DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016
Case No.244/2007
Shri Shreyansh Siddharth
S/o Late Sh. Malik Ram
R/o A-2/129, Sector-16,
Rohini, Delhi-110085
….Complainant
Versus
State Bank of India
through its General Manager
M/s S.B.I. Cards and Payment Service Pvt. Ltd.
Local Head Office, 11 Parliament Street,
New Delhi-110001 ….Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 07.02.2007 Date of Order : 16.09.2017
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
ORDER
Complainant’s case, in brief, is that he hired the services of the OP through SBI Credit Card No.4006661036476542. He was served with a bill dated 13.06.03 as detailed in the complaint and he raised objection, wrote many letters to the OP and ultimately the OP provided him the details of the disputed bill totalling to Rs.21,978/- (copy Annexure C-1), from a perusal of which it revealed that the disputed amount in question had been at the instance of one Sh. N. Vaid and not the complainant and also that it was possible that the OP had issued a similar credit card to said Sh. N. Vaid for the reason best known to it. Despite many requests the OP failed to take any action against the said Sh. N. Vaid. According to him, both the signatures i.e. of the complainant and of Sh. N. Vaid are visibly, apparently and substantially different and can be deducted by a man of normal prudence. The OP ultimately informed him that as per the terms and conditions governing the said card the liability of the transaction in dispute lies with the complainant cardholder. The OP did not do anything despite receiving legal notice. According to him, at the relevant time i.e. between the period of 19.05.03 to 22.05.03 he was posted at Allahabad and not in Delhi which shows that the fraudulent transactions were made in hurry by said Sh. N. Vaid. Hence, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OP to pay to him Rs.2 lacs alongwith interest @ 24% p.a. from the date of receipt of the bill dated 13.06.03 till realization and to pay litigation charges.
In the reply the OP has inter-alia pleaded that the card in question was issued to the complainant after receiving the application form from him; that the card’s monthly statement dated 13.06.03 was issued to the complainant by the OP and according to the above said statement the complainant was required /liable to pay a sum of Rs.22833.07p to the OP. It is submitted that the card in question was in possession of the complainant and no other person could make any transaction without the card. It is further submitted that the OP has already intimated to the complainant vide letters dated 01.09.03 and 09.01.04 that the complainant was liable to pay the amount of disputed transaction of the card and according to the terms and conditions of the card. It is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.
Complainant has filed a rejoinder.
Complainant has filed his own affidavit in evidence. On the other hand, affidavit of Sh. Sheel Ratna Sinha, Attorney has been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP.
Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties.
We have heard the oral arguments on behalf of the Complainant and have also carefully gone through the record.
The complainant has marked the copies of the documents as Ex.CW-1/1 to Ex.CW-1/18. Ex. CW-1/1 is the copy of the bill dated 13.06.03 for an amount of Rs.22833.07p and after debit Rs.22861.18p. Many transactions are shown to have been done by the complainant in the said document. However, the complainant has filed the copies of statements of account as Ex. CW-1/10 (Colly) wherein he has given a detail as to how the transactions shown to have been made by him on the dates shown in the bill Ex. CW-1/1 are not correct and were not done by him. Ex. CW-1/8 is a very material document. Vide Ex. CW-1/8 which has been written by the complainant to the OP in response to his letter dated 28.07.03 (copy Ex.CW-1/5) and letter dated 06.08.03 of the OP (copy Ex.CW-1/6) the complainant has informed the OP as under:-
“...Apropos above, undersigned has received four purchase vouchers sent by you but it is astonishing fact that all the vouchers bears the name of N. VAID whereas as the name engraved on the above Card is SHREYANSH SIDDHARTH and Card is under my possession.
It is crystal clear either other card has been issued to N. VAID bearing above mentioned Card No. or fraudulent process have been adopted by scrupulous agency.
As the facts and figures supplied by the undersigned pertains to over billing in my Card as well as purchase belongs to N. VAID and signatures does not tally with my signature, so it is requested to correct the billing of statement to maintain healthy relations.
In case correction is not made within 15 days, undersigned will be compelled to seek judicial remedy with appropriate damages amounting to sum as deems fit…” (emphasis supplied by us)
However, to our great astonishment and surprise, the complainant has not filed the copies of the four purchase vouchers stated to have been received by him from the OP showing the transactions to have been done by one Sh. N. Vaid and not by the complainant. Therefore, it was for the complainant to file these four purchase vouchers on the record. If for any reason whatsoever he was not able to file the same on the record he would have made an application to this Forum for issuing direction to the OP to produce the copies of said purchase vouchers stated to be in the name of Sh. N. Vaid. Therefore, a very important and vital piece of evidence has been withheld by the complainant himself for which the OP cannot be held responsible. Therefore, we hold that the complainant has failed to prove that the amount in question as shown in bill Ex. CW-1/1 was fictitious and the transaction was not done by him.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 16.09.17.
