Rajesh Sharma Vs. State Bank of Inida & Others.

1. This complaint presented before us for consideration on the point of admission of the complaint.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant alleged that he is residing in Jalandhar and in the year 2000, one of the representative of the OP No.1 came to the complainant at his residence, near Tagore Hospital, Jalandhar and offered the complainant for using the credit card facility of OP No.1. He further assured that there are no hidden charges on the said facility and credit card was also delivered by the said representative to the complainant at his residence. The complainant fell into his trap and agreed to use the credit card facility of OP No.1. Accordingly, one credit card bearing No.4006661144046245 was issued to the complainant. In the year 2000, the complainant used the said card only for one time by obtaining a sum of Rs.6000/- for his personal use and said amount of Rs.6000/- was deposited within time through cheque. The complainant was not at fault because he made the payment of Rs.6000/- within time and this is very much apparent from the cheque itself, which was issued by the complainant for clearing the payment of Rs.6000/-. Thereafter, the complainant surrendered the credit card and never applied for its renewal. That to the utter surprise of the complainant on 24.02.2016, he came to know that the OP No.1 is demanding some illegal, exorbitant and unjustified amount from the complainant towards the alleged dues. Even the complainant was getting obnoxious and threatening calls from the call centre personnel of the OP No.1 for clearing the dues. When the complainant asked the OP to supply the copy of account statement, but they failed to provide the copy of account statement for which the complainant has a legal right. Not only this, the OP No.1 has also recommended the name of the complainant to the OP No.2 for naming him in the defaulter list. The OP No.1 has not having any right, title or authority to give the name of the complainant to the OP No.2. From 24.02.2016 till date, the complainant had been sending emails to the OPs, but no positive response is being received from them. Copies of emails are attached herewith. Reference may be given to the list of emails dated 15.02.2018, which is in the shape of notice, but no positive reply has been given to the complainant.

3. That due to the wrongs of the OPs, the name of the complainant has been incorporated in the list of defaulters by the OP No.2 and the credit score of the complainant has fallen drastically and for that the complainant is suffering a lot because whenever some loan facility is required from the bank, banks used to refuse the complainant to provide credit facility only because of the fact that the name of the complainant is in the defaulter list of the CIBIL i.e. OP No.2. The OP No.2 is also at fault because he has not verified the fact whether the name of the complainant is liable to be figured in the list of defaulters or not. OP No.2 has also failed to give positive response of the emails addressed to them and as such, there is a clear cut deficiency in providing the service on the part of the OPs and thus, the instant complaint filed with the prayer that the OPs may be directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/- each as damages for causing unnecessary harassment, torture, physical pain, financial loss and agony to the complainant and further OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses.

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and also scanned the case file as well as documents placed on the file.

5. We find that the complainant alleged in the complaint that he got the facility of credit card in the year 2000 and accordingly, a credit card bearing No.4006661144046245 was issued to him, but he used the credit card only once, by obtaining a sum of Rs.6000/- for his personal use and later on, the said amount was deposited through cheque and thereafter, the complainant also surrendered the credit card and never applied for its renewal. The complainant in this complaint very tactfully manner has not mentioned the date on which cause of action accrued to the complainant for filing the instant complaint rather the said para i.e. in regard to cause of action is missed, but however, it is the duty of the complainant to mention the date when he had surrendered the credit card, but for the best known reason, he has not mentioned the date of surrendering the credit card that can be considered the date of occurring a cause of action for filing a complaint. However, the complainant made a story in para No.6 that on 24.02.2016, he came to know that the OPs illegally demanding some excessive amount, but this date is not supported by document, if any notice has been given by the OP to the complainant for depositing any excessive or illegal amount, then the said letter has to bring on the file, but the complainant has not brought on the file any documentary proof in order to establish that on which date a cause of action accrued to the complainant. However, the photostat copy of the report of 'CIBIL details' produced on the file, wherein the process of CIBIL was initiated on 22.02.2016 as date mentioned on the said document the date of processed and accordingly, if we accept the version of the complainant that on 24.02.2016, he came to know about the demand of illegal amount from the complainant and then we reckoned the period of limitation from 24.02.2016 as alleged by the complainant in para No.6 of the complaint, then the complainant has right to file a complaint within two years from the date of occurrence, means that the complainant can file complaint on or before 24.02.2018, but admittedly the instant complaint filed by the complainant on 20.03.2018, means after one month of the expiry of limitation of two years. So, it is clearly established that the complaint of the complainant is hopelessly time barred and as such, the same is not maintainable and therefore, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

27.03.2018 Member President