Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/602/2012

C.R. SATYANARAYANAN - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI CARDS AND PAYMENT SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

K.S.V.Prasad

11 Dec 2015

ORDER

 

BEFORE THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.  

 

BEFORE:  Thiru.J.JAYARAM,                             PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                   Thiru.P.BAKIAVATHY,                      MEMBER.

                                                                                  F.A.No.602/2012

      

 (Against the order in C.C.No.311/2009, dated 02.06.2011 on the file of DCDRF, Chennai (North)   

THE 11^th  DAY OF DECEMBER 2015.

                                                                                             

C.R. Satyanarayanan,

Proprietor,

INTECH, I Floor, Old No:152/1,

New No.315, Thambu Chetty Street,

Chennai – 600 001.                                      Appellant/Complainant

 

                                   -Vs-

 

1. SBI Cards and Payment Services

       Private Limited,

    State Bank House,

    SBI, Local Head Office,

    11, Parliament Street,

    New Delhi – 110 001.                               1^st Respondent/1^st Opposite Party

 

2.  SBI Cards and Payment Services

       Private Limited,

    State Bank House, Circle Top House,

    Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.                2^nd Respondent/2^nd Opposite Party

 

3.  M/s. G.E. Capital Business Process

     Management Services Private Limited,

     IV Floor, TIAM House,

     No.28, Rajaji Salai,

     Chennai – 600 001.                                 3^rd Respondent/3^rd Opposite Party

 

Counsel for Appellant/Complainant         :  Mr.K.S.V. Prasad, Advocate.

Counsel for Respondents-1 to 3/

    Opposite Parties – 1 to 3                   :  Mr.S. Namasivayam, Advocate.

 

This appeal coming up before us for final hearing on 13.10.2015 and on hearing the arguments and upon perusing the material records, this Commission made the following order:  

ORDER

Thiru. J. JAYARAM, PRESIDING JUDICIAL MEMBER.

                    This appeal is filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.311/2009 dated 02.06.2011 dismissing the complaint.

1.                The case of the complainant is that the complainant availed credit card facilities with the opposite parties and subsequently his credit card number was changed and an additional card was issued to the complainant’s wife. The opposite parties would dispatch the statement of account belatedly; the opposite parties would include the financial charges and late fee interest, for which the complainant is not at all liable and so the complainant would make the payment by deducting the financial charges and late fee payment. In spite of several representations to the opposite parties, the opposite party used to send the statement of account belatedly. The opposite parties sent the statement for the month of May 2006 only on 14.06.2006 with the delay of 30 days claiming Rs.1,061.05/- as financial charges and the complainant remitted the balance amount by debiting the financial charges of Rs.1,061.05/- on 15.06.2006. In the statement of account dated 16.06.2006 the opposite parties debited a sum of Rs.3,650/- twice for a single transaction. The opposite parties admitted the dual transaction; however, the error was not rectified but it was not reflected in the subsequent statement. Therefore the complainant surrendered his credit card on 17.06.2006 to close the account, but the opposite parties used to intimidate the complainant through their personnel demanding excess amount debiting the amount twice would amount to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and hence the complaint.

2.                According to the opposite parties the cause of action stated in the complaint arose on 22.04.2007 and the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory period of two years and the complaint is barred by limitation. There was no delay in sending monthly statements and there was no excess billing and nobody intimidated the complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.    

3.                The District Forum considered the rival contentions and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complaint is barred by limitation.

4.                We find that the latest date of cause of action as furnished in the complaint is 24.04.2007 and the complaint has been filed on 29.05.2009 and the complaint has been signed on 25.05.2009.

5.                Therefore it is clearly established that the complaint has been filed beyond the statutory period of two years from the date of cause of action and so the complaint is barred by limitation and the complaint is not maintainable.

6.                Further it is pertinent to note that no petition was filed to condone the delay under section 24-A of Consumer Protection Act, in filing the complaint.

7.                The District Forum has rightly held that the complaint is barred by limitation and so the complaint is not maintainable. There is no infirmity in the order of the District Forum and we agree with the finding and the decision of the District Forum dismissing the complaint as barred by limitation and so the other issues do not survive for consideration. There is no merit in the appeal, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.              

8.                In the result, the appeal is dismissed confirming the order of the District Forum. No order as to costs in the appeal.

 

P.BAKIAVATHY                                                        J.JAYARAM,                                                                                                             

      Member.                                                                Presiding Judicial Member.