PER SHRI. S.M. RATNAKAR – HON’BLE  PRESIDENT

1)        The Complainant by this complaint has claimed total relief of Rs.1,12,575/- with interest @ 18% p.a. from the Opposite Parties. 

2)        According to the Complainant, he hold Credit Card issued by the Opposite Parties.  It  is  the  case  of  the  Complainant  that,  the  Opposite  Parties  charged Rs.2,92,704/- till the filing of the complaint while the actual expenses through his credit card were Rs.2,12,936/-. According to the Complainant an amount of Rs.79,678/- was charged excess by the Opposite Parties.  The Complainant asked for statement and basis on which the said excess amount was charged but the Opposite Parties were remained silent.  The Complainant has also come out with the case that the Opposite Parties have erroneously, illegally and deliberately levied charges without its knowledge and consent and recovered an amount of Rs.2,91,095/- although the actual utilization of his credit card was Rs.2,58,230/- only which has resulted in excess of Rs.32,575/- from the Complainant and the Opposite Parties are liable to refund together with interest @ 15% p.a. It is also of the case of the Complainant is that, the Opposite Parties while obtaining his signature on the credit form did not disclose the terms and conditions governing the said card and have also not sent him the same when the card was issued to him. It is the case of the Complainant that the said act of obtaining his signature without giving a copy to him of the form and not disclosing the terms and condition either at the time of getting the form filled or later when the credit card issued is an act falls under the definition of unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  It is submitted that the Complainant is not liable to pay Rs.32,575/- and the said amount which was recovered from him is unfair trade practice.  The Complainant has therefore prayed to grant the relief as mentioned in para no.1 of this order.  The Complainant has also prayed that the Opposite Party be restrained from sending their representatives to the residence or the office of the Complainant or his relative or friends for demanding illegal dues which are not payable to the Opposite Parties.  The Opposite Parties also be restrained from sending messages (SMS or by E-mail) in connection with the recovery of illegal dues.

3)        The Opposite Party No.1 though served with notice remained absent. The complaint is therefore, proceeded ex-parte against Opposite Party No.1.The complaint is proceeded without written statement of Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.10/02/2012 on the application filed by the Complainant. The Complainant has filed affidavit in support of the complaint and written argument. We heard the Advocate for the Complainant Shri. Pankaj Shinde.  The Advocate for the Opposite Party No.2 did not file written argument and remained absent at the time of oral argument on 17/07/2014. We have perused the documents relied by the Complainant.

4)        While considering the claim made in this complaint upon going through the documents relied by the Complainant we find that the Complainant has failed to make out the case as alleged in the complaint and affidavit.  The Complainant has not produced the extract of his account showing that the Opposite Parties have claimed excess amount from the Complainant as alleged in the complaint.  The Complainant has produced copies of some monthly statements of SBI Card dtd.16/04/07, 16/06/07, 16/07/07, 26/08/07, 16/05/07, 16/10/08. The copies of ICICI Savings Account Nos.002001008602 of various dates such as, 30/11/06, 31/03/07, 30/04/07, 31/05/07, 31/10/06, 31/10/07 from those documents and even from the complaint as well as the affidavit of Complainant, it cannot be held that the Complainant has proved his case against the Opposite Parties for grant of reliefs as claimed in the complaint.  The complaint is totally inconsistent on facts as well as the aforesaid documents filed with the complaint. On the basis of pleadings in the complaint and the documents it cannot be held that the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs against the Opposite Parties as claimed in the complaint.  The complaint is totally vague.  It is not supported by any authentic documents. In our view when the Complainant has claimed relief of Rs.1,12,575/- with interest @ 18% p.a. on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties the Complainant is expected to prove by specific pleadings and cogent and satisfactory documentary evidence.  The Complainant has not disclosed how the cause of action arose on 03/07/2010. The Complainant has also produced some handwritten details of expenditure with the complaint near about 21 pages, however, the Complainant has not disclosed the reason of filing of the said handwritten details of expenditure.  Considering all these facts we find that this is a novel complaint from which it cannot be gathered as to how the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed against the Opposite Parties on the ground of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  It is also pertinent to note that for what reasons the statements of ICICI Bank Account which are filed on record by the Complainant have been produced is not explained by the Complainant.  Under these facts and circumstances we hold that the submissions made by the Complainant’s Advocate to allow the complaint cannot be accepted and the complaint filed by the Complainant is liable to be dismissed as the same is not at all proved.  In the result the following order is passed –

O R D E R

                      i.          Complaint No.261/2010 is dismissed with no order as to cost.

ii.          Certified copies of this order be furnished to the parties.