name of complainant from the list of defaulters. No compensation was awarded.

        Facts in brief of the complaint are that the complainant Sh. Puram Chand Tamta was enjoying the facility of two credit cards issued by the OP. He had made the payment for the services provided. Grievance of the complainant was that both the cards were deactivated by the OP without giving him an opportunity of hearing. He was placed in the defaulters list.

        Defence raised by the OP in the District Forum was that there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 1754 against one card and amount of Rs. 8,202/- against the second card.

        Ld. District Forum observed that there was no agreement between the parties to the effect that a defaulted consumer could be barred for all times from availing of the credit facility. “Once a defaulter, always a defaulter”, was a wrong assumption. On the point of limitation, Ld. District Forum observed that the complainant had made requests for activation of his cards vide letters dated 25.06.2008 and 28.03.2008.

        We have heard at length the Ld. counsel for the appellant Ms. Schrachika. Ld. counsel has not disputed the facts of the complaint. There is no dispute with the proposition that ‘once a defaulter always a defaulter’ is a wrong assumption. Ld. District Forum rightly allowed the complaint. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. Appeal is hence dismissed.

        File be consigned to record room.