PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK

1.      Counsel for the petitioner present.  Arguments heard.            Mr. Ravikant Bohra was a holder of HSBC Tan Credit Card issued by the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited-OP.  The complainant lost the credit card on 09.01.2004.  He intimated the OP by Fax, wherein a request was made that his credit card should be blocked.  In the meantime, the complainant went to Europe  from 10.01.2004 to 18.01.2004.  After his return, he again faxed a letter to the OP on 27.01.2004 reminding the loss of credit card and requesting to block the same.

2.      It is transpired that the Bank did not take any step and somebody took benefit of the credit card and withdrew the amount belonging to the complainant.  The complainant had also sent a legal notice dated 07.04.2006.  But the complainant did not get any response.  Thereafter, the complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum claiming a sum of Rs. 1,76,389.23 towards over dues vide letter dated 18.04.2006.  The District Forum dismissed the complaint and the State Commission confirmed its order. 

3.      We have heard the counsel for the complainant/petitioner.  He vehemently argued that he has mentioned all the facts in the notice dated 07.04.2006 but since it was not replied by the OP, therefore, it should be assumed that they have admitted all the facts including that they have received the fax on 09.01.2004.

4.      We are of the considered view that all these assumptions are wet.  The petitioner has failed to prove that he had sent a fax message dated 09.01.2004.  No such evidence was produced before the Fora below.  It must be borne in mind that it is the complainant/petitioner, who is to carry the ball in proving his case.  The OP is not supposed to prove his case.  The petitioner had so many ways to inform the Bank through e-mail, customers care or visiting the Bank itself or making a telephone call. In absence of adopting all these methods, the deficiency on the part of the OP cannot be established.  The view taken by the Fora below cannot be faulted and therefore, the Revision Petition is dismissed.