This is a complaint made by one Sourav Nayak, son of Panchkari Nayak, presently residing at 485/14 Ajay Nagar, Uttar Basudha Housing, Mukundapur, Kolkata-700 099 against (1) the Manager, HDFC Bank Ltd., Santoshpur Branch, 179, Santoshpur Avenue, P.S. – Purba Jadavpur, Kolkata-700 075, OP No.1 and (2) the Manager, HDFC, Eco Space, Tower 3A, 3rd floor, Action Area 2A, Plot No.2/F/2, Rajarhat, Kolkata-156, praying for direction upon the OP to pay compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the continuous harassment faced by the Complainant and cost of the application filed and any other compensation or cost to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Facts in brief are that Complainant has a savings account bearing No.07891000019695 in the OP Bank since 2009 and so OP Bank offered Complainant a Credit Card bearing No.4617877000141174 with a limit of Rs.3,56,700/- to the Complainant.
Thereafter, Complainant used the Credit Card on various occasions and was never a defaulter. Complainant did not receive Credit Card statements and requested on several occasions to OP Bank to supply him statements. But, OP did not supply the statements. On 28.12.2015, Complainant received a bill from the said Bank of an exorbitant amount which he intimated to the Bank over phone that he is unable to pay because no statement was sent to him. OP used to sent henchmen and goons at the house of the Complainant and harassed him publicly. OP also harassed the Complainant’s aged mother publicly for which Complainant lodged a GD No.1637 dt.24.2.2016 at Purba Jadavpur P.S. Complainant also sent a legal notice to the OP. But, no action was taken against the OP. Complainant’s family is regularly harassed by the OP and so the Complainant filed this case.
OP filed written version and denied all the allegations of the complaint. Further OPs have stated that Complainant had agreed that dispute has to be submitted before the Chennai Court. Further, OPs submitted that the Credit Care was issued on request of the Complainant. OPs have also stated that as on date outstanding amount is Rs.4,00,159.60. Further OPs have stated that Complainant filed this case for avoiding the payment of the credit card dues. So, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons
Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief wherein he has reiterated the facts mentioned in the complaint petition. OPs have also filed evidence on affidavit. Both parties filed documents to establish and rebut their allegations respectively.
Main point for determination is whether Complainant is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
First relief of the Complainant is to restrain the OP from taking illegal action.
On perusal of the complaint petition, it appears that Complainant has alleged that OPs are sending local goons to realize the amount due in the Credit Card for which Complainant filed the GD entry.
In our view, if at all it is believed that OP is indulging in such acts, this is highly condemnable and unwarranted. However, this Forum cannot take any specific action over it because neither of this is deficiency of services or un-fair trade practice. The allegation has not been proved by the Complainant.
Secondly, Complainant has prayed for compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the continuous harassment. Since, there is no evidence of the harassment of the Complainant by the OPs, the question of awarding of compensation to the Complainant to the tune of Rs.30,000/- does not arise.
Further, Complainant has prayed for litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- and another compensation to the tune of Rs.25,000/-.
On perusal of the report and evidences of both the sides, it does not appear that the ground taken by the Complainant for this compensation and litigation cost is justified. Even, Complainant has not furnished the details. Since the statements were not supplied and where Complainant received no message as submitted by Ld. Advocate for Complainant for payment of Rs.4,00,000/-. No doubt in the written version OPs have made a claim of that amount. But, it might have accumulated due to non-payment and Complainant’s allegations does not related to that.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the view that there is no ground to allow the prayers of the Complainant.
Hence,
ordered
CC/219/2016 is considered and dismissed on contest.
