Date of FIling : 11/05/2016

Order No.  14  dt.  04/01/2018

          The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant is a business man and to meet his personal exigencies he was a need of money and approached the o.p. no.1 praying for granting of loan and the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and linked visa executive card no.4129047380691955. The complainant for the operation of the credit card deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as processing fee and Rs.3874/- being the 1^st EMI aggregating to Rs.4874/-. Thereafter the complainant availed the loan facility of Rs.1 lakh with an understanding that the complainant would pay the said loan amount in 36 EMIs and the said Emi would commence on and from the month of Aug. 2008. The o.p. bank had issued the necessary money receipt in its prescribed acknowledgement coupon against month wise payment made by the complainant in respect of the operative and linked credit card. The o.ps. after receipt of payment of 36 installments against the said credit card gave an undertaking that the said payment would be adjusted against the said operative and linked visa card which was neither meant for use nor the same was ever used by the complainant and thereby no question of allowing any payment in respect of the claim made by o.ps. The complainant after receiving the demand notice from o.p. bank sent a lawyer’s notice. The o.p. bank in order to extort money from the complainant purportedly demanded a sum of Rs.2,48,234.86 in respect of credit card and further claimed a sum of Rs.1,05,053.72 in respect of linked credit card which was never used by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards the harassment to the complainant as well as litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

                The o.ps. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that on the basis of application form duly signed by the complainant and other requisite documents provided by the complainant the credit card bearing no.4129047380691955 was issued to the complainant on 12.8.2000 with a credit limit of Rs.1,23,000/-. In the month of July 2008 the complainant availed loan of Rs.1 lakh. The terms and conditions had been clearly communicated to the complainant and the same was accepted by him. Accordingly the offer letter along with sample statement detailing the debit of the EMI and interest component along with the terms and conditions had been clearly mentioned in the letter. The o.p. bank communicated the complainant regarding the statement on a monthly basis. The complainant had availed of aforesaid loan on the basis of the his credit card account and the same was issued to him based on credit relationship, the aforesaid loan was availed by him, the EMIs were billed under the instabuy account bearing no.9356500810121467. From the statement of account it can be revealed that the complainant never paid the EMIs as per the terms of the agreement held between the parties. The o.ps. in their w/v elaborately stated the statement provided to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact it was emphasized by o.ps. that o.p. bank did not fictitiously claimed the amount from the complainant. The o.p. bank is governed by RBI and as to abide by all the guidelines, directives, instructions of RBI as may be in forced from time to time. There was no deficiency in service or any false claim made by o.ps. from the complainant and the case filed by the complainant is a false and vexatious one and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:

1. Whether the complainant availed loan from o.p. bank?
2. Whether the complainant paid the EMIs regularly?
3. Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of o.ps.?
4. Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?

Decision with reasons:

                All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.

                Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant is a business man and to meet his personal exigencies he was a need of money and approached the o.p. no.1 praying for granting of loan and the loan was sanctioned to the tune of Rs.1 lakh and linked visa executive card no.4129047380691955. The complainant for the operation of the credit card deposited a sum of Rs.1000/- as processing fee and Rs.3874/- being the 1^st EMI aggregating to Rs.4874/-. Thereafter the complainant availed the loan facility of Rs.1 lakh with an understanding that the complainant would pay the said loan amount in 36 EMIs and the said Emi would commence on and from the month of Aug. 2008. The o.p. bank had issued the necessary money receipt in its prescribed acknowledgement coupon against month wise payment made by the complainant in respect of the operative and linked credit card. The o.ps. after receipt of payment of 36 installments against the said credit card gave an undertaking that the said payment would be adjusted against the said operative and linked visa card which was neither meant for use nor the same was ever used by the complainant and thereby no question of allowing any payment in respect of the claim made by o.ps. The complainant after receiving the demand notice from o.p. bank sent a lawyer’s notice. The o.p. bank in order to extort money from the complainant purportedly demanded a sum of Rs.2,48,234.86 in respect of credit card and further claimed a sum of Rs.1,05,053.72 in respect of linked credit card which was never used by the complainant. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.ps. to pay compensation as well as litigation cost.

                Ld. lawyer for the o.ps. argued that on the basis of application form duly signed by the complainant and other requisite documents provided by the complainant the credit card bearing no.4129047380691955 was issued to the complainant on 12.8.2000 with a credit limit of Rs.1,23,000/-. In the month of July 2008 the complainant availed loan of Rs.1 lakh. The terms and conditions had been clearly communicated to the complainant and the same was accepted by him. Accordingly the offer letter along with sample statement detailing the debit of the EMI and interest component along with the terms and conditions had been clearly mentioned in the letter. The o.p. bank communicated the complainant regarding the statement on a monthly basis. The complainant had availed of aforesaid loan on the basis of the his credit card account and the same was issued to him based on credit relationship, the aforesaid loan was availed by him, the EMIs were billed under the instabuy account bearing no.9356500810121467. From the statement of account it can be revealed that the complainant never paid the EMIs as per the terms of the agreement held between the parties. The o.ps. in their w/v elaborately stated the statement provided to the complainant. On the basis of the said fact it was emphasized by o.ps. that o.p. bank did not fictitiously claimed the amount from the complainant. The o.p. bank is governed by RBI and as to abide by all the guidelines, directives, instructions of RBI as may be in forced from time to time. There was no deficiency in service or any false claim made by o.ps. from the complainant and the case filed by the complainant is a false and vexatious one and as such, o.ps. prayed for dismissal of the case.

                Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant obtained a credit card facility with a limit of Rs.1,23,000/- in the year 2000. In the year 2008 the complainant availed a loan of Rs.1 lakh. It appears from the statement of account provided by o.ps. that the complainant from time to time paid the installments, but ignored to pay back other dues due to credit card transactions. The complainant had enjoyed a platinum repayment cover which is a comprehensive insurance package with pays out the balance outstanding on the card upto Rs.5 lakhs in the unfortunate event of death, total and permanent disability or upon diagnosis caused specified critical illness. The monthly premium was regularly debited to the credit card account which the complainant did not bother to repay. It appears from the record that o.ps. regularly sent the monthly statement to the complainant and the complainant was fully aware of the unpaid outstanding in his credit card. It appears from the record that the dispute raised by the complainant was of the year 2008-2011 and the complainant filed this case in the year 2016, though the cause of action for this case arose 5 years ago, but the complainant filed this case after the lapse of statutory period. In this respect we can rely on a decision as reported in IV (2011) CPJ 114 (NC) wherein it was held that once a period of limitation starts it cannot be enlarged or extended by prolonged correspondence between the parties. The complainant has claimed that before filing this case he made a correspondence with the bank that cannot give any right to the complainant on the basis of which he can file the case beyond the period of statutory limit of 2 years. In view of the facts and circumstances as stated above, we hold that the complainant himself was at fault and therefore he must suffer for his own suffering which he himself created. Therefore we hold that the complainant has miserably failed to substantiate his claim that there was any mental agony and also deficiency in service on the part of o.p. bank, thereby the case filed by the complainant has got no merit and as such, the complainant will not be entitled to get any relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

                Hence, ordered,

                That the CC No.193/2016 is dismissed on contest without cost against the o.ps.               

                Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.