West Bengal

Siliguri

CC/15/76

SRI KAMALESH CHOUDHURY - Complainant(s)

Versus

SBI CARDS - Opp.Party(s)

RAJENARA PRASAD

09 May 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE LD. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT S I L I G U R I.

 

CONSUMER CASE NO. : 76/S/2015.                          DATED : 09.05.2016.            

 

 

BEFORE  PRESIDENT              : SRI BISWANATH DE,

                                                              President, D.C.D.R.F., Siliguri.

 

                      MEMBERS              : SMT. PRATITI BHATTACHARYYA &

                                                              SRI PABITRA MAJUMDAR.

 

COMPLAINANT                 : SRI KAMALSH KUMAR CHOUDHARY,

  Senior Vice President (Operation),

  Care of the Statesman Limited,  

  R/O 59, Baghajatin Road, 2^nd Floor,

  Opposite to Rabindra Manch,  

  P.O. & P.S.- Siliguri,

  Dist. – Darjeeling (West Bengal),

  PIN- 98320 89435.

 

                                                              

                        : SBI CARDS,

  DLF Infinity Towers,

  Tower C, 10^th – 12^th Floor, Block – 2,

  Building – 3, DLF Cyber City,

  Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). 

 

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT         : Sri Suresh Kumar Mitruka, Advocate.

 

 

J U D G E M E N T

 

 

 

 

Sri Biswanath De, Ld. President.

 

 

The fact of the case is that complainant holds an ATM Card of 16 digits of the OP Company for long time.  In the month of December, 2013, complainant was unable to make payment through the SBI Card.  The matter was informed to the OP who informed that they would issue a new card and thereafter OP made promise that the problem faced by the complainant would be dissolved by 48 hours.  The complainant was informed regarding issuance of new card.  Thereafter, in the month of December, 2013, the complainant came to know that the card has been blocked by the OP in the month of March, 2014.  The complainant contacted several times with the OP, but the problem remained unsolved.  Complainant issued advocate’s letters to OP requesting activate the card or issue a new card and also to waive all interest and penal charge which the OP above named has charged from the month of March,

 

Contd........P/2

-:2:-

 

 

2014.  But the OP did not do anything.  The cause of action arose in the month of December, 2013 and thereafter, when the cause of action arose in the month of March, 2014 when OP deactivated the card.  Hence, this complaint claiming compensation against SBI CARDS, DLF Infinity Towers,  Tower C, 10^th – 12^th Floor, Block – 2, Building – 3, DLF Cyber City, Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana). 

In this case, the OP appeared and filed written version.  OP has submitted that the complainant is bound by the jurisdiction set forth in the agreement executed between himself and SBI Cards and payment Service (P) Ltd.  This is matter of record that, as per card holder agreement there is an arbitration clause, which stipulates that in all events of dispute/difference between the card holder and the SBI Cards, the same shall be resolved by appointment of a sole arbitrator and the opposite party shall have the powers to appoint the arbitrator.  As such this learned forum is devoid of jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the complainant is bound by the terms and conditions which were supplied to him along with a book let through a welcome kit before the complainant had made any transaction through the credit card.  OP further stated that the complaint is not maintainable as no cause of action arose in favor of the complainant and against this OP.  Therefore, the OP has prayed that the present case is liable to be dismissed with exemplary cost. 

The OP has also filed evidence in chief.

After going through the record, and case of the complainant, it appears that the complainant has instituted the case, SBI CARDS, DLF Infinity Towers,       Tower C, 10^th – 12^th Floor, Block – 2, Building – 3, DLF Cyber City,                   Gurgaon – 122 002 (Haryana).

This OP is not resided within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.

Section 11(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 runs as follows :-

(a)      the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides or [carried on business or] has a branch office or personally works for gain, or

(b)      any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or [carries on business or has a branch office,] or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the permission of the District Forum is given, or the opposite parties who do not reside, or [carry on business or have a branch office,] or personally work for gain, as the case may be acquiesce in such institution; or

(c)      the cause of action, wholly or in part arises.  

Contd........P/3

-:3:-

 

 

Accordingly, the case does not come within the purview of territorial jurisdiction of this Forum as laid down in Section 11 (2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

Hence, it is

                             O R D E R E D

That the Consumer Case No.76/S/2015 is dismissed but without any cost.

Let copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost. 

 

 

-Member-                      -Member-                                -President-