Orissa

Cuttak

CC/128/2021

KRUSHNA CHANDRA MALLICK - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI CARD - Opp.Party(s)

self

25 May 2022

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                                                                   C.C.No.128/2021

Krushna Chandra Mallick,

S/O:Satyanarayan Mallick,

At:Chauligaanj,Mitha Sahi,

P.O:Nayabazar,Cuttack-753004.                                                    ... Complainant.

                                                Vrs.

S.B.I Credit Card,

Kolkata,West Bengal,

EMAIL ID:CustomerServiceHead@sbicard.com,nodalofficer@sbicard.com,

Cuttack.... Opp. Party.

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing:    19.08.2021

Date of Order:  25.05.2022

For the complainant:          Self.

For the O.P.       :                  Mr. N.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.

Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

            Case of the complainant as made out from his complaint petition is short is that on 20.7.21 at 12.24 A.M. he got a call from one Mr. Rehan to his mobile number and the said Mr. Rehan disclosed his identity that he is from S.B.I Card Head Office.  The said Mr. Rehan had given offer to the complainant that he can choose S.B.I card  of his choice, can get 10 points on every Rs.100/- spent whether it is online or offline, can get 5% cash back on every spend through S.B.I Card and that the said card will be life time free and there will be no joining fee or annual fee charges.  Later, as it appears the complainant got a message from S.B.I Card that his Card is approved with an annual fee of Rs.4999/-+ 18% GST.  The complainant thereafter tried to cancel the said card and had made several correspondences through mail etc. To the O.Ps and ultimately has filed this case.

2.         On the other hand, the O.Ps have contested this case and have filed written version wherein they have mentioned that the case is not maintainable, there is suppression of material facts, the case is liable to be dismissed.  ‘The O.Ps have averred that in case of any dispute that should have been referred to an Arbitrator instead of approaching this Commission.  According to them, the SBI card issued in favour of the complainant was refused to be accepted by the complainant which had an annual fee of Rs.4999/-, the complainant had chosen to close the said card.  Thus the O.Ps have stated to dismiss the complaint petition as filed.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made out in the complaint petition as well as that from the written version of the O.Ps, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a proper conclusion.

            i.          Whether the case as filed is maintainable?

            ii.         Whether the complainant had any cause of action to file this case?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

            iv.        Whether the O.Ps had adopted any unfair trade practice?

            v.         Whether the complainant is entitled to the relief as claimed by him?

Issue No.3 & 4.

            For the sake of convenience issues No.3 & 4 are taken up together first for consideration.  While perusing the case record, contents of the complaint petition, the annexures therein as well as the documents available in the case record, nowhere it is noticed that if the O.Ps had infact lured the complainant with pseudo hopes and had thereby made him a victim with intent of malice in order to cheat him.  The allegation of the complainant that one Mr. Rehan had given him offer has not been substantially proved by the complainant who is to establish the same having the onus of proof lying on him.  In absence of any cogent evidence, this Commission cannot depend on the bald allegation of the complainant and conclude that there was deficiency in service, unfair trade practice by the O.Ps. Accordingly, these two issues are answered in favour of the O.Ps.

Issue No.1 & 2.

            From the above discussion, it can never be said here that the complainant had any cause of action to file this case and that his case is maintainable.  These two issues are also answered against the complainant.

Issue No.5.

            From the above discussions, it can never be said that the complainant is entitled to any of reliefs as claimed.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps but as regards the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

            Order pronounced in the open court on the 25^th day of May,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.

                                                                                                                              Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                                                        President

                                                                                                                         Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                                            Member.