Present :  Sri A.K. Das,  President

                 Sri L.K. Banerjee,  Member

                 Smt. D. Sen (Maity)

Order no.  18      dt.   05/09/2007

            In this consumer complaint a direction upon o.p. no.1 ICICI Bank (2) Manager, ICICI Bank and  (3) Mr. Bikash Kumar Sing  has been prayed to pay compensation for harassment and mental agony.

            Profile of the complainant’s grievance  is that the complainant had entered into contract of credit card on 17.11.01 with M/s. Tata Finance Ltd., subsequently merged with o.p. no.1, through o.p. no.3 who disclosed himself as an agent of M/s. Tata Finance Ltd.

            The complainant obtained the credit card no. 377040110623627. O.p. no. 3 advised the complainant to surrender the said credit card expecting merger of M/s Tata Finance Ltd. with o.p. no.1. The complainant being persuaded by such representation surrendered  his credit card to o.p. no.3 on 28.11.01.

            Complainant was surprised to receive a bill dt. 10.01.02 amounting Rs.651.00. The petitioner immediately wrote a letter to M/s Tata Finance Ltd. disclosing entire facts (Annex ‘C’)

He also filed a written complaint to the local police station at Jagaddal vide GDE no. 1994/202  dt. 28.1.02. As per advice of I.C. Jagaddal he filed a complaint before ld. SDJM, Barrackpore.

            Just after amalgamation of M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. with o.p. no.1 complainant used to receive illegal and wrongful bill. Accordingly complainant sent advocate’s notice to o.p. no.1. O.ps. were duly aware of such fraudulent misuse of the card whereby complainant moved this forum for sending wrongful bill against the aforesaid credit card claiming compensation.

            O.p. nos. 1&2 contested the case filing w/v and affidavit. It was contended therein that in the month of March ’03 Tata Finance Ltd. sold and or transferred its entire business to o.p. no.1.

            The petitioner has deliberately failed to make payment of legitimate dues of the o.p. As a result, whereof a huge sum of money became due and payable by the complainant. Several requests were made to the petitioner to pay the outstanding dues but the o.p. could not recover the dues. In terms of the section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act the petitioner complainant is not a consumer. Therefore the petition of complaint filed by the complainant is liable to the dismissed. The o.p. never adopted any unfair trade practice in connection with the aforesaid transaction. All other allegations made in the petition of complaint denied and disputed.

            The petitioner out of his own will obtain the said credit card from the predecessor in interest of the o.p. company. Neither the o.p. no.1 nor its predecessor interest provoke the complainant to obtain credit card in any manner whatsoever. The petitioner complainant obtained the credit card under certain specific terms and conditions which he unconditionally and unequivocally agreed to abide by. O.ps. have no knowledge about the statement made in the paragraph 5 of the petition of complaint.

            Considering the facts and circumstances, disclosed in the respective affidavit of the parties it is evident that petitioner obtained a credit card from M/s Tata Finance Ltd. which specifically amalgamated with o.p. no.1.

            There is no material on record that o.p. no.3 has no nexus with o.p. no.1 or M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. Complainant returned the credit card to o.p.no.3 on the basis of his misrepresentation which is not in the knowledge of o.p. no.1 or M/s. Tata Finance Ltd. It is also not within their knowledge that the said card has either been used by the complainant or by the o.p. no.3. Complainant filed a complaint before the ld. SDJM as per instruction of concerned police station since he received the bill after transferring the credit card in favour of o.p. no.3.

            In the above perspective there is no deficiency in service or laches or unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. rather it is evident that o.p. no.3 for the purpose of illegal gain obtained the credit card from the complainant by misrepresentation. In that case petitioner has no relief in the consumer complaint as he failed to satisfy any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the o.p. nos.1 & 2. Entire misdeeds have been done by o.p. no.3 as it is evident from the allegation of the consumer complaint for which complainant has taken legal steps against the o.p. no.3. Under the circumstances, the present consumer complaint is not maintainable as complainant is not coming within the definition of consumer as provided in the C.P. Act. Hence the consumer complaint stands dismissed for default.

                           _____________                                   ______________                                       ______________

                                 Member                                               Member                                                    President