DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
THIRUVALLUR
BEFORE TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, M.A.,M.L, Ph.D (Law) .…. PRESIDENT
THIRU.J.JAYASHANKAR, B.A,B.L., .....MEMBER-I
CC. No.90/2022
THIS MONDAY, THE 19th DAY OF DECEMBER 2022
V.Sriramachandran,
No.69, Kumaran Nagar,
1st Cross Street,
Chinmaya Nagar, Chennai -600 092. .........Complainant.
//Vs//
1.The Manager,
Standard Chartered Bank, Cards Division,
Customer Care Unit, 19 Rajaji Salai,
Chennai 600 001.
2.The Director,
Shaha Finlease Private Limited,
No.331, 3rd Floor, Gundecha Industrial Complex,
Akurli Road, Near Growel mall, W.E.Highway,
Kandivali (E), Mumbai – 400 101.
Alternate address:
Plot No.17/9, MIDC Taloja, Tal Panvel,
Raigad District,
Navi Mumbai -410 208. ......Opposite parties.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s.S.Venkata Krishna Kumar, Advocate.
Counsel for the 1st opposite party : M/s.B.Dhanasekaran, Advocate.
Counsel for the 2nd opposite party : M/s. G.Siva Shankar, Advocate.
This complaint is coming before us on various dates and finally on 06.12.2022 in the presence of : M/s.S.Venkata Krishna Kumar, Advocate counsel for the complainant and M/s.B.Dhanasekaran, Advocate, counsel for the 1st opposite party and upon perusing the documents and evidences of both sides, this Commission delivered the following:
ORDER
PRONOUNCED BY TMT. Dr.S.M. LATHA MAHESWARI, PRESIDENT.
This complaint has been filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Bank/1st opposite party along with a prayer to direct the opposite parties to reverse the adverse notification in CIBIL and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service and to pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Summary of facts culminating into complaint:-
It was the case of the complainant that he was provided with a Credit Card bearing No.5431 8610 0665 4811 by ANZ Grindlays Bank and the Credit Card account was closed vide cheque dated 09.08.2000 for Rs.9,000/- followed by another cheque dated 29.09.2000 for Rs.2,000/- respectively and a receipt dated 17.10.2000 acknowledging the receipt of payment in full and final settlement of the above mentioned card account was received by the complainant. The ANZ Grindlays Bank amalgamated with the 1st opposite party namely Standard Charted Bank. The complainant received a letter from the 2nd opposite party seeking the settlement of credit card account for an amount of Rs.18,000/-. It was submitted that the complainant neither requested nor had any relationship with the 1st opposite party particularly the credit card facilities. Further the credit card referred by the opposite parties was issued by the ANZ Grindlays Bank which was closed as early as 29.09.2000 under receipt for full and final settlement which was received on 17.10.2000. With respect to the legal notice dated 19.02.2018 issued by the 2nd opposite party the complainant denied the existence of any debt with respect to the credit card. When the complainant approached SBI for credit card the same was denied stating that the complainant’s name was found in defaulters list by the opposite parties in CIBIL. Thus submitting that the act of the opposite parties amounted to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the present complaint was filed for the reliefs as mentioned below;
To reverse the adverse notification in CIBIL;
To pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation for the mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant due to the deficiency in service;
To pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of the proceedings to the complainant.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 1st opposite party:-
The 1st opposite party filed version stating that the complaint itself is a time bar complaint and denied the complaint allegations stating they were wrongly impleaded. It was further submitted that they have assigned the credit card in favour of the 2nd opposite party vide deed of assignment dated 09.02.2010. As per the records of the opposite party the last payment was made by the complainant on 05.10.2000 for an amount of Rs.2,000/- and no amount was received from the complainant towards pending dues. Further due to non receipt of payment for a considerable period of time the credit card of the complainant was invalidated in the records of the opposite party and was subsequently written off in the books of the opposite party on 19.02.2001. Thereafter in the year 2010 the credit card account of the complainant was assigned to 2nd opposite party and the complainant was informed about the said assignment vide letter dated 26.03.2010. In view of the deed of assignment 2nd opposite party stepped to the shoes of the 1st opposite party. As per records of the 1st opposite party no settlement was entered between the complainant and the bank thus, according to the applicable rules and guidelines the matter was referred to the CIBIL. It was submitted that at no point of time neither the opposite party nor previous bank/ ANZ Grindlays Bank had issued any zero-balance certificate or No Dues Certificate in favour of the complainant with respect to the credit card account. Consequently during merge of ANZ Grindlays Bank with the 1st opposite party all the amount including the credit card account of the complainant was transferred to the 1st opposite party and in the event of partial repayment or non- payment towards the outstanding dues before the scheduled due date, the applicable charges are levied as per the Card Member Rules and Regulations. Thus submitting that there is no violation of any rules and regulations and guidelines the opposite party sought for the dismissal of the complaint.
Crux of the defence put forth by the 2nd opposite party:-
The 2nd opposite party filed version stating that under the deed of assignment dated 09.02.2018 the Standard Charted Bank has sold, transferred and assigned the credit card portfolio which was the charge-off amount outstanding less any amount received after charge-off as on 30.09.2010 vide the deed of assignment dated 09.02.2010. As per the deed of Assignment, the credit card account was in default and was marked as non performing asset as per the records provided by the 1st opposite party and there was no settlement had been offered and made by the complainant. The 2nd opposite party as a bona fide purchaser/transferee/assignee of the credit card account No.5431 8610 0665 4811 from the 1st opposite party vide assignment agreement dated 09.02.2010 has the right to claim the outstanding amount written off by the 1st opposite party as on September 30.09.2010 and subsequent interest. Hence, letter No.MASC28269 dated 25.11.2019 and the legal notice dated 19.02.2018 was in accordance with applicable rules and regulations for the loan recovery and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party and the claim against the 2nd opposite party ought to have dismissed in limine and thus prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
The complainant filed proof affidavit and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A7 were marked on their side. On the side of 1st opposite party proof affidavit was filed and documents Ex.B1 & Ex.B2 were filed by them. On the side of 2nd opposite party proof affidavit was filed but no documents were filed on their side.
Point for consideration:-
Whether the complaint as filed was barred by limitation?
Whether the alleged deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties has been successfully proved by the complainant by admissible evidence?
If so to what relief the complainant is entitled?
Point No.1:-
On the side of the complainant the following documents were filed in support of the complaint allegations;
Latter issued by ANZ Grindlays Bank towards full and final Settlement of Credit Card Account dated 17.10.2000 was marked as Ex.A1;
Shaha finlease letter of demand dated 25.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A2;
E-mail communications – demand legal notice dated 19.02.2018 was marked as Ex.A3;
Reply notice by the complainant dated 03.07.2018 was marked as Ex.A4;
Email correspondence with customer service dated 25.11.2016 was marked as Ex.A5;
RBI- Master Circular on Credit Card, Debit Card etc., DBR.No.FSD.BC.18/24.01.009/2015-16 dated 01.07.2015 was marked as Ex.A6;
Customer Protection –Limitation Liability of Customers in unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions –DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 dated 06.07.2017 was marked as Ex.A7;
On the side of the 1st opposite party the following documents were filed in support of their contention;
Card member Rules and Regulations was marked as Ex.B1;
1st opposite party’s letter to the complainant was marked as Ex.B2;
As both the opposite parties had raised a question with regard to the issue on limitation stating that the complaint is barred by limitation from the date of approval of cause of action, this commission proceed to decide the issue of limitation as the preliminary issue. As per the pleadings found in the complaint it was the case of the complainant that he availed credit card facility from ANZ Grindlays Bank which later on got amalgamated with the 1st opposite party/Standard Charted bank and that he had once for all settled the credit card account. The complainant had obtained statement towards full and final settlement for credit card account No.431861006654811. However, he had received a letter from Shana Finlease Private Limited i.e. 2nd respondent dated 25.11.2016 claiming that an amount of Rs.18,000/- is pending against the total outstanding amount of Rs.4069353.51/-. Subsequently to same demand legal notice was issued by the 2nd opposite party dated 19.02.2018. In the meantime the complainant had sent a legal notice dated 13.07.2018 to the opposite parties. It was contended by the counsel appearing for the opposite parties that as the cause of action arose on 25.11.2016 the complaint must be filed before 24.11.2018 but the complaint was filed on 08.04.2019 which was clearly barred by limitation. It is seen that the first demand made by the 2nd opposite party for settlement of credit card account even as per the version of the complainant himself is on 25.11.2016. Further it has been clearly stated by him in the complaint, wherein he himself admits that the cause of action arose at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum dated 25.11.2016 when the first letter for claim was made. Thus it is made clear that the cause of action for the complainant to file a complaint with regard to the claim made by the opposite parties arose on 25.11.2016. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that though the cause of action arose on 25.11.2016 the legal notice subsequently sent on 19.02.2018 has to be considered as date of continous cause of action. However, even as per the pleadings of the complainant on 29.11.2016 they have noted the adverse ratings in CIBIL. In such circumstances the complainant ought not to have waited until the issuance of legal notice to contest the opposite party on the issuance of demand notice.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tripura & Ors. Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty & Ors., reported at (2014) 6 SCC 460 has held the following:-
"10. In our opinion, the suit was hopelessly barred by law of limitation. Simply by making a representation, when there is no statutory provision or there is no statutory appeal provided, the period of limitation would not get extended. The law does not permit extension of period of limitation by mere filing of a representation. A person may go on making representations for years and in such an event the period of limitation would not commence from the date on which the last representation is decided. ........"
13. The Hon'ble National Commission in Mahesh Nensi Shah Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. reported at III (2006) CPJ 414 NC, has observed that no amount of correspondence between the parties can extend the period of limitation.
As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality. It is a settled principle of law, that once the period of limitation started running, no subsequent event can stop it. The complaint is, thus, barred by time.
The above citation squarely applies to the facts of the present case. In such circumstances we are of the view that the cause of action arose for the complainant as early as on 25.11.2016 and the limitation perused to file the complaint ends on 25.11.2018. Thus the complaint filed on 08.04.2019 is clearly barred by limitation. Thus we decide the issue against the complainant holding that the complaint is clearly barred by limitation.
Point No.2:-
The complainant is entitled to approach any other appropriate forum for his grievance and hence we retain ourselves from deciding the issue on merits.
Point No.3:-
The complainant is not entitled any relief as claimed in the complaint from the opposite parties. Thus we answer the point accordingly.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Dictated by the President to the steno-typist, transcribed and computerized by him, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Commission on this the 19th day of December 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
List of document filed by the complainant:-
Ex.A1 17.10.2000 Latter issued by ANZ Grindlays Bank towards full and final Settlement of Credit Card Account Xerox
Ex.A2 25.11.2016 Shaha finlease letter of demand. Xerox
Ex.A3 19.02.2018 E-mail communications – demand legal notice. Xerox
Ex.A4 03.07.2018 Reply notice by the complainant. Xerox
Ex.A5 25.11.2016 Email correspondence with customer service Xerox
Ex.A6 01.07.2015 RBI- Master Circular on Credit Card, Debit Card etc., DBR.No.FSD.BC.18/24.01.009/2015-16 Xerox
Ex.A7 06.07.2017 Customer Protection –Limitation Liability of Customers in unauthorized Electronic Banking Transactions –DBR.No.Leg.BC.78/09.07.005/2017-18 Xerox
List of documents filed by the 1st opposite party:-
Ex.B1 ............... Card Member Rules and Regulations. Xerox
Ex.B2 26.03.2010 1st opposite party letter to the complainant. Xerox
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER-I PRESIDENT
