Back
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL
FIRST APPEAL NO. 1124 OF 2012
(Arising out of order dated 02.05.2012 passed in C.C.No. 317/2012 by District Commission, Gwalior)
GIRJASHANKAR UPADHYAY,
S/O LATE DWARIKA PRASAD UPADHYAY,
R/O 152, R. J. PURAM, BHIND ROAD,
GWALIOR (M.P.) ... APPELLANT
Versus
1. STATE BANK OF INDIA,
THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER,
MAIN BRANCH-JEEWAJI CHOWK,
BADA, GWALIOR (M.P.)
2. SI CARD & PAYMENT SERVICES
PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER/
DIRECTOR, STATE BANK HOUSE,
11, PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI-110 001 … RESPONDENTS
BEFORE :
HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : PRESIDING MEMBER
HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Yash Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.
Shri R. K. Kaimaithiya, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
O R D E R
(Passed On 10.08.2022)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Presiding Member:
This appeal filed by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 02.05.2012 passed by the District Consumer
-2-
Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (For short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.317/2012 whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint filed by the complainant at the admission stage as barred by limitation.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the record.
3. Facts of the case in short as stated by the complainant are that he had a savings bank account no. 10554613819 with the opposite party no.1 and at the instance of opposite party no.1 he applied for credit card to opposite party on which the opposite party no.2 sent a credit card no. 4317575075077272 valid till 2008, to the complainant. It is submitted that he did not use the said credit card. Thereafter the opposite party no.2 sent a demand draft for a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the complainant. On enquiry being made by the complainant, it was informed that Rs.20,000/- were sent for credit card use, therefore he deposited the same in his savings bank account with the opposite party no.1.
4. It is further alleged that after some time on 10.12.2006, the opposite party no.2 by sending a statement demanded a sum of Rs.22,096/- towards dues against him. On this complainant prayed for ending the credit card facility and on the advice of opposite party no.2 he dropped a cheque for Rs.22,096/- in favour of opposite party no.2 in the drop box of opposite party no.1-bank which was encashed by the opposite party no.2 on
-3-
26.12.2006. Even then on 13.06.2009 he received a notice regarding dues of Rs.15,312.81/- towards credit card, in relation to that a legal notice was given to the opposite party no.2.
5. It is further alleged that after some time when he applied for car loan to opposite party-bank he was informed that the loan cannot be granted as there is overdue of Rs.23,000/- of opposite party no.2. When he brought the correct facts to the knowledge of the opposite party no.1, the car loan was sanctioned to him on 21.06.2011. Thereafter again the opposite party made a telephonic call to the complainant regarding overdue. He then took CIBIL score in March-2012 then he came to know that there was overdue of Rs.30,969/-. He therefore filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on part of opposite parties seeking direction for quashing
