Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/12/1124

GIRJA SHANKAR - Complainant(s)

Versus

STATE BANK OF INDIA - Opp.Party(s)

10 Aug 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE  CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  COMMISSION,                         

                             PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL

                                         

                                 FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2012

(Arising out of order dated 02.05.2012 passed in C.C.No. 317/2012 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

GIRJASHANKAR UPADHYAY,

S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD UPADHYAY,

R/O 152, R. J. PURAM, BHIND ROAD,

GWALIOR (M.P.)                                                                                 ...        APPELLANT

 

                      Versus

 

1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,

    THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,

    MAIN BRANCH-JEEWAJI CHOWK,

    BADA, GWALIOR (M.P.)

 

2. SI CARD & PAYMENT SERVICES

    PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER/

    DIRECTOR, STATE BANK HOUSE,

    11, PARLIAMENT STREET,

    NEW DELHI-110 001                                                                     …       RESPONDENTS     

                     

                                                                           

BEFORE :

 

            HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI            :          PRESIDING MEMBER

            HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY    :        MEMBER

                     

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

 

                Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

           Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

            Shri R. K. Kaimaithiya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

 

                                             O R D E R

                             (Passed On 10.08.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

    

                       This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 02.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer

-2-

Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.317/2012 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant at the admission stage as barred by limitation.

2.                Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.

3.                Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he had a savings bank account no. 10554613819 with the opposite party no.1 and at the instance of opposite party no.1 he applied for credit card to opposite party on which the opposite party no.2 sent a credit card no. 4317575075077272 valid till 2008, to the complainant. It is submitted that he did not use the said credit card. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant. On enquiry being made by the complainant, it was informed that Rs.20,000/- were sent for credit card use, therefore he deposited the same in his savings bank account with the opposite party no.1.

4.                It is further alleged that after some time on 10.12.2006, the opposite party no.2 by sending a statement demanded a sum of Rs.22,096/- towards dues against him. On this complainant prayed for ending the credit card facility and on the advice of opposite party no.2 he dropped a cheque for Rs.22,096/- in favour of opposite party no.2 in the drop box of opposite party no.1-bank which was encashed by the opposite party no.2 on

-3-

26.12.2006.  Even then on 13.06.2009 he received a notice regarding dues of Rs.15,312.81/- towards credit card, in relation to that a legal notice was given to the opposite party no.2.

5.                It is further alleged that after some time when he applied for car loan to opposite party-bank he was informed that the loan cannot be granted as there is overdue of Rs.23,000/- of opposite party no.2. When he brought the correct facts to the knowledge of the opposite party no.1, the car loan was sanctioned to him on 21.06.2011. Thereafter again the opposite party made a telephonic call to the complainant regarding overdue. He then took CIBIL score in March-2012 then he came to know that there was overdue of Rs.30,969/-. He therefore filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking direction for quashing the demand raised by the opposite party no.2 towards outstanding amount along with compensation of Rs.25,000/- and costs Rs.2,500/-.

6.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant as time barred at the admission stage holding that on 13.06.2009 itself the complainant came to know about overdue and therefore the cause of action arose on 13.06.2009 then why he waited so long and filed a complaint before the District Commission on 20.04.2012. The complaint filed after a period of two years from the date of cause of

 

-4-

action is barred by limitation as per provisions of Section 24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the opposite parties have committed deficiency in service in making the demand of overdues even when the complainant paid the outstanding amount through cheque which was encashed by the opposite party no.2. He argued that the District Commission has erroneously dismissed the complaint at the admission stage, and this appeal deserves to be allowed.

8.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties/respondents supported the impugned order.

9.                After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the record and the impugned order, we find that the District Commisison has dismissed the complaint case at the admission stage as time barred, even before issuing notice to the opposite parties/respondents-State Bank and SI Card & Payment Services Pvt.Ltd. The version of the opposite party ought to have been taken on record before deciding and dismissing the case.

10.              In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate that the matter be remanded back to the District Commission.  Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded back to the District Commission for deciding it afresh on merits, in accordance with law.

-5-

11.              Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.09.2022.

12.              Record of the case be sent at the earliest to the District Commission.

13.              All the contentions of the parties including maintainability of complaint are kept open.

14.              The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law after issuing notice to the opposite parties and decide the case as expeditiously as possible. The observations made by us hereinabove shall not come in way of the District Commission while deciding the matter in accordance with law.

15.              With the aforesaid observations, this appeal stands disposed of.  However, no order as to costs.

 

                     (A. K. Tiwari)                  (Dr.Srikant Pandey)           

                  Presiding Member                     Member