Bangalore District Court
Sri.Shiva Prasad.Y.B vs Sbi Card And Payment Services on 26 February, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BENGALURU (CCH No.42)
PRESENT:
Dr. Kasanappa Naik,
M.A., LL.M., Ph.D.
XLI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge
Dated 26th February, 2021
OS.No.9345/2018
Plaintiff : Sri.Shiva Prasad.Y.B.
S/o Late N.Basavarajaiah
Aged about 47 years
R/at No.5, 1st Floor
Belimath Mahasamsthan Math
Bldg.
Belimath Road
Bengaluru560 053
(By Sri.A.N.Mattara, Advocate)
V/s.
Defendant : SBI Card and Payment Services
Pvt. Ltd.
DLF Infinity Towers
Tower C, 10th - 12th Floor
Block 2, Building 3, KLF Cyber
City Gurgaon122 002
Presented by its MD and CEO
(Exparte)
2 OS.9345/2018
JUDGMENT
The suit is filed for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant or anybody on its behalf from illegally interfering with the peaceful living of the plaintiff without due process of law and such other reliefs.
2. The facts of the case are as under: The plaintiff claimed that he is permanent resident of Bengaluru City and he being himself person with disability, runs his own firm in the name and style 'Galaxy System', which conducts modifications of vehicles for fellow people with disabilities. The defendant SBI CPSL is a Nonbanking Financial Company and also Payment Solution Provider in India. The plaintiff had obtained a SBI credit card 3 OS.9345/2018 during 1997 with limit of Rs.3,500/ while he was staying at Girinagar, but the same was never used by him. Later, the plaintiff shifted to Vijayanagar and thereafter, also the said card was never used. The plaintiff received summons from the court for nonpayment of credit card in 2007 and he appeared before the court and after negotiation, the plaintiff agreed to settle the credit card at Rs.10,000/ before the Court of 1st MMTC at Bengaluru. The said amount was also paid in the court by way of cash. The employee of SBI Credit Card Division has received the said amount and acknowledged the same. In view of the memo filed by the said agency, the case was dismissed against plaintiff on 04.09.2007. It is contended that from 2016 again, the plaintiff is receiving calls from defendant. Once, B.Channareddy being employee Card No.212458773 was called the 4 OS.9345/2018 plaintiff from Cell No.7411203046 asking plaintiff to pay the dues towards credit card obtained by him during the year 1997. At that time, the plaintiff furnished the court documents stating that the matter is already settled and said person has received the same and assured that he will update the same in their record about settlement. Again, one Mr. Poojari called the plaintiff over phone and he was also furnished with necessary information and he also assured that he would take steps to close the issue.
On 03.11.2018 at about 12.36 p.m. the plaintiff again received phone call from a Cell Phone No.8061162070 and started talking of nonsense. Again, one Sri. Chethan claiming to be Legal Head of SBI Credit Card Division called and started to demand Rs.1.06 lakhs from the plaintiff towards due against credit card. Though the plaintiff informed him about settlement of 5 OS.9345/2018 issue, but he is not ready to listen the same and insisted to make payment against closed credit card. Thereafter, one Sri. Raghupati also called him over phone and repeated the similar thing. Thus, the defendant was irresponsible in updating their account and they are troubling the plaintiff by making call every now and then and abusing process of law. Thus, the cause of action arose and suit is filed for the relief as mentioned above.
3. Upon service of summons, the defendant not appeared before the Court and came to be placed ex parte.
4. In Support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and produced documents as per Ex.P.1 to P.6 in evidence.
6 OS.9345/2018
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused the materials on record.
6. On the basis of above materials, the points that arise for my consideration are as under:
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is unnecessarily troubling the plaintiff inspite of settlement of issue with regard to credit card obtained by him in the year 1997?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought for?
3) What decree or order?
7. My findings on the above points are as under:
Point No.1 and 2 : In the affirmative
7 OS.9345/2018
Point No.3 : As per final order, for the
following:
REASONS
8. POINT NO.1 AND 2: Since these points are interconnected with each other, they are taken together for common discussion in order to avoid repetition of facts.
9. The plaintiff in lieu of examinationinchief filed his affidavit evidence as PW1 by narrating the material facts of the plaint and in support of his case, also produced documentary evidence.
10. Ex.P.1 is certified copy of order sheet in CC.No.1033/2005, wherein, the complaint was filed by the defendant against the plaintiff herein under Section 8 OS.9345/2018 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offence punishable under Section 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act and same was dismissed as per order dated 04.09.2007 as not pressed. Ex.P.2 is certified copy of memo filed in CC.No.1033/2005 praying to dismiss the complaint. Ex.P.3 is copy of SMS issued by defendant to the plaintiff in 6 sheets. Ex.P.4 is copy of reply sent by plaintiff to the defendant to his Mail. Ex.P.5 is Certificate under Section 65B/4 of Evidence Act in support of Ex.P.3 and P.4. Ex.P.6 is SMS alert messages sent by defendant to plaintiff from 19.04.2018 to 19.12.2018.
11. These documentary evidence go to show that the defendant is sending messages to the plaintiff calling upon him to pay Rs.1,81,238/ towards balance due towards his SBI Credit Card and in this regard, the SMS 9 OS.9345/2018 are being sent to the plaintiff. But, it is seen that the plaintiff has already informed the defendant as per notice dated 03.11.2018 regarding settlement of issue as per Ex.P.1. But, it is seen that the defendants have not issued any reply notice to the plaintiff regarding justifying their claim. Even in this suit, though the summons was served upon the defendant, it remained absent and came to be placed exparte. This itself indicate that the defendant is putting forth claim against plaintiff without any legal basis. It is the definite case of the plaintiff that there is no due on his part towards SBI Credit Card and such being the case, it is incumbent upon the defendant to attend the court and controvert the claim of the plaintiff. Therefore, I find that the plaintiff has established his suit claim. The defendant is not authorized to humiliate the plaintiff by issuing SMS now and then reiterating the 10 OS.9345/2018 same claim, which was already settled before the court proceedings as per Ex.P.1. There is no material to disbelieve or doubt the claim and allegations of the plaintiff. The plaint averments are supported by documents and thus, the suit deserves to be decreed. Hence, I have answered Point No.1 and 2 in the affirmative.
12. POINT NO.3: In view of my findings on above said points, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs. Hence, in the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs.
The defendant, its agents, servants, representatives, supporters, henchmen or any other 11 OS.9345/2018 persons claiming on their behalf and in their names are hereby restrained from illegally interfering with peaceful living of the plaintiff, without due process of law.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment writer directly on computer, typed by her, thereafter corrected and then pronounced by me, in the open Court, on this the 26 th day of February, 2021).
(Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK) XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU.12 OS.9345/2018
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff/s' side:
P.W.1 Shivaprasad.Y.B.
b) Defendant/s' side:
Nil
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of:
a) Plaintiff/s' side:
Ex.P.1 C/c of order sheet in CC.No.1033/2005 Ex.P.2 C/c of memo filed in CC.No.1033/2005 Ex.P.3 Copy of SMS along with messages issued by defendant Ex.P.4 Copy of reply sent by plaintiff to defendant to his Mail Ex.P.5 Certificate under Section 65(b)/4 of Evidence Act in support of E.xP.3 and P.4.13 OS.9345/2018
Ex.P.6 Computer generated copy of SMS alert messages sent by defendant to plaintiff from 19.04.2018 to 19.12.2018
b) Defendant/s' side:
Nil (Dr. KASANAPPA NAIK) XLI ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE BENGALURU.