Delhi High Court
Sh. Jeevan Kumar vs Citi Bank, N. A. & Anr. on 25 August, 2011
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No.345/2002
% 25th August, 2011
SH. JEEVAN KUMAR ...... Appellant
Through: Mr. Prag Chawla, Advocate.
VERSUS
CITI BANK, N. A. & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under
Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned
judgment and decree dated 19.2.2002 whereby the suit of the
appellant/plaintiff for recovery of money claimed on the basis of the
RFA No.345/02 Page 1 of 4
amount due to him from the respondent No.1/bank by use of various
credit cards by the customers, was dismissed.
2. A reference to the plaint shows that the suit amount is
claimed on the basis of the following summary forms of the transactions:-
Se. no. Dated Summary No. of Slips Amount in
form Rupees
1. 24.12.1996 124679 04 15,200/-
2. 03.01.1997 126814 11 41,800/-
3. 11.01.1997 13230 13 49,400/-
4. 12.01.1997 124680 20 76,000/-
5. 15.01.1997 126820 15 57,000/-
6. 15.01.1997 124676 23 87,400
Total 3,26,800/-"
3. Though the respondents/defendants took up a stand in the
written statement that the entire amount has been paid, and on which
basis the trial Court dismissed the suit, what actually transpires is that
the aforesaid transactions comprised in the six summary forms are not
transactions of the customers of the appellant/plaintiff but are the
transactions by use of the credit card issued in the name of the
RFA No.345/02 Page 2 of 4
appellant/plaintiff himself. The appellant/plaintiff himself in the trial
Court filed the corresponding slips with respect to these relevant
transactions, and these slips showed that it was the appellant/plaintiff
himself who used his own credit card in his own
establishment/restaurant. If that be so, it cannot be said that the
appellant/plaintiff can claim amount from the respondents/defendants
because if the appellant/plaintiff has to recover amounts from the
respondent No.1/bank, simultaneously it has also to pay off its liability
under the credit card transactions i.e. before claiming the amount from
the Bank, the appellant/plaintiff under those very transactions has also to
first pay the respondent No.1/bank. I may note that though the
transactions are stated to be six, actually only the summary forms of the
charge slips are six in number but the transactions are more in number.
The six serials which are given in para 3 of the plaint are really the
summary forms of transactions. Each of these transactions as
demonstrated from the charge slips filed without doubt shows the use of
the credit card by the appellant/plaintiff in his own establishment i.e. the
credit card was not of a customer of the appellant/plaintiff but the credit
card was a credit card issued by the respondent No.1/bank in favour of
the appellant/plaintiff. The charge slips in this regard have been
exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/6.
RFA No.345/02 Page 3 of 4
4. In view of the above, the appeal is liable to be dismissed
though not on the ground as stated in the impugned judgment but on the
ground that the six summary forms of the transactions are in fact of the
charge slips by use of the credit card issued in the name of the
appellant/plaintiff by the appellant/plaintiff itself, and thus there cannot
be any liability of the respondent No.1/bank.
5. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, which is
accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
AUGUST 25, 2011 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Ne
