The Complainant has filed this complaint against the O.P. under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and praying for following Order / Relief :-

1. Direction against the O.P. to refund the Complainant a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) which has been illegally charged as service charge.
2.  Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand Only) for enormous pain and agony suffered by the Complainant and unprecedented harassment caused to the Complainant due to the negligent and irrational act of the O.P.
3. Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand Only) towards the cost of litigation. Total claim amount is of Rs. 2,70,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Seventy Thousand Only) .
4. Direction against the O.P. to pay the Complainant the interest accrued on the awarded amount @ 12 % per month from the date of Cause of action till actual realization.

The case of the Complainant in brief is that, the Complainant is a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act and Rules framed there under / this Commission has jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present complaint / the Complainant is holding Credit Card No. 439450000107486 of the O.P. Bank since 10.08.2004 / The Complainant very often found that regular deduction of service charge was seen in the statement which was being made available by the system and the Complainant become much worried over the issue. The further case is that several verbal complaints were made to the O.P. about the fictitious services charge amounts but unfortunately no effective measures for solutions had ever been taken from the end of the O.P./ online version of statement was not available / accessible by the Complainant and the system was asking Complainant to meet the Manager making it further cumbersome for Complainant to understand the state of affairs. Further case is that the said service charge, if summed up, might end up on 6 (Six) figures i.e. Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) since first deduction made and that in spite of several requests by the Complainant the O.P. has not given proper response to the Complainant and have neither supplied any copy of the statement appertaining to his Credit Card / Account nor did take the pain to sort out the anomaly in the Credit Card / Account of the Complainant / the Complainant thus compelled under painful necessity to sent a notice through Ld. Advocate on his behalf to the O.P. on 30.11.2018 / that notice was duly received by the O.P. asking for supply a hard copy of the statement from the first date of operation till date . But the O.P. neither sent any response to the complainant not did supply the same to him or to his Ld. Advocate till that day. The Complainant thereafter went to the office of the O.P. with a written complaint about the problem he had to face, but unfortunately the O.P. refused to receive the complaint stating that they have no authority to receive any letter as described by the O.P. to the Complainant and the O.P. did not even bother to contact with the Complainant or make any reply against the complaint of the Complainant which clearly reflects absolute deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and during the last few months till the date of filing of this complaint the Complainant was undergoing enormous pain and agony and an unprecedented harassment caused due to the negligence and irrational acts of the O.P. / the cause of action for present complaint arose lastly on 30.11.2018 when notice was sent to the O.P. and thereafter on the laps of the stipulated time for action as per the notice sent by post and thereafter, on several occasion as an when the discrepancies in documentation of the transaction of the Credit Card / Account of the Complainant came up which still continuing.

Notice was issued from this Commission for the O.P. On receipt of notice the O.P. appeared before this Commission through Vokalatnama , filed Written Version , denied all the material allegations of the Complainant and has stated that the Complainant has filed this case on some false allegation to harass the O.P. and he is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for.  The O.P. has also stated in his Written Version that, they have a separate dispute resolution system for resolute the present grievance of the Complainant . In the year 2012, the O.P. had introduced a separate dispute resolution system namely ‘UNION BANK OF INDIA INTERNAL OMBUDSMAN SYSTEM-2012’and in the Clause-1 of the said ombudsman system it is held that the costumer has right to resolute the dispute by approaching banking ombudsman. It also stated in the Written Version of the O.P. the Complainant if desire approached ombudsman to solve his dispute but the Complainant never approached the banking ombudsman of the O.P. and intentionally jumped up the ombudsman and filed this case to harass the O.P. The O.P. has partly denied and partly admitted the statement made in Paragraph No. 03 of the complaint and also stated that Complainant was not the holder of the Credit Card bearing no. 439450000107486 of the O.P. and actual fact is that the Complainant was a holder of the Credit Card bearing no. 4391540000107486. It is also stated in the W/V of the O.P. that the O.P. deducted interest of the credit bill to their customers and in each of every month they issued credit bill to its customer who has a Credit Card, if any customer has ability to pay the entire credit amount he can easily pay the minimum amount of total bill amount for that month which is 10 % of total bill amount for that month and the rest amount of the bill will be added to the next month bill. It is also stated in the W/ V of the O.P. that from the statement of Credit Card of the Complainant that the Complainant paid the total amount only for 2 (Two) times since his first bill dt. 27.01.2006. They also stated that the rate of interest was 1.90 % per month in the finance charges and roll over credit in case of any customer only pay the minimum amount of the total outstanding. The O.P denied the content of Paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the complaint and stated that the Complainant never visited the O.P. before filing of this case with the issue of discrepancy in the Credit Card, the O.P. came to know the dispute of the Complainant after receiving notice of the Ld. Forum on 27.05.2019. The O.P. has also denied the statement made in Paragraph No. 8 of the complaint and stated that O.P. after joining in the Jalpaiguri Branch inquired about the allegation as leveled against him by the Complainant in Paragraph No. 8 of the complaint and after inquiry he came to know that the employees of the Jalpaiguri Branch ware always attend the Complainant with folding hand, tried their level best for resolved the problem regarding the Credit Card. The O.P. has also denied the statements made in Paragraph No. 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 of the complaint and has stated that after searching the O.P. found a notice of the Complainant but the Card number was wrongly mentioned on the notice as 439450000107486 instead of 4391540000107486 and for that reason the employees of Jalpaiguri Branch and predecessor of the O.P. could not resolved the dispute of the Complainant. The O.P. has also stated that the Complainant wrongly mentioned Card Number on the notice and thereby the complaint is suffering from the suppression of important fact and no cause of action was made out against the O.P.

By filing the Written Version the O.P. praying for dismissal of this case.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of both the side and on perusal of the Complaint, Written Version as well as documents filed by the parties, the following points are taken to be decided by this Commission.

          Points for consideration                 

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer?
2. Whether the case is maintainable under the C.P. Act ?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. as alleged by the Complainant ?
4. Is the Complainant entitled to get any award and relief as prayed for as per the prayer of his Complaint?

All the points are taken up together for discussion to avoid unnecessary repetition and for the sake of convenience and brevity of this case.

Ld. Advocate of the Complainant during argument has stated that, the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the O.P. by adducing evidence in the form of an Affidavit and also by producing documents in support of its case. He also argued that the O.P. with a view to falsify the case of the Complainant has adduced evidence and produced some documents. But has failed to disprove the case of the Complainant. It is also the argument of the Complainant that the Complainant was holding Credit Card Bearing No. 439450000107486 of the O.P. Bank since 10.08.2004 and the Complainant found regular deduction of service charge in the statement for which the Complainant made verbal complaint to the O.P. about the side service charge but no effective measure was taken from the end of the O.P. It is also argument on the side of the Complainant that in spite of several requests on the side of the Complainant the O.P. neither gave any response , nor was supplied any copy of statement for his Credit Card and also did not take any initiative to solve the anomaly in the said Credit Card. Further argument of the Complainant is that, the Complainant was compelled to sent a legal notice to the O.P. on 30.11.2019 asking to supply hard copy of statement and the notice was duly received by the O.P. but they neither send any reply nor supply any hard copy of statement to the Complainant. It is further argument of the Complainant that he went to the office of the O.P. with a Written Complaint about the problem which he was facing but the O.P. refused to receive that Complaint which reflects absolute deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. and it is also argued that the cause of action arose lastly on 30.11.2019 when notice was sent to the O.P. and thereafter, on the lapse of stipulated time. Ld. Advocate of the Complainant has argued that the Complainant has been able to prove the case against the O.P. and he is entitled to get the relief as per the prayer of the Complaint.

Ld. Advocate of the O.P. during argument has claimed that the Complainant has failed to prove this case and the Complainant had no such cause of action to file this case against the O.P. He also argued that, the case is not maintainable in law or fact and in case of Billing Dispute Resolution the provision is that, if the card holder notices any discrepancy or disagrees with any charges indicated in the billing statement the same should be communicated to the Bank in writing within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of statement or 60 (Sixty)days from the date of transaction and in the said clause it is mentioned that if any customer fail to do so it will be considered that the card holder has confirmed & accepted all the transaction / charges indicated in the statement. But the Complainant neither visited the office of the O.P. nor made any Written Complaint sent to the O.P. by postal authority. It is also argument of the O.P. that the Complainant had no such Credit Card Bearing No. 439450000107486 issued by the O.P. on 10.08.2004. Ld. Advocate of the O.P. further argued that, in the Complaint the Complainant did not disclose how much amount is outstanding against his card and how much amount he paid and the Complainant did not paid full amount since his first bill to till date excepting twice . Ld. Advocate of the O.P. praying for dismissal of this case as there was no such cause of action as alleged by the Complainant.

Having heard, the Ld. Advocate of both the parties and on perusal of the Written Complaint, Written version, documents filed by the parties, Questionnaires of the O.P. along with the Reply of the Complainant, Evidence of the parties as well as from the B.N.A. of both the side it is the case of the Complainant that he was holding Credit Card Bearing in No. 439450000107486 of the O.P. Bank since 10.08.2004. But the O.P. has specifically denied that, the O.P. never issued any Credit Card bearing in No. 439450000107486 in favour of the Complainant. The Complainant not only in his Written Complaint but also in his Evidence, in his Brief Notes of Argument has claimed that he had a Credit Card issued from the Office of the O.P. bearing in No. 439450000107486. In support of such claim the Complainant neither produces any such Credit Card bearing in No. 439450000107486 nor produces any other document in this regard to the effect that, the Complainant had such number of the Credit Card.

In Para No. 7 of the Complaint it is stated that the said service charge, if summed up, might end up on 6 figures i.e. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Only) since the first deductions made. But in the 2^nd para of the Legal Notice dated 30.11.2018 it is claimed that, the said service charge, if summed up, might end up on 7 figures since the first deductions made. From those two statements of the Complainant in Complaint and in the Legal Notice it is contradictory claim of the Complainant. In the Complaint the Complainant claims that, the service charge might be 6 figures. But in the Legal Notice the Complainant claims that the service charge might be 7 figures. From those two different statements it can safely be presumed that, the Complainant was not sure whether the service charges either might be 6 or might be 7 figures.

The Complainant in Para No. 13 of his Complaint has alleged that the Cause of action for the present Complaint arose lastly on 30.11.2018 when the Notice was sent to the O.P. and thereafter, on the lapse of the stipulated time for action. But the Complainant at the time of filing of this case filed list of documents where the Complainant in serial No. 1 has stated that, Photocopy of the Notice dated 30.11.2019. In the Brief Notes of Argument the Complainant has stated that, the Complainant was compelled to sent a notice through Ld. Advocate on his behalf on 30.11.2019 to the O.P. But the Complainant did not file any Notice dated 30.11.2019 before this Commission. From the contradictory statement of the Complainant creates a strong doubt as to whether the Complainant sent notice to the O.P. through his Ld. Advocate either on 30.11.2018 or on 30.11.2019 ?

The O.P. filed Questionnaires and in Para No. 14 the O.P. put a question as to whether the Complainant filed his Credit Card being in No. 439450000107486 before this Forum. In Reply to that the Answer of the Complainant is negative i.e. he did not file any Credit Card before the Forum. Non filing of Credit Card Bearing in No. 439450000107486 before this Forum/ Commission is very much fatal to the case of the Complainant since when the Case of the Complainant is totally depending on the said Credit Card.

The O.P. also put question No. 15 in their Questionnaires asking the Complainant whether the Complainant have any documents which prove that the Complainant visited the O.P. for resolving the issue on very first occasion when the Complainant saw that the alleged service charge was deducted from his account.

In Reply to Question No. 15 of the O.P. the Complainant has replied by stating that, several times told verbally and Notice dated 30.11.2019 summarily proves the endeavors of the Complainant. But the Complainant did not produce any such Notice dated 30.11.2019 before this Commission in support of his claim.

Considering all we are of the view that the Complainant has not been able to prove its case against the O.P.

Hence, it is therefore,

 O R D E R E D

That, the instant Consumer Case being in No. 07/2019 be and the same is dismissed on contest.

Let a copy of this order be given to parties free of cost.