DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II U.T. CHANDIGARH [Complaint Case No:468 of 2010] Date of Institution : 28.07.2010 Date of Decision :21.09.2011 --------------------------------------- Sh. Dharam Vir son of Late Sh. Raghvir Singh resident of House No.2490, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh. ---Complainant. V E R S U S State Bank of India Credit Card Division through Local Head Office, Bank Square, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh. ---Opposite Party. BEFORE: SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESI DENT SMT. MADHU MUTNEJA MEMBER SH. JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU MEMBER Argued By: None for the complainant. Sh. Jatin Kumar, Advocate for the OP. PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT Sh. Dharam Vir has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein for the following reliefs:- i) To pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment; ii) To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation. iii) To pay any other relief, which the Forum deems fit. 2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a Credit Card bearing No.0004006661030475938 from OP in the year 2004. Thereafter, OP issued an Add-On Card bearing No.4006661034626882 without any request from the complainant. However, according to the complainant, he had been using the above said credit card for some time. According to the complainant, as he was not satisfied with the service of the OP, he decided to close down the facility. At that time, some amount was outstanding against the complainant. Some dispute arose between the complainant and the OP regarding the actual dues for use of the credit card. According to the complainant, ultimately, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and OP agreed to close the case on payment of Rs.7,000/- by the complainant in full and final settlement of the dispute. Thus, according to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- vide receipts dated 18.01.2005, 26.04.2005, 27.05.2005 and 28.06.2005 [Annexures C-1 (Colly.)]. It has further been pleaded that despite the payment of the entire amount as settled by the parties, the complainant received a legal notice dated 28.04.2006 asking the complainant to appear before the Conciliation Officer to settle the account. So, he appeared before the Conciliation Officer. However, the matter was not settled. According to the complainant, on 28.04.2006, he again received a legal notice demanding Rs.15,969.48Ps. From March 2008, OP again started issuing bills to him qua the said credit card. The said bills were sent to him on 23.03.2008, 23.06.2008, 23.03.2009, 23.09.2009, 23.12.2009 and 23.06.2010. According to the complainant, demand of the amount against the said credit card is illegal and unjustified as the complainant had settled the account in the year 2004 and had paid the required payment. Thus, according to the complainant, the demand made by the OP amounts to deficiency in service. It has further been averred that the OP threatened the complainant through musclemen and has caused great mental agony to him. In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above. 3. On the other hand, the case of OP is that the complainant had himself applied for issuance of the credit card and on his request, the Add-On card was issued to him. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was satisfied with the service provided by the OP and no complaint to this effect was ever received. OP has denied any settlement between the parties on payment of Rs.7,000/-. According to OP, it is a concocted story. It has been pleaded that a sum of Rs.51,805.33Ps was outstanding against the complainant as on 23.09.2009. So, legal notice was issued to him asking him to appear before the Conciliation Officer. The complainant appeared but did not make the payment. It has further been pleaded that as the amount was due against the complainant, so the bills were issued to him. According to OP, there is no deficiency on its part. A number of preliminary objections have also been taken such as complaint is barred by limitation; the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint; Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complaint being false and frivolous. 4. None appeared on behalf of the complainant on the date of final hearing i.e.19.09.2011. Therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in his absence. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the OP and have gone through the documents on record. 6. Admittedly, the credit card was issued to the complainant on his request and he had been using the Add-On card. It is also not disputed that some dispute arose between the parties regarding the amount due against the complainant qua the use of the said credit card. 7. The case of the complainant is that the dispute was settled and OP had agreed to settle the dispute on payment of Rs.7,000/-. Thus, accordingly, he paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- vide receipts dated 18.01.2005, 26.04.2005, 27.05.2005 and 28.06.2005 [Annexures C-1 (Colly.)]. It is pertinent to mention here that the letter of settlement has not been placed on record nor any document showing that any settlement was ever arrived at between the parties has been placed on record. In these circumstances, from the evidence on record, it is not proved that OP had agreed to settle the account on payment of Rs.7,000/-. 8. On the other hand, OP has asserted that no such settlement was ever arrived at and a sum of Rs.51,805.33Ps was outstanding against the complainant as on 23.09.2009 and the same has now become Rs.64,464.89Ps as on 23.06.2010. 9. The complainant has failed to place on record any document relating to the settlement arrived at between the parties, so, he has failed to prove this fact. No material has been placed on record to prove that the amount demanded by the OP is not outstanding against the complainant. In these circumstances, it cannot be held that the demand of the outstanding amount from the complainant by OP amounts to deficiency in service. 10. It was argued by the learned counsel for the OP that the complaint is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel, the dispute relates to the year 2004 and the complaint has been filed in the year 2010. In our considered view, this argument of the learned counsel for the OP has no force. The last demand made by the OP is dated 23.06.2010. So, the cause of action had accrued to the complainant on 23.06.2010 and the complaint is within two years from that date. This preliminary objection is, therefore, rejected. 11. In view of the above discussion and in our considered view, the complainant has failed to make out any case of deficiency in service against the OP. Consequently, the complaint is dismissed by leaving the parties to bear their own costs of litigation. 12 Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room. Announced 21st September 2011. Sd/- (LAKSHMAN SHARMA) PRESIDENT Sd/- (MADHU MUTNEJA) MEMBER Sd/- (JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU) MEMBER Ad/- C.C.No.468 of 2010 Present: None. --- The case was reserved on 19.09.2011. As per the detailed order of even date recorded separately, this complaint has been dismissed. Announced. 21.09.2011 Member President Member
| | MR. A.R BHANDARI, MEMBER | HONABLE MR. LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT | MRS. MADHU MUTNEJA, MEMBER | | 
