1. Mr. Nazir Bashir KhanN. Chaudhary Chawl No.3, Room no.23, Gate No7, JP compound, Malwani Malad-West, Mumbai-95.Maharastra
...........Appellant(s)
Versus.
1. HSBC Credit CardShiv Bldg., Plot139-140, 3rd Floor, Sahar Junction Road, Western Express Highway, Vile Parle-East, Mumbai-57.Maharastra
...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE:
HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande ,PRESIDENTHONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR ,MemberHONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI ,Member
PRESENT :
Dated : 06 Mar 2010
JUDGEMENT
Complaint dismissed at the admission
Per:- Mr. Deshpande, President Place : BANDRA
ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT-1 REGARDING ADMISSION
Heard the Complainant.
[2] Perused the record.
[3] It is alleged in the complaint that the Complainant had outstanding amount of Rs.10,116/- to be paid to the Opposite Party – Bank; and through phone banking facility, the Complainant requested the Opposite Party – Bank; to convert the balance transfer amount to an EMI, but the Opposite Party – Bank; gave him different products whereby he has supposed to pay 5% of the balance transfer amount in first 05 months and the remaining amount in the sixth month i.e. last installment. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party – Bank; did not act as per this understanding and there was deficiency in service.
[4] During the course of hearing on admission, we repeatedly asked the Complainant as to whether there was any communication received from the Opposite Party – Bank; to confirm this understanding between the Complainant and the Opposite Party – Bank; as alleged in the complaint. The Complainant states that it was telephonic understanding. As against this, we have come across a letter dtd.26/8/2009, a copy of which is produced on the record at page (38) of the compilation, wherein the Opposite Party – Bank; has specifically recorded that the conversation was phone recorded and the Complainant was supposed to pay the installments of the outstanding amount and as per paragraph No.(02) of that letter, the Opposite Party – Bank; had not acceded to the Complainant’s request for conversion of the same to an EMI. There appears to be long drawn correspondence between the Complainant and the Opposite Party – Bank; but we could not come across any understanding on the record, which was accepted by the Opposite Party – Bank; as alleged by the Complainant.
[5] In view of above stated facts, we find that prima-facie the Complainant has failed to make out his case of deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party – Bank. Merely telephonic conversation, as alleged by the Complainant, without any written communication cannot be accepted as evidence of understanding between the Complainant and the Opposite Party – Bank; and therefore, the complaint stands summarily dismissed without being admitted. No order as to costs.
[HONABLE MRS. Mrs.DEEPA BIDNURKAR] Member[HONABLE MR. Mr. J. L. Deshpande] PRESIDENT[HONABLE MR. MR.V.G.JOSHI] Member
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.
