Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 30.04.2016

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties Royal Sundram to refund the insured amount of Rs. 23,895/- along with interest @ 18% till its final payment.
2. To pay Rs. 66,000/- ( Rs. Sixty Six Thousand only ) as compensation.
3. To pay Rs. 5,100/- ( Rs. Five Thousand One Hundred only ) as litigation costs.

2. The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-

The complainant is a SBI Credit Card holder bearing no. 5264685316960658 and the said credit card was activated on 07.07.2007 for easy transaction through the SBI by the complainant.

The complainant in his complaint petition has asserted that opposite party no. 1 and 3 in collusion with opposite party no. 2 have insured the complainant without having any consent and signature from the complainant.

After opening of account on 07.07.2007 Bank started illegal demand from the complainant on fictitious ground of Flexi pay amount, F.C.C., R.S.A., Adm. Fee.

The complainant has always been in direct touch through chatting with the Bank and as the complainant has asked the bank for his account details the Bank did not pay any heed.

The complainant has paid Rs. 6,871/- on 18.07.2008, Rs. 4,600/- on 28.07.2007, Rs. 5,733/- on 28.07.2007, Rs. 2,856/- on 06.08.2007 and Rs. 4,835/- on 15.08.2007 total Rs. 23,895/- in the name of insurance policy by Royal Sundram. After the opening of SBI Credit Card the Bank started charging different amounts from the account of the complainant.

The details of the payment made by the complainant has been stated in Para – 16 of the complaint petition.

The grievance of the complainant is that the opposite parties have not supplied satisfactory details of account.

On behalf of opposite party no. 1 and 2 a written statement has been filed in which opposite party no. 1 and 2 have stated that the complainant has approached this Forum with unclean hands and with ulterior motive to achieve undue gain and as such the same is liable to be dismissed.

Opposite party no. 1 and 2 in their para – 5 of written statement have asserted that as per card holder agreement the matter must be decided by Arbitration as per provision of Arbitration and reconciliation Act 1996. It has been also submitted that only court of Delhi have the jurisdiction in such cases. In Para – 7 and 8 of written statement the opposite parties have stated the following facts.

“ The opposite parties herein submits that on 3^rd December 2010, the opposite party and complainant entered into mutual settlement against the outstanding of the complainant for an amount of Rs. 24,000/- on payment of which the said account of the complainant shall be zeroised. ”

“ Accordingly, the complainant herein paid the said amount of Rs. 24,000/- in the following manner:

Rs. 2,000/- vide cheque no. 332203 on 05.12.2010.

Rs. 2,100/- vide cheque no. 332204 on 09.02.2011.

Rs. 19,900/- vide cheque no. 332205 on 15.02.2011.

The aforesaid facts is also clear from annexure – A and B of written statement annexure – C is no dues certificate which clearly states that there is no outstanding dues against the complainant after settlement between the parties.

It is evident from the above facts that the complainant and the opposite party had amicably entered into settlement and resolved their issues and as such there are no dues and all the grievance of the complaint stands redressed and there has been no deficiency in service of the opposite parties no. 1 and 2. Further the opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have also issued a no dues certificate to the effect that there are no dues against the instant credit card. A copy of the no due certificate is annexed as annexure – C.

FINDINGS

The brief facts stated by the relevant parties have been mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.

The complainant has asserted that he has never given consent for issuance and deduction of amount from his account but opposite party 1, 2 and 3 in connivance have issued insurance policy vide annexure – 1. While opposite parties have stated that the complainant has given mutual consent for the same.

It is needless to say that such facts cannot be decided by this Forum because there are disputed facts.

Apart from it the opposite party no. 1 and 2 have stated that complainant has amicably entered into settlement and resolve their issue as will appear from annexure – C and as such the instant grievance of the complainant have been redressed in terms of settlement and there are no more dues in the instance complainant account. Whether there is such settlement or not is also a matter of dispute because the complainant has denied such settlement.

Thus it appears that there are disputed facts which cannot be decided by the Forum because such matter are beyond the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum.

However the complainant is at liberty to approach other Forum such as arbitration etc. for redressal of his grievance.

In view of the aforesaid facts this complaint stands dismissed but without cost.

                             Member                                                                              President