In  the  Court  of  the

Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,

8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, Kolkata-700087.

CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 4 / 2011.

1)                   Smt. Paromita Das Gupta,

4A/8, Naktala Road, P.S. Jadavpur, Kolkata-47.                                        ---------- Complainant

---Versus---

1)                   The Manager, Citi Bank,

89, Park Street, P.S. Park Street, Kolkata-16.         

2)       The Business Manager-Cards,

The Mail Room, Citi Bank N.A.

Shakti Towers, 766 Annasalai, Chennai-600002.                                       ---------- Opposite Parties

Present :           Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.

                        Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri ,Member

Order No.   20    Dated  31/01/2013.

            In a nutshell, the case of the complainant is that complaiant is lawfully Constituted Attorney of Smt. Paromita Das Gupta. Complainant states that the borrower had availed a credit card being no.5546379296745001 from o.p. bank which was issued to her on 18.3.06 vide letter being Ref. no.670002137-26 and the borrower had been using the same from the month of April, 2006.

            The borrower had been making due payments in respect of the said credit card at regular intervals within prescribed period of time without any instance of negligence in making the said payments. In spite of such payments being made by the borrower, no statement of accounts I n relation to the said credit card account was provided by the o.p. bank to the borrower, even on  several requests made in that behalf. The borrower had made payment of Rs.1,58,000/- uptil May,2010, the o.p. bank had failed and/or neglected to regularize and reduce the said opening balance amount of the borrower in the bills sent in subsequent months. That even after receiving payment of Rs.1,58,000/- from the borrower, the o.p. bank being highly deficient in service, had not regularized the account of the borrower and gone on to show a sum of Rs.1,50,278.61 still due and recoverable from the borrower.

            Complainant states that till the month of December, 2010 the borrower has made payment to the o.p. bank aggregating to Rs.1,88,700/- in spite of which the o.p. bank has neglected and/or failed to regularize the account of the borrower by maintaining an undue and heavy opening balance amount against the borrower which, if properly and lawfully computed by the o.p. bank, ought to reduce and come down to a paltry figure. Hence the case was filed by complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.

            Both o.ps. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. has stated that complainant has got no cause of action at all to file the instant case and the same is liable to be dismissed.

Decision with reasons:-

            We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is the constituted attorney of Smt. Paramita Das Gupta and complainant being the borrower availed credit card being no.5546 3792 9674 5001 from o.p. no.1 which was issued to her on 18.3.06 having letter reference no.670002137-26 and the borrower had been using the same from the month of April, 2006 and borrower went on making due payment in respect of the credit card within the prescribed period of time, but statement of account was provided to the complainant and borrower had made payment of Rs.1,58,000/- uptill May,2010 and o.ps. failed to reduce the opening balance amount of the borrower in the bills sent in subsequent month and even after receiving payment of Rs.1,58,000/- from the borrower o.ps. did not regularize the account of the borrower and showed dues amounting Rs.1,50,278.61. Further from the record it transpires that complainant made payment of Rs.1,88,000/- till December, 2010 which too was not regularize. We find from the entire materials on record is that Paramita Das Gupta has not adduced any evidence on her behalf. Power of attorney holder has adduced evidence in this case on behalf of the complain ant and relying upon the decision published in 1993 SCC 573 the evidence of the constituted attorney is not acceptable unless complainant adduces evidence in this case. the evidence adduced by the constituted attorney cannot be given credence and as such, we hold that the complainant has failed to substantiate her case  and is not entitled to relief.

            Hence, ordered,

            That the case is dismissed on contest without cost.

            Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.