Short facts giving rise to the present complaint are as under:- The complainant has taken a credit card from the OP 1/Yes Bank Ltd. being Credit Card ending No. 6708. Complainant used the said credit card for the period from 16.10.2019 to 12.11.2019 and purchased goods to the tune of Rs. 1,47,912/- on different dates. Complainant has withdrawn cash of Rs.67,800/- by using credit card. Complainant has also paid Rs. 1,24,353/- to the OP 1 Bank through online. It is further alleges that the OP 2 vide its letter dated 10.11.2020 terminated the Credit Card Agreement dated 26.08.2019 and demanded outstanding amount of Rs. 2,82,152.28 despite repayment of Rs. 1,24,353/-. Complainant vide legal notice dated 03.05.2021 requested the OPs to furnish statement of accounts. Such legal notice was unattended. The demand of OPs is arbitrary and malafide. Subsequently, the OPs issued credit card statements for the period from 15.06.2020 to 14.07.2020 & 15.07.2020 to 14.08.2020. As per credit card statements minimum amount due shown as Rs. 0.00/-. Thus, the demand claims by the OP 2 vide its legal notice dated 10.11.2020 is illegal. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complainant filed the present complaint. Despite service of notices of the complaint, the OPs did not turn up to contest the case by filing WV within the statutory period as provided under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Thus, the case runs ex-parte against the OPs. Complainant Abhijit Sarkar has filed his E/chief supported by an affidavit. The contents of the complaint are supported by documentary evidence. The legal notice dated 03.05.2021 was issued to the OPs but no positive reply is given by the opponent. The documentary evidence shown that the complainant made grievances to the authority of the Bank but they did not resolve the grievances of the complainant. Fact remains that the complainant had approached the OPs and applied for a “Yes First Preferred - OD” and the OPs issued credit card facility vide number ending with 6708 with a credit limit of Rs. 2,29,000/-. Complainant claims that he used the credit card for the period from 16.10.2019 to 12.11.2019 and during such period he purchased goods and services to the tune of Rs. 1,47,912/- and also withdrew Rs. 67,800/-. He had repaid Rs. 1,24,353/- approximately through online payment. Not a single scrap of document is forthcoming on the part of the complainant with regard to repayment of Rs. 1,24,353/- through on line payment. Except the word of mount there is no documentary evidence regarding repayment of Rs. 1,24,353/- through online. It is true that complainant purchased goods to the tune of Rs. 1,47,912/- and also withdrew cash of Rs. 67,800/- by using the credit card. Thus, the total credit amount comes to Rs. 2,15,712/- out of credit limit of Rs. 2,29,000/-. For the sake of argument, if it is presumed that complainant has already repaid a sum of Rs. 1,24,353/- there is still outstanding of Rs. 91,359/-. Credit card statements issued by the OPs/Bank clearly shows the outstanding dues of the complainant against the credit card. Complainant himself a defaulter. OPs are financial institution and they granted credit card facilities to different customers on certain terms and conditions. Complainant is a defaulter in making payment of the credit card bills as per payment schedule as well as Credit Card Agreement. Thus, the OPs added interest over the due amount. In our opinion, the OPs have not committed any unfair trade practice and deficiency in service by issuing legal notice dated 10.11.2020 and terminating Credit Card Agreement bearing No. ending with 6708. The allegation of the complainant with regard to issuance of credit card against his will and signature upon any agreement is not at all believable. If the OPs issued credit card to the complainant without execution of any agreement, then why the complainant used the said card for purchasing goods to the tune of Rs. 1,47,912/- and withdrew cash of Rs. 67,800/- without raising any written objection. The allegation of the complaint is concocted. Considering the contents of the complaint, documentary evidence on record, arguments advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant, ratio laid down in the judgment reported in II (2021) CPJ 47 (Gujrat) in Deven Rasik Dagli -Vs- Standard Chartered Bank, we are of the view that the complainant has not made out his case for compensation and the OPs have not committed any deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Therefore, the complaint is require to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered That the Complaint Case being No. 273 of 2021 is dismissed ex-parte against the OPs. There will be no order as to costs. All pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Copy of judgment be provided to the parties free of costs as mandated by the CP Act, 2019. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for perusal of the parties. File be consigned to Record Room. |
