Madhya Pradesh

StateCommission

FA/13/2055

LALARAM SHARMA - Complainant(s)

Versus

/ ICICI BANK - Opp.Party(s)

SH. H. SHARMA

12 Oct 2022

ORDER

M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BHOPAL

PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL                          

                                   

                                      FIRST APPEAL NO. 2055 OF 2013

(Arising out of order dated 29.07.2013 passed in C. C. No.114/2013 by District Commission, Gwalior)

 

LALARAM SHARMA,

S/O LATE SHRI BALKISHAN SHARMA,

R/O NEAR DAINIK ACHRAN PRESS,

JINSI ROAD NO.1, LASHKAR, GWALIOR.                                                     ….       APPELLANT.

 

                   Versus

 

1. ICICI BANK LIMITED.

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    BRANCH-NAYA BAZAR, LASHKAR, GWALIOR.

 

2. ICICI BANK LIMITED,

    ICICI BANK CREDIT CARD OPERATION,

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    LAND MARK, RACE COURSE CIRCLE,

    VADODARA-7

 

3. ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.

    THROUGH MANAGER,

    ICICI BANK TOWER, BANDRA-KURLA COMPLEX,

    MUMBAI-51                                                                                                     ….    RESPONDENTS.   

                     

BEFORE:

                  HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI                      :   PRESIDING MEMBER

                  HON’BLE SHRI D. K. SHRIVASTAVA         :   MEMBER

                                  

COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

                        Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.

                Shri Amit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 & 2.  

                   Shri Akash Sahu, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.  

   

      

                                                        O R D E R

                                       (Passed on 12.10.2022)

                   The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:

                        This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 29.07.2013 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in

-2-

C.C.No.114/2013 whereby the complaint filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed as barred by limitation.

2.                The case of the complainant/appellant in brief is such that an executive of opposite party no.2 approached him in the office and gave information regarding credit care. After getting the requisite form filled, he provided a credit card to him. It is alleged that he did not use the said credit card which was kept in envelope but on 14.08.2007, the opposite party no.2-bank sent a letter dated 14.08.2007 informing him that you took a policy of which premium is Rs.5,317/- from the opposite party no.3-insurance company. In fact the complainant did not take any policy from the opposite party no.1 & 2 bank nor from sister concern the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.2 in May-2008 by sending statement of account demanded a sum of Rs.10,169/-.  The opposite party no.3 also sent letters dated 10.08.2007 and 21.08.2008 to his wife whereas the complainant did not fill any proposal form with the opposite party no.3. The opposite party no.2 sent a format regarding credit card cancellation to the complainant, which was sent by the complainant to the opposite party no.2 on 30.08.2008 but the opposite party did not inform about cancellation of credit card. The opposite party no.3 by sending a letter dated 24.03.2011 to complainant informed that the policy closed on 09.08.2008 and no refund is payable. In

 

-3-

this sequence, the opposite party no.3 by sending a letter dated 27.12.2012 demanded the dues amount.

3.                It is further submitted that he had a joint account with his wife with the Bank of Rajasthan which later on merged with the opposite party no.1-bank.  It is alleged that the opposite party no.2 deducted the outstanding amount of credit card of Rs.10,169/- from his said account of which he received message on 14.01.2013. It is alleged that the aforesaid act of the opposite parties falls under deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. He therefore filed a complaint with the District Commission seeking credit of Rs.10,169.44 wrongfully deducted from his account to his account along with Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/-as costs.

4.                The opposite party no.1 & 2 filed reply to the complaint taking a preliminary objection that cause of action for filing complaint arose on 21.07.2008, when the complainant sent a letter for cancellation of credit card, therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation as per Section 24 A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the ‘Act’). It is further submitted that after receiving the credit card, the complainant was offered insurance policy and after getting confirmation from the complainant, the insurance policy was issued of which intimation was given to him on 10.08.2007. On completion of one year of the policy, policy was auto renewed and the complainant was duly informed. It is further submitted that as per terms and

-4-

conditions of the bank, if there were any dues pending, the bank is not liable to cancel the credit card. The opposite parties-bank have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

5.                The opposite party no.3-insurance company submitted in its reply before the District Commission that the complainant in his name and in the name of his wife Smt. Mithilesh Sharma through bank had obtained Personal Accident Insurance Policy and during the currency of the policy he did not proceed for cancellation of policy and it is stated that he requested for cancellation of credit card. After understanding the conditions of the policy through voice recording system and after giving complete details of himself and his wife by him, policy was issued to him as per his consent. The complainant had knowledge of policy in the year 2008 but just to escape from the liability of making payment, he has filed frivolous complaint, which is liable to be dismissed.

6.                The District Commission dismissed the complaint that cause of action arose for the complainant on 01.07.2010 and therefore, the complaint filed after two years is barred by limitation. The complaint has also not filed any application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint. Hence this appeal.

7.                Heard. Perused the record.

-5-

8.                Learned counsel for the complainant/appellant argued that the District Commission failed to appreciate the fact that though the complainant had obtained credit card from the opposite party no.2-bank, but he never used the same. The District Commission also did not consider this fact that the opposite party no.3 without getting signed any proposal form issued the policy. Despite repeated requests, the credit card was not closed and the premiums for the policy were demanded. He was having bank account with Bank of Rajasthan which was later merged in the opposite party no. 1 and the respondent no.1 deducted the disputed amount of opposite party no.2 & 3 from his account on 14.01.2013. On receiving the said message the complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission. He argued that regular correspondence was made with the opposite parties, and therefore, it cannot be said that the complaint is barred by limitation. It is therefore prayed that the impugned order passed by the District Commission is against the law and deserves to be set-aside.  

9.                Learned counsel for the opposite parties 1 & 2-bank supported the impugned order and argued that from the record, it is established that the complaint is hopelessly barred by limitation as cause of arose for the complaint on 21.07.2008 when the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party no.1 & 2/respondent no.1 and 2 for cancellation of credit card and therefore, the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint.

-6-

10.              Learned counsel for the opposite party no.3-insurance company argued that the complainant was offered insurance policy and after getting confirmation through voice recording from the complainant, the policy was issued which after one year auto renewed and the complainant was duly informed. While raising demand of premium for the policy the opposite party no.3-insurance company has not committed any deficiency in service. Even otherwise, the complaint is barred by limitation and the District Commission has rightly dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.

11.              We have gone through the record. The complainant has filed documents C-1 to C-16 along with affidavit. The opposite parties no.1 & 2-bank has filed affidavit of Yash Malviya, Legal Manager. From the record we find that there is letter dated 21.07.2008 (C-1) of the complainant addressed to the Manager Operations, ICICI Bank Limited, ICICI Credit Card Operations, Mumbai in which the complainant has made a prayer for cancellation of the credit card in question. In the said letter, the complainant has specifically mentioned that in the year 2006, he received credit card. In the said letter he has further mentioned that vide letter dated 14.08.2007 the bank has shown transaction of Rs.5,317/- on 10.08.2007 from the opposite party no.3-ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited towards policy purchased by him. He has further submitted that total amount of Rs.10,169/- has been shown as dues against him till May-2008. Thus from

-7-

his own letter it becomes clear that the cause of action arose for the complainant on 21.07.2008 itself when he made a prayer to the opposite party for cancellation of credit card.

12.              So far as the complainant’s contention as also his counsel argued before us that without any knowledge of the complainant, the policy was issued is concerned. The opposite party no.3 has also filed voice recorded call made by Executive Officer to the complainant whereby he collected all details before issuance of policy and after his consent only, the policy was issued by opposite party no.3.

13.              We further find from the letter dated 10.08.2007 (C-3) filed by the complainant of ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company addressed to the complainant stating that “in terms of your standing telephonic instructions, the accidental death insurance of you enrolled for one year is being auto renewed with effect from 10.08.2007 subject to receipt of full premium amount of Rs.472/- monthly which is being charged to your credit card no. 4477466563118008. In case you wish to discontinue with the services, kindly intimate us within 15 days from the date of this communication.”  This clearly goes to show that he came to know about the policy on 14.07.2008 that the policy issued earlier was renewed on 10.08.2007 and he could have challenged the same at that time.

 

-8-

14.              From the statement dated 22.07.2010 (C-2) filed by the complainant himself, it is clear that on 22.07.2010, there was outstanding dues of Rs.10,169.44 against him. This shows that it is well within the knowledge of the complainant on 22.07.2010 that despite his request for cancellation of credit card, still there is outstanding dues against him. The opposite party in its reply has specifically mentioned that as per terms and conditions of the credit card, if there is any outstanding dues against a credit card, same cannot be cancelled. 

11.              So far as the contention of the complainant/appellant that when he received message on 14.01.2013 that the outstanding amount was deducted from his account, the cause of action arose from that very date, cannot be considered as the complainant was well within the knowledge from 2008 that a policy was issued and there is outstanding dues against him.

12.              In view of the above, we find that when he wrote to ICICI Bank on 21.07.2008 (C-1) for cancellation of credit card, when he received letter dated 14.08.2007 from the bank regarding deduction of premium and from the statement dated 22.07.2010 that there was outstanding dues of Rs.10,169.44 against him. Therefore, the cause of action arose for the complainant/appellant on 21.07.2008, 14.08.2007 or on statement dated 22.07.2010 whereas the complaint under question has been filed on

-9-

23.02.2013 beyond the prescribed time limit of two years which was barred by limitation. Appellant tried to take shelter of communication for considering the limitation, but it is well settled that by serving legal notice or by making any representation, the period of limitation cannot be extended.

13.              The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Hema Hitesh Shah & Anr Vs HDFC Bank Limited III (2022) CPJ 63 (NC) has held that action of communication between the parties after cause of action has arisen does not amount to cause of action starts running, it continues and remedy is to be sought within prescribed period of limitation.

14.              In view of the above discussion, we have no hesitation to say that the complaint filed on 23.02.2013 for the cause of action arose on 21.07.2008, 14.08.2007 or on statement dated 22.07.2010 and that too without an application for condonation of delay under Section 24A of the Act was manifestly barred by limitation and the District Commission was justified in dismissing the complaint on the above ground holding that the complaint was barred by limitation.  We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the District Commission.  The appeal being devoid of substance & merits deserves to be dismissed.

15.              In view of the above discussion, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the District Commission calling interference in appeal.

-10-

16.              In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

                      (A. K. Tiwari)                (D. K. Shrivastava)     

                        Presiding Member                     Member