Delhi

East Delhi

CC/306/2012

ALOK GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

25 Oct 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. NO. 306/12

Sh. ALOK GUPTA

FLAT NO. 161, SECTOR-16,

VASUNDHARA, GHAZIABAD,

1.  

                                                                                                                           ….Complainant

Vs

 

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA

THROUGH IT SAUTHORISED OFFICER

VIKAS MARG, SHAKARPUR,

1448859.  

 

2. STATE BANK OF INDIA

THROUGH IT SAUTHORIXED OFFICER

SBI CARDS & PAYMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.,

11, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI.

 

3. SBI CARDS & PAYMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD.

THROUGH ITS AUTHORIXED OFFICER

DLF INFINITY TOWERS, TOWER C, 12^TH FLOOR,

BLOCK 2, BUILDING 3, DLF CYBER CITY

GURGAON-122002 ( HARYANA) INDIA.                                                                                                                                                                                               ….Opponents

Date of Institution: 02.05.2012

Judgment Reserved for: 25.10.2017

Judgment Passed on: 30.10.2017

CORUM:

Sh. SUKHDEV SINGH                  (PRESIDENT)

Dr. P.N. TIWARI                          (MEMBER

ORDER BY: Mr. SUKHDEV SINGH (PRESIDENT)

JUDGEMENT

 

Complainant Shri. Alok Gupta has filed this complaint against State Bank of India      (OP-1), SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2), and SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3), Under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, for deficiency in service. 

The complainant Shri Alok Gupta, proprietor of the M/s Reliable Marketing, was issued a SBI Credit Card bearing No. 4317575015394555 by SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3) for personal use. The complainant stopped using this card due to poor services of OP and since then it was in disuse and nothing was payable to the opposite party. He applied for a loan at Allahabad Bank, South Extension, for his personal and business needs in the month of November 2011. He was shocked to receive a letter on 16.12.2011 from his banker regarding some outstanding amount reflected in his name in the records of CIBIL which has been maintained by Credit Information of India Bureau Ltd. Due to this they were unable to process his request and further demanded a clarification of the same from the complainant.

            The complainant was enjoying credit limit of Rs.120 lacs with M/s Allahabad Bank and was dealing in Computer and IT products since year 2000 and was a government supplier. He immediately wrote letter/ E-mails to OP-2 & OP-3 on 12.01.2012 and demanded a clarification regarding a sum of Rs. 25,174/- being posted against his name by OP in the records of CIBIL as he has already cleared all payments and nothing was due. He also made a request to remove his name from the defaulter list.

it has further been stated that after much delay and deliberations, SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3),  issued a No Due Certificate on 06.02.2012, but  have not issued any communication regarding the updation of CIBIL records. The sanction of the loan got delayed inordinately due to illegal act of OP, which was sanctioned by the banker of the complainant after submission of No Dues Certificate received from OP-3. OP deliberately sent his name to CIIBL to the defaulter list and nothing was due against him. Due to this unfair trade practice, the complainant has suffered loss of reputation, mental pain and agony. Thus, he has claimed an amount of Rs. 9,00,000/- towards mental pain and agony, Rs.11,000/- towards litigation expenses.

In the reply filed on behalf of SBI (OP-1), they have stated that they were not necessary party, even otherwise there was no deficiency in service on their part, nor claimed in the complaint. Other facts have also been denied.

In the reply filed on behalf of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP2) and SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. (OP-3), it has been stated that there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 & OP3 in any manner as alleged in the complaint. The complainant has filed the complaint with malafide intention to wash away the reputation of OP-2 & OP-3. It has been stated that on 16.11.2013 the account of complainant was running over and his sanctioned limit of Rs.90,00,000/- and there was an outstanding of Rs.96,25,280.46, which was also the ground for declining the loan to the complainant. This fact has not been mentioned by the complainant.

It has further been stated that after receiving the letter of dated 12.01.2012 from the complainant on 06.02.2012, they closed his account and issued No Dues Certificate and immediately in the month of January 2012 and February 2012 reported the same to CIIBL with current balance as Zero (0). Thus, they have denied that there was deficiency of service on their part and have prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

In the Rejoinder to the reply of OP-1 the complainant has controverted the stand taken by them and have reasserted his pleas.

No evidence has been led on behalf of both the parties.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

It has been stated on behalf of State Bank of India (OP-1) that they were not a necessary party and even no deficiency in service has been stated in the complaint.

The submission made on behalf of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,  (OP-2) and SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3) that the complainant was having a sanctioned limit of Rs.90,00,000/- and there was outstanding of Rs.96,25,280.46,  which was the ground for declining the loan. The complainant was given no objection on moving his application. Thus, it has been argued that there was no deficiency on their part.

To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, a look has to be made to the documents placed on record. In the absence of any evidence led by the parties, firstly, we have to see that how far SBI (OP-1) was liable for any deficiency. After perusal of the complaint it is noticed that the complainant was not having any transaction with SBI (OP-1) and no allegation have been put in the complaint for their deficiency. In the absence of any transaction with SBI (OP-1) and no deficiency attributed to them, the complainant has dragged SBI (OP-1) without any cause, no case of any deficiency has made out against SBI (OP-1). Even otherwise also, they were not a necessary party.  

Coming to the question of deficiency on the part of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-2) and SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3), we have to look to the documents available on record. If we look into the letter of Allahabad Bank dated 16.11.2011, it has been noticed that the complainant has been asked to regularize cash credit account no. 4317575015394555 which was having 90,00,000/- limit, but was running poor and there was outstanding of Rs.96,25,280.46. It was also stated in this letter that there was an overdue in the credit card accounts of other bank. The complainant was also directed to furnish details of debtor and creditors etc.

However, letter of dated 11.01.2012 which was written by complainant to Manager of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., (OP-3) making request for update CIBIL records and clarifying the outstanding amount of Rs. 25,173/- reflected against the said card, the reply has been sent by SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.,    (OP-3) through its letter dated 06.02.12 showing that there were no dues payable to them against his credit card no. 4317575015394555 which was inactive. However, letter to Allahabad Bank of dated 11.01.2012 shows that the cash credit limit of the complainant was sanctioned which was in response of his application dated 26.11.2011.

From the letter of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., of dated 06.02.2012, it is evident that they reported no dues in response to the application of the complainant of dated 12.01.2012. It means that immediately SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., reported no dues and loan was sanctioned by Allahabad Bank on the very day by his moving the application to SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., for making request of updating CIBIL records. Thus, the fact remains that outstanding shown in the CIBIL report did not come in the way of sanction of his credit limit.

Further from letter dated 06.02.2012 issued to the complainant by SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., where no dues payable to them have been mentioned, though this letter has been issued at the request of complainant in response to his application of dated 12.01.12, but this letter has reference to discussion with their customer care executive on dated 06.02.2012. To quote from this letter “This is with reference to your discussion with our customer care executive dated February 06, 2012 regarding the closure of your SBI card account number 4317575010950013”.Though, no dues payable to SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., have been mentioned in this letter, but complainant have not placed on record with regard to discussion with their customer care executive on February 06, 2012 as to what settlement has been made by the complainant.

The complainant in his own application of dated 12.01.2012 have stated that the outstanding of Rs.25,173/- was reflected against his card in his CIBIL account but have not placed the record of discussion with their customer care executive on dated 06.02.12 and got no dues certificate. Thus, the complainant has not filed the present complaint with clean hands. Not only that no CIBIL record has been placed to show that the CIBIL record of complainant was showing an outstanding amount against his credit card issued by SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd. Even the banker of the complainant Allahabad Bank have issued the sanctioned letter on the very day itself i.e. 12.01.2012 when he moved an application with SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., for settlement of his dues in credit card no. 4317575010950013. Thus, the outstanding amount which is stated to be shown in his CIBIL account has not come in the way of getting enhancement of cash credit limit of the complainant. Therefore, in the absence of any documents on record it cannot be said that there was deficiency on the part of SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd (OP-2), and SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd (OP-3) on account of which he has suffered any loss or injury for which he has to be compensated.

In view of the above, we are of the opinion that complainant has filed to show any deficiency on the part of OPs on account of which he has suffered any mental pain and agony. Therefore his complaint is devoid of any merit which deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed. There is no order as to cost.

Copy of this order be sent to both the parties as per law.

 

(Dr. P.N. TIWARI)                                                                                                )

     MEMBER                                                                                                     MEMBER

                                                                                                       

                                                       (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                                                               PRESIDENT