Deepak Kumar Sabharwal, H.No.712/8, Street No.8, Punjab Mata Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.
….Complainant.
Versus

1- Standard Chartered Bank Limited, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Branch Manager.
2- Royal Sundram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. through its Manager, Sundram Towers, 45-46, Whites Road, Chennai- 600 014.

….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Quorum:
Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.
Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present: Sh. Gurcharan Singh Adv. for complainant.
Opposite party no.1 exparte.
Sh. Rajiv Abhi Adv. for opposite party no.2.

O R D E R

RAJESH KUMAR, MEMBER:
1- In this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, brief facts are that complainant opened a saving bank account no.703-1-0012393 with opposite party no.1 and also obtained credit card no.4129-0380-8334-4959 with limit of Rs.25000/-. In statement of October, 2006, complainant found that Rs.14,522.97 was shown as credit. On enquiry, bank informed that Rs.10174/- were debited to Royal Sundram Alliance Ins. Co. Ltd., Chennai opposite party no.2. Complainant informed the bank that he never got himself insured from that insurance company, nor he ever authorized opposite party no.1 to debit any amount to the insurance company on his behalf and without his consent, opposite party no.1 credited the amount from his account. They failed to give any reply. On scrutiny of statements, he found that bank was charging interest on monthly basis on these premium amounts credited to his account without his consent. Opposite party no.2 never insured complainant and issued health insurance policy of Rs.2 lacs and charged Rs.5088/- as premium. Complainant instructed the opposite party bank not to release any amount from his credit card account on account of installment of insurance policy. It means that both opposite parties have some hidden understanding to insure the persons having credit cards with the bank and transfer the premium amount without their consent. Further, the opposite party bank showed credit of Rs.13019.99 on 31.8.2007 and debited amount of Rs.10174/- to insurance company without his consent. Claiming such act of opposite party amounting to deficiency in service, instituted this complaint for direction to opposite party to reverse entries from his account which were illegally credited in his account and pay him damages of Rs.20000/- on account of mental agony and litigation costs of Rs.5500/-.


2- Opposite party no.1 did not contest the complaint and is being proceeded exparte.


3- Opposite party no.2 by way of reply, pleaded that complaint is not maintainable against them, as no cause of action disclosed by complainant. Opposite party no.1 for benefit of its customers, avails group insurance polices covering various customers, remitting premium in respect of opposite party no.2. Opposite party no.2 only act upon instruction given by opposite party no.1, who receive premiums from large number customer’s by debiting their respective credit card accounts after getting their consent to opt for the polices which are done through tele-campaign. Such debits are done by opposite party no.1 only and realized by SCB Cards from their customers. In this case, opposite party no.2 had issued health shield insurance policy no.HS00018923000100 original taken on 29.9.2004 valid from 25.9.2004 to 24.9.200 and thereunder, complainant had renewed the same for 3 times i.e. 25.9.2005 to 24.9.2006, 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007, 25.9.2007 to 24.9.2008, for which, opposite party no.2 got remittance from opposite party no.1, time to time, for issuance of the renewal of policies. Opposite party no.1 debited that amount pursuant to telephonic acceptance and approval of complainant. Complainant wrote a letter dated 6.11.2007 that he is not interested in renewal of the policy, upon which opposite party no.2 cancelled the policy and refunded Rs.3562/- on pro rata basis after retaining 30% of Rs.5088/- in the month of November, 2007, which was credited into the account of opposite party no.1. Opposite party no.2 sent a policy renewal confirmation letter on 3.8.2007 and even after receipt of that letter, complainant did not intimate opposite party no.2that the complainant was disinterested in renewing the policy. However, on 6.11.2007, complainant requested for cancellation, upon which opposite cancelled the policy on pro rata basis, since the complainant intimated abut his disinterest only after a lapse of three months of policy inception, as the policy was made on 19.9.2007. Complainant neither wrote to opposite partyno.2 giving specific instruction to cancel the policy nor did he allege that policy documents were received by him on 19th September, 2007. All other assertions of complaint have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.




4- Contesting parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.



5- From the above facts and figures, it is quite clear that the complainant was having health shield insurance policy for the year 25.9.2004 to 24.9.2005 (Ex.R1). Then took health shield insurance from opposite party no.2 for the year 25.9.2005 to 24.9.2006. Thereafter, complainant took third policy for the year 25.9.2006 to 24.9.2007 and policy from 25.9.2007 to 24.9.2008. The premium for the health shield insurance policy, has been deducted by opposite party bank and credited to account of opposite party no.2 against insurance policy. Complainant has been maintaining his credit card account no. 4129-0380-8334-4959 regularly and must be getting the statements from opposite party no.1 monthly as well as yearly, from where, complainant can visualize and see his balance and account status with the opposite party no.1. It is clear from statement of account of September, 2006 Ex.C3 that Rs.5087/- have been deducted against the premium of health shield insurance policy and credited to opposite party no.2. It is quite clear that the complainant has been taking policies from 25.9.2004 to 24.9.2008 regularly and paying the premium of the health shield insurance company to the opposite party. It is also worth to mention here that the complainant requested to opposite party no.2 on
6.11.2007 that he is not interested in renewal of the policy and acting upon the same, opposite party no.2 had cancelled the policy and refunded Rs.3562/- on pro rata basis after retaining 30% of Rs.5088/- in the month of November, 2007, which was credited into the account of opposite party no.1. Since the policy was issued at the instructions of opposite party no.1. It is clear that on 6.11.2007, complainant vide letter Ex.R6 requested opposite party for cancellation of the policies and insurance company acted immediately and cancelled the policy and refunded the amount which was due to the complainant. Plea of the complainant that he was not aware of the polices done by opposite party no.2, does not seem to be genuine. Complainant alleges that he is not aware of the policy done by opposite party no.2 and both the bank and insurance company are hand in glove with each other and he has not got himself the insurance policy from opposite party no.2 nor he authorized the bank to debit any amount to the insurance company. The bank and insurance company are acting on their own behalf and deducting insurance premium from his bank account maintained with opposite party no.1. The complainant further alleges that there is deficiency in service on part of opposite party bank by debiting the amount against opposite party no.2 from his credit card account illegally.



6- The Fora reach at the conclusion that complainant was having full knowledge about the polices which he had taken for the year 2004 to 2008 and amount has been deducted from his credit card account. As he can not say that he was not aware about the deduction of the premium from his account to the insurance policies and it is hard to believe that opposite party of their own, deducted the premium from his account. H is well aware of the facts and terms and conditions of the policies and lastly, when he wrote letter Ex.R6 date 6.11.2007, opposite party no.2 acted immediately and discontinued the policy and amount which was payable to the complainant was refunded to the complainant on pro rata basis. After cancellation of policy and amount of premium was refunded on pro rata basis. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a case reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Shiv Kumar I(2008)CPJ-191(HaryanaState Commission). It is also clear that the complainant has never written any letter to opposite party no.2 earlier to 6.11.2007. Complainant could not able to submit any proof or any letter written to opposite party no.2 regarding cancellation of earlier policies. Had he written any letter to cancel the earlier policies, opposite party would have immediately acted and cancel those policies, as they did after receipt of letter dated 6.11.2007 (Ex.R6). It is clear that transactions made by the opposite party no.1 and opposite party no.2, are genuine and legal and in the notice of the complainant, as he has been receiving bank statements regularly monthly and yearly and also he was regularly operating his account. Hence, no deficiency in rendering service to the complainant is reflected or proved. Hence, finding no merits in the complaint, the same is dismissed.

Shri. Subhash Vitthal Mohite

Residing at – S. No. 7, “Tuljaii”,

Tuljai Pathar, Dhankawadi,

PUNE – 411 043 … COMPLAINANT



- : VERSUS : -



Standard Charterd Bank

Shrirang House, 4th Floor,

364-365, Jungli Maharaj Road,

Shivaji Nagar,

PUNE – 411 005 … OPPONENT


This is the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the bank. The facts lie in a very narrow compass.

[2] The complainant claims that he is a borrower of the opponent bank. He had already borrowed loan of Rs. 2,75,000/- for purchasing car. He is also holding Visa Card issued by the opponent bank. He is therefore a consumer under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

[3] The complainant wanted to borrow housing finance for purchasing flat. He therefore went to the bank on 12/01/2004. He had carried with him the statement of account received by him in respect of car. He contacted one Mr. Nandedkar, who was then working as Sales Officer of Housing loan. The complainant was informed that the housing finance of an amount of Rs. 8,50,000/- shall be sanctioned to him with interest @ 7.5.% p.a. The said officer had also promised the complainant that the complainant being an advocate and is bona-fide customer of the bank, the bank shall give priority to the loan proposal of the complainant.

[4] As per demand made by the bank, the complainant had submitted the necessary documents. He had also issued a cheque in the sum of Rs. 4250/- towards processing charges. The same was received by the opponent bank. The complainant was expecting that the housing loan shall be sanctioned to him.

He was compelled to give an empty assurances to his builder, that the payment shall be made. Ultimately, the complainant was informed by the said Mr. Nandedkar that the complainant’s loan proposal is rejected by the bank solely on the ground that the complainant is a practicing advocate. The complainant alleges that the discriminatory tactics is adopted by the bank. The complainant is deprived of availing the loan. It is wrong on the part of the bank to refuse to sanction the housing loan to practicing advocate. This would be a stigma to the entire Legal Profession. The complainant has therefore prayed that he may be awarded the suitable compensation of Rs. 8,50,000/-, besides the other claims.

[5] The opponent bank has appeared and has contested the claim by filing exhaustive written statement. All the allegations are denied by the bank. It is pleaded that the Forum is not competent to entertain and try the present complaint. The complaint is also barred by period of limitation. With reference to the facts of the case, the allegations have been denied. It is denied that the loan proposal was not approved and sanctioned by the bank because the complainant is a practicing advocate.

It is admitted that an amount of Rs. 4250/- was received by the bank towards the processing charges. After proposal was declined, an amount of Rs. 2000/- is deducted by the bank and the balance amount of Rs. 2250/- was offered to the complainant. The reasons as to why the loan application is rejected or declined by the bank are not disclosed to the customers. The same procedure was adopted by the bank and the reasons as to why the loan was denied to the complainant is not disclosed. It is therefore prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

[6] On behalf of opponent bank, written notes of argument are filed by it voluntarily and on its own. As against that Shri. Pandit, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant. He has drawn our attention to the rejoinder filed by the complainant. Amongst other, one of the contention raised by the bank was that, the allegations made in the complaint are devoid of any particulars.

These particulars have been furnished by the complainant in the form of rejoinder affidavit. It is then urged that on account of the denial of the loan, the complainant was compelled to borrow a loan from Syndicate Bank. Shri. Pandit has also relied on the letter addressed to the complainant by his builder. By that letter an amount of arrears were demanded by the complainant’s builder. The fact however remains the loss of reputation caused on account of denial of loan is sought to be explained by the complainant. The complainant had borrowed the loan from Syndicate bank and had made payment to the builder.

[7] The crucial question that would arise for our determination is, whether the complainant was deprived of the loan only for the reason that he is a practicing advocate. During the course of the argument, time and again query was made to the complainant’s advocate to show, if there is any letter addressed to the complainant by the bank showing that the loan proposal was not sanctioned because the complainant is an advocate. Such communication was not brought to our notice. If, regard being had to the averments contained in the written statement, it will have to presume that the practice adopted by the bank is refusing to disclose the reasons, as to why the loan is not sanctioned. In other words, in the event the proposal for the loan is declined, the reasons as to why the said proposal was not accepted are not disclosed by the bank.

That would indicate, prima facie that there is no reason for the complainant to come to the conclusion that his housing loan was not sanctioned because the complainant is practicing advocate. Allegations are made against Shri. Nandedkar, who was then working with the opponent bank. The verbal assurances or the promises were given by Mr. Nandedkar. It was he, who had informed the complainant that loan was not sanctioned because the complainant is an advocate. This is just a verbal averment made by the complainant. If the practice followed by the bank is appreciated, then there is no substance in the contention of the complainant that the loan was denied to him because he is an advocate.

[8] There are other two aspects in the present case. The complainant has admittedly availed car loan for the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/-. Even at that time, the complainant’s profession was an advocate. That time the loan was not denied to him because he was an advocate. He had availed the car loan and is regularly paying the installments of the loan. That would indicate about his paying capacity.

[9] The other aspect is about the discretion available with the bank, either to grant or to refuse to grant a loan. This time it is housing finance. The loan sought to be borrowed by the complainant was to the extent of Rs. 8,50,000/-. Now sanctioning the loan is at the total discretion of the opponent bank. The decision will have to be take by the bank having regard to the variety of the circumstances. Amongst other the paying capacity of the borrower do play a vital role. The discretion is solely with the financial institution, either to grant or to refuse to grant the loan. The policy is adopted by the financial institution, if the proposal of the loan is well within the four corners of that policy, then the bank in its discretionary power can grant loan. Otherwise, it can refuse to grant the said loan. The fact remains that before sanctioning loan number of factors are required to be considered by the financial institution.

The viability and probability of realization are other consideration, which the bank has to examine. We therefore hold that discretion is available to the financial institutions to grant or refuse to grant the said loan. The said discretion will have to be exercised in accordance with the policy adopted by the financial institutions. If the policy itself is arbitrary, unjust or improper, that aspect has to be considered by some other Court, but not by this Forum. Having regard to all these facts, we hold that there is no substance in the contention of the complainant, that the loan was denied to him only because he was a practicing advocate. To substantiate the said fact, besides interested version of the complainant, there is no other material. Same is exactly contrary to the procedure followed by the bank of not disclosing the reasons, as to why the loan is disallowed.

[10] The bank is relying upon a communication addressed to the complainant recently on 7/5/2009. The complainant was appraised that pay order for an amount of Rs. 2250/- was already issued on 18/5/2004 and the same is lying unpaid. Thus an amount of Rs. 2000/- appears to have been deducted by the bank from the processing fee and the balance was offered to the complainant. He had declined to accept the same for the obvious reasons. We therefore proceed to pass the following order.

** O R D E R **

1. The complaint is hereby dismissed with no

order as to the costs.

2. The complainant is at liberty to receive an

amount of Rs. 2250/- vide pay order bearing

no. 015942 dtd. 18/05/2004, within one from

the receipt of this order by him.

Mrs. Kulwinder Kaur wife of Sh. Amarjit Singh resident of B-2, Nobal Enclave, Bhai Bala Chowk, opposite park Plaza, Ludhiana.





…..Complainant.

Versus



Standard Chartered Bank, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager.



…..Opposite party.







O R D E R







1- In this complaint U/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, case of the complainant is that is holder of saving bank account no.703-1-06701-5 with the opposite party bank. She never applied for any credit card or platinum repayment cover policy, nor made any request for Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy. But opposite party without her authority, instructions, of their own provided these facilities and started debiting amount of expenses from her saving account. Consequently, requested opposite party, to supply her statement of account and then requested for correction of unlawful deductions made from her account by the opposite party. Various letters in this behalf were written.


But only one letter dated 3.7.2008 from Chennai office of the bank, was received intimating that the bank had issued credit card, registering platinum repayment cover policy and taken Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy. She had never applied for such policy or the credit card. Therefore, opposite party wrongfully deducted amount from her account, to levy credit card charges, as well as payment of insurance premium which insurance she had never taken. Such act on part of opposite party, claimed amounting to deficiency in service and as a result, has sought directions for refund of amount illegally charged from her account by opposite party, alongwith compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.5000/-.

2- Opposite party in reply, conroverted allegations of the complainant. Averred that she has no locus standi to file the complaint, it is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties, complainant has not approached the Fora with clean hands. Further averred that complainant herself consented for issuance of credit card etc. and on her consent and request, insurance policy was issued to the complainant. The charges levied for use of credit card, issuance of insurance policies, were legally debited to the account of the complainant. They never resorted to unfair trade practice. Complainant never raised any objections qua non receipt of statement. Her allegations as such, are claimed to be false.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.

4- According to the complainant, charges for use of credit card, insurance premium, were rightfully debited from her saving bank account by the opposite party, as she had never sought such facilities, which of their own were provided by the opposite party. Opposite parties were requested time and again, to credit the amount to her saving bank account which was wrongfully and unauthorisedly withdrawn by them, resorting to unfair trade practice, but they paid no heed.

5- On the other hand, ld. counsel for opposite party argued that complainant was provided the facility on her request and they never resorted to unfair trade practice. Requests of the complainant conveyed telephonically, were saved in a CD and now complainant has changed her stand, by leveling false allegations.

6- It is admitted that complainant is having saving bank account no.703-1-06701-5 with the opposite party bank. Now question is whether she instructed the bank and authorized them to issue credit card as well as insurance policy in her favour. First of all, we shall confine her allegations qua issuance of credit card facility without her asking or request.

7- Material which has forthcome on the record, leaves us in no doubt that credit card facility was availed by the complainant from opposite party, on her own request and such facility was never provided to her by opposite party forcibly or of their own, without any instructions or authorization of the complainant. It is apparent from her acceptance form Ex.R1, vide which she opened saving bank account with opposite party. This application form also contains a column titled as “Supplementary Card Details”. This column has been filled by the complainant and nominated Sh. Amarjit Singh her husband, as nominee. This means she had sought facility of credit card, while opening and submitting acceptance form with the opposite party bank.

8- That complainant had instructed for issuance of credit card, stands authenticated from her conduct, as apparent from her communications Ex.C1 dated 7.6.2008, Ex.C3 dated 12.7.2008 issued to the opposite party. In both these letters, complainant conveyed to opposite party that received telephonic instructions from opposite party bank, regarding payment as per statement. The same was replied that had not used the credit card and requested to get the charges cancelled. In both these letters, she never agitated that credit card was provided without instructions. On the other hand, her plea was that she never used the credit card so, charges be cancelled.


While praying for canceling credit card charges, it was version of the complainant that she never used the card, so not liable to pay the charges. But it will not show that credit card was granted by opposite party of their own and without any request of the complainant. Therefore, for obtaining and use of credit card, complainant was liable to be charged as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties. Therefore, any amount debited from her account, as charges of credit card, opposite party was justified to do so and complainant consequently, would not be entitled for any refund of such amount.

9- Now coming to other prayers whether complainant had ever applied for platinum repayment cover policy and requested for Royal Sundaram Alliance Policy, or such policies were provided to the complainant, of their own by opposite party and as a result, wrongly withdrew amount from her saving bank account, to meet premium of the policies. This dispute again owes decision to the acceptance form Ex.R1. Columns of the form titled as “Primary Card(Free for Life)”, and “Multi Card”, were struck off and the words written thereon were “N.A. (not applicable)”. So, it means that Primary Card, governing the Gold Policy (free for life) and Accident Protector Plus were not sought by the complainant from opposite party.


As a result, they were deleted by drawing a line and writing words “N.A.”. However, in next column pertaining to “Nominate a Beneficiary to your personal accident insurance”, name of Sh. Amarjit Singh, spouse of the applicant, is recorded. Then declaration is signed by the complainant. But column of the person, nominating Sh. Amarjit Singh as nominee, is left blank and unfilled. It means that complainant never sought insurance policies. Therefore, struck off the same in the proposal form and opposite party, taking advantage of the name of nominee in the next column, provided insurance polices to her. Though complainant had never made any prayer either in writing or otherwise for such purposes.

10- But on behalf of opposite party, it was argued that such facilities of insurance were given to the complainant, when she gave oral telephonic instructions to them qua which, CD Ex.R2 was prepared. Transcription of the CD is not placed on the record. Neither there is any proof that any conversion recorded in CD Ex.R2, actually took place between the complainant and the officials of the opposite party bank. So, this CD in absence of any proof, would of no consequence or help to the opposite party.

11- In view of aforesaid aspects, we are clear in our view that opposite party wrongly, arbitrarily and illegally, without instruction and authorization of the complainant, of their own provided her platinum repayment cover policy and Royal Sundaram Alliance policy. By providing such policies, without any request of the complainant, certainly opposite party would be guilty of mis-conduct, breaching faith of a costumer, which he had reposed in them, by opening saving bank account. They could not have dealt or withdrawn any amount without instructions of the complainant from her saving bank account, to meet insurance liabilities created by them of their own, without consent of the bank account holder i.e. the complainant. Hence, the amount to meet out such liabilities, so withdrawn by opposite party from saving account of the complainant, would be arbitrary and illegal.

12- As a result of the discussions, we are constrained to partly allow this complaint and sequel thereto, direct opposite party, to restore entire amount withdrawn by them from saving bank account of the complainant, to meet out premium qua Royal Sundaram Alliance Policies and Platinum Repayment Cover Insurance, within 30 days of receipt of copy of the order and also made available copy of statement of account to the complainant, to show that they have complied with the order, by restoring and crediting the amount to her account. For unauthorisedly dealing with account of the complainant and causing harassment to her, opposite party also ordered to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant. Copy of order be provided to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room.

Mrs. Kone Elevator India (P) Ltd.,

Representedl by its General Manager,

(Personal & Administration) Mr.B.G.K. Reddy,

No.50, Vanagaram Road,

Ayanambakkam, Chennai – 95. …. Complainant



Vs



The Standard Chartered Bank,

19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

Represented by its Manager. …. Opposite Party







ORDER


1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant had deposited a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- on 04.12.2003 drawn on the opposite parties Adyar Branch in favour of the complainants. They have also deposited another cheque dated 20.09.2003 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- drawn on the opposite parties Adyar branch in favour of the complainants on 04.12.2003. But on verification of the accounts of the complainant, it was found that the said amounts have not been credited even after two weeks. This was intimated to the opposite parties through email on 24.12.2003 and requested for earlier credit of the account. The opposite parties informed that the cheques deposited by the complainants had been lost in transit and requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and to obtain fresh cheques for the said amount. The complainants told the opposite parties that it was not possible for them to obtain fresh cheque for the said amount from the drawer of the cheque as the same was given to them in compliance with the order passed by the City Civil court, Chennai in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003.


Though the complainants had informed that it was not possible to get duplicate cheques, the opposite parties insisted them to obtain fresh cheques. The complainants had also written to the drawer of the cheque requesting to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers but the complainants had not received any reply from the drawer. But the drawer had not issued fresh cheques to the complainants though requested. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to pay the cheque amounts together with compensation. Hence, the complainants claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amounts with interest at 24% per annum, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-.

2. The opposite parties filed version and contended inter alia that the complainants handed over the cheques to the bank’s courier personnel on 04.12.2003 to drop them in the drop box which is against the Cash Management Arrangement Agreement, dated 23.11.1999 entered into between the complainants and the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the said courier of the bank collects cheques from the complainants’ place of business after collection of the cheques, the proceeds of the cheques are credited into the complainants’ current account. If the complainants utilized the service of the banks couriers for service other than those mentioned in the Cash Management Agreement, the opposite parties are not responsible for the same and for any lapse.


The opposite parties are unaware of the cheques being dropped by the complainants in the opposite parties’ drop box. Only after the complainants intimated the same to the opposite parties, the opposite parties tried its best to trace the cheques but also tried to contact drawer of the cheques. But both the efforts of the opposite parties failed. The complainants can proceed against the drawer of the cheque for realization of the amount covered by cheques. The opposite parties are not liable to pay the cheque amounts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainants and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants. Ex B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had deposited two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and another sum of Rs.23,000/- on 04.12.2003 in favour the complainants drawn on the opposite parties’ Adyar Branch. On verification of their accounts, the complainants found that the cheques were credited in the account of the complainant even after two weeks from the date of deposit. They have contacted the opposite parties and they were informed that the cheques were lost in transit. The opposite parties had also requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and obtain fresh cheques for the said amounts. The complainants had also addressed the letter to the bank of the drawer on 20.07.2004 for issue of fresh cheque by the drawer. Ex A4 is the copy of the letter. Ex A5 is the copy of the letter addressed by the counsel of drawer of cheques to the complainants’ counsel.

6. The counsel of the drawers of the cheque had informed the complainants’ counsel that on receipt of the letter from the drawer bank, he would request his clients to issue fresh cheque. But the complainant would submit that the fresh cheques were not issued. They would further submit that the cheque were issued in compliance with the orders of the City Civil Court in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003. The complainants would submit that the advocate of the drawer of the cheques replied that he would write their client only after receiving the letter from the opposite parties confirming the loss of cheuqes. But the opposite parties have not responded to the complainants request but wrote a letter as demanded by the lawyer who represented the drawer of the cheques.


Hence, the complainants aren’t able to realize the cheque amounts because of the negligent act on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties collect all cheques in local and outstation through its couriers. Since the opposite parties have committed that the cheques had been lost in transit as per Ex A1 they cannot plea that they are not responsible for the lost cheques.


The opposite parties on the other hand would submit that the complainants did not substantiate that the cheques handed over to the opposite parties’ courier were acknowledged by the authorized signatory which is prerequisite for the opposite parties to be held liable for the advertent mistakes. As per the Cash Management Agreement authorized courier of the bankers collect cheques from the complainant’s place of business and after presenting the cheques, the proceeds will be credited into the complainants account. The complainant has not dropped the cheques in the opposite parties drop box which are not covered under the Cash Management Agreement.


Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service since the cheques have not been dropped in the drop box and acknowledgments are not being issued by the bankers. In the instant case, Ex A1 is the letter of the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.12.2003. The opposite parties informed the complainants that the cheques mentioned in that letter handed over to their courier had been lost in transit. Hence, the cheques have not been processed by them and therefore credit not given to the account of the complainants. Having admitted that the cheques were lost in transit, they cannot deny that they have not committed any deficiency in service.


It is the duty of the opposite parties to proceeds the cheques and credit the proceeds in the account of the complainants. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service in not crediting the amount of the cheques in the account of the complainants. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, there is an option for the complainants to get fresh cheques from the drawer on the ground that the cheques were lost in transit. This option is open to the complainant.

7. Point No.2: The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amount since he had an option to obtain fresh cheque from his drawer of the said amount. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Mrs. Kone Elevator India (P) Ltd.,

Representedl by its General Manager,

(Personal & Administration) Mr.B.G.K. Reddy,

No.50, Vanagaram Road,

Ayanambakkam, Chennai – 95. …. Complainant



Vs



The Standard Chartered Bank,

19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

Represented by its Manager. …. Opposite Party






ORDER





The complainant had deposited a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- on 04.12.2003 drawn on the opposite parties Adyar Branch in favour of the complainants. They have also deposited another cheque dated 20.09.2003 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- drawn on the opposite parties Adyar branch in favour of the complainants on 04.12.2003. But on verification of the accounts of the complainant, it was found that the said amounts have not been credited even after two weeks.


This was intimated to the opposite parties through email on 24.12.2003 and requested for earlier credit of the account. The opposite parties informed that the cheques deposited by the complainants had been lost in transit and requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and to obtain fresh cheques for the said amount. The complainants told the opposite parties that it was not possible for them to obtain fresh cheque for the said amount from the drawer of the cheque as the same was given to them in compliance with the order passed by the City Civil court, Chennai in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003. Though the complainants had informed that it was not possible to get duplicate cheques, the opposite parties insisted them to obtain fresh cheques.


The complainants had also written to the drawer of the cheque requesting to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers but the complainants had not received any reply from the drawer. But the drawer had not issued fresh cheques to the complainants though requested. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to pay the cheque amounts together with compensation. Hence, the complainants claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amounts with interest at 24% per annum, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-.

2. The opposite parties filed version and contended inter alia that the complainants handed over the cheques to the bank’s courier personnel on 04.12.2003 to drop them in the drop box which is against the Cash Management Arrangement Agreement, dated 23.11.1999 entered into between the complainants and the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the said courier of the bank collects cheques from the complainants’ place of business after collection of the cheques, the proceeds of the cheques are credited into the complainants’ current account. If the complainants utilized the service of the banks couriers for service other than those mentioned in the Cash Management Agreement, the opposite parties are not responsible for the same and for any lapse.


The opposite parties are unaware of the cheques being dropped by the complainants in the opposite parties’ drop box. Only after the complainants intimated the same to the opposite parties, the opposite parties tried its best to trace the cheques but also tried to contact drawer of the cheques. But both the efforts of the opposite parties failed. The complainants can proceed against the drawer of the cheque for realization of the amount covered by cheques. The opposite parties are not liable to pay the cheque amounts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainants and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants. Ex B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had deposited two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and another sum of Rs.23,000/- on 04.12.2003 in favour the complainants drawn on the opposite parties’ Adyar Branch. On verification of their accounts, the complainants found that the cheques were credited in the account of the complainant even after two weeks from the date of deposit. They have contacted the opposite parties and they were informed that the cheques were lost in transit.


The opposite parties had also requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and obtain fresh cheques for the said amounts. The complainants had also addressed the letter to the bank of the drawer on 20.07.2004 for issue of fresh cheque by the drawer. Ex A4 is the copy of the letter. Ex A5 is the copy of the letter addressed by the counsel of drawer of cheques to the complainants’ counsel.

6. The counsel of the drawers of the cheque had informed the complainants’ counsel that on receipt of the letter from the drawer bank, he would request his clients to issue fresh cheque. But the complainant would submit that the fresh cheques were not issued. They would further submit that the cheque were issued in compliance with the orders of the City Civil Court in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003.


The complainants would submit that the advocate of the drawer of the cheques replied that he would write their client only after receiving the letter from the opposite parties confirming the loss of cheuqes. But the opposite parties have not responded to the complainants request but wrote a letter as demanded by the lawyer who represented the drawer of the cheques. Hence, the complainants aren’t able to realize the cheque amounts because of the negligent act on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties collect all cheques in local and outstation through its couriers. Since the opposite parties have committed that the cheques had been lost in transit as per Ex A1 they cannot plea that they are not responsible for the lost cheques.


The opposite parties on the other hand would submit that the complainants did not substantiate that the cheques handed over to the opposite parties’ courier were acknowledged by the authorized signatory which is prerequisite for the opposite parties to be held liable for the advertent mistakes. As per the Cash Management Agreement authorized courier of the bankers collect cheques from the complainant’s place of business and after presenting the cheques, the proceeds will be credited into the complainants account. The complainant has not dropped the cheques in the opposite parties drop box which are not covered under the Cash Management Agreement.


Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service since the cheques have not been dropped in the drop box and acknowledgments are not being issued by the bankers. In the instant case, Ex A1 is the letter of the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.12.2003. The opposite parties informed the complainants that the cheques mentioned in that letter handed over to their courier had been lost in transit. Hence, the cheques have not been processed by them and therefore credit not given to the account of the complainants. Having admitted that the cheques were lost in transit, they cannot deny that they have not committed any deficiency in service.


It is the duty of the opposite parties to proceeds the cheques and credit the proceeds in the account of the complainants. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service in not crediting the amount of the cheques in the account of the complainants. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, there is an option for the complainants to get fresh cheques from the drawer on the ground that the cheques were lost in transit. This option is open to the complainant.

7. Point No.2: The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amount since he had an option to obtain fresh cheque from his drawer of the said amount. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Mrs. Kone Elevator India (P) Ltd.,

Representedl by its General Manager,

(Personal & Administration) Mr.B.G.K. Reddy,

No.50, Vanagaram Road,

Ayanambakkam, Chennai – 95. …. Complainant



Vs



The Standard Chartered Bank,

19, Rajaji Salai,

Chennai – 600 001.

Represented by its Manager. …. Opposite Party




ORDER



1. The case of the complainant is briefly as follows:



The complainant had deposited a cheque for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- on 04.12.2003 drawn on the opposite parties Adyar Branch in favour of the complainants. They have also deposited another cheque dated 20.09.2003 for a sum of Rs.23,000/- drawn on the opposite parties Adyar branch in favour of the complainants on 04.12.2003. But on verification of the accounts of the complainant, it was found that the said amounts have not been credited even after two weeks. This was intimated to the opposite parties through email on 24.12.2003 and requested for earlier credit of the account.


The opposite parties informed that the cheques deposited by the complainants had been lost in transit and requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and to obtain fresh cheques for the said amount. The complainants told the opposite parties that it was not possible for them to obtain fresh cheque for the said amount from the drawer of the cheque as the same was given to them in compliance with the order passed by the City Civil court, Chennai in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003. Though the complainants had informed that it was not possible to get duplicate cheques, the opposite parties insisted them to obtain fresh cheques.


The complainants had also written to the drawer of the cheque requesting to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers but the complainants had not received any reply from the drawer. But the drawer had not issued fresh cheques to the complainants though requested. Hence, the opposite parties are bound to pay the cheque amounts together with compensation. Hence, the complainants claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amounts with interest at 24% per annum, Rs.1,00,000/- for mental agony and cost of Rs.5000/-.

2. The opposite parties filed version and contended inter alia that the complainants handed over the cheques to the bank’s courier personnel on 04.12.2003 to drop them in the drop box which is against the Cash Management Arrangement Agreement, dated 23.11.1999 entered into between the complainants and the opposite parties. As per the agreement, the said courier of the bank collects cheques from the complainants’ place of business after collection of the cheques, the proceeds of the cheques are credited into the complainants’ current account. If the complainants utilized the service of the banks couriers for service other than those mentioned in the Cash Management Agreement, the opposite parties are not responsible for the same and for any lapse.


The opposite parties are unaware of the cheques being dropped by the complainants in the opposite parties’ drop box. Only after the complainants intimated the same to the opposite parties, the opposite parties tried its best to trace the cheques but also tried to contact drawer of the cheques. But both the efforts of the opposite parties failed. The complainants can proceed against the drawer of the cheque for realization of the amount covered by cheques. The opposite parties are not liable to pay the cheque amounts. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties.

3. Proof Affidavits have been filed by both the complainants and the opposite parties. Exhibits A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainants. Ex B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the opposite parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are as follows:

1) Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of

the opposite parties?.

2) To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

5. Point No.1: Admittedly, the complainant had deposited two cheques for a sum of Rs.1,23,000/- and another sum of Rs.23,000/- on 04.12.2003 in favour the complainants drawn on the opposite parties’ Adyar Branch. On verification of their accounts, the complainants found that the cheques were credited in the account of the complainant even after two weeks from the date of deposit.



They have contacted the opposite parties and they were informed that the cheques were lost in transit. The opposite parties had also requested the complainants to inform the drawer of the cheques to issue stop payment instructions to her bankers and obtain fresh cheques for the said amounts. The complainants had also addressed the letter to the bank of the drawer on 20.07.2004 for issue of fresh cheque by the drawer. Ex A4 is the copy of the letter. Ex A5 is the copy of the letter addressed by the counsel of drawer of cheques to the complainants’ counsel.

6. The counsel of the drawers of the cheque had informed the complainants’ counsel that on receipt of the letter from the drawer bank, he would request his clients to issue fresh cheque. But the complainant would submit that the fresh cheques were not issued. They would further submit that the cheque were issued in compliance with the orders of the City Civil Court in O.S.No.3607/00 dated 07.01.2003.


The complainants would submit that the advocate of the drawer of the cheques replied that he would write their client only after receiving the letter from the opposite parties confirming the loss of cheuqes. But the opposite parties have not responded to the complainants request but wrote a letter as demanded by the lawyer who represented the drawer of the cheques. Hence, the complainants aren’t able to realize the cheque amounts because of the negligent act on the part of the opposite parties. The opposite parties collect all cheques in local and outstation through its couriers. Since the opposite parties have committed that the cheques had been lost in transit as per Ex A1 they cannot plea that they are not responsible for the lost cheques.


The opposite parties on the other hand would submit that the complainants did not substantiate that the cheques handed over to the opposite parties’ courier were acknowledged by the authorized signatory which is prerequisite for the opposite parties to be held liable for the advertent mistakes. As per the Cash Management Agreement authorized courier of the bankers collect cheques from the complainant’s place of business and after presenting the cheques, the proceeds will be credited into the complainants account. The complainant has not dropped the cheques in the opposite parties drop box which are not covered under the Cash Management Agreement.


Therefore, the opposite parties have not committed any deficiency in service since the cheques have not been dropped in the drop box and acknowledgments are not being issued by the bankers. In the instant case, Ex A1 is the letter of the opposite parties to the complainant dated 24.12.2003. The opposite parties informed the complainants that the cheques mentioned in that letter handed over to their courier had been lost in transit. Hence, the cheques have not been processed by them and therefore credit not given to the account of the complainants. Having admitted that the cheques were lost in transit, they cannot deny that they have not committed any deficiency in service.


It is the duty of the opposite parties to proceeds the cheques and credit the proceeds in the account of the complainants. Hence, there is definitely deficiency in service in not crediting the amount of the cheques in the account of the complainants. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. However, there is an option for the complainants to get fresh cheques from the drawer on the ground that the cheques were lost in transit. This option is open to the complainant.

7. Point No.2: The complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs.5000/- as costs of the complaint. The complainant is not entitled to claim Rs.1,46,000/- towards cheque amount since he had an option to obtain fresh cheque from his drawer of the said amount. The amounts shall be payable within six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum till the date of payment.

Appeal no. FA-8/968

(Appeal against the order dated 09.05.2008 passed by District Forum, New Delhi , in complaint case no1257/2003)

Standard Charted Bank Ltd.,

(Erstwhile American Express Bank Ltd.)

10, Parliament Street,

New Delhi.
…..Appellant/complainant.

Through

Sh. Saniv Sagar, Advocate.

VS

Raj Singh,

S/o Late Shri Devi Singh,

R/O WZ-561, Village Dashghara,

P.O. Pusa, New Delhi.

……Respondent/O.P.

Through

Sh. Santosh , Proxy counsel.

CORAM
Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi, President.

M.L. Sahni, Member

1. Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the

judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

M.L. SAHNI, MEMBER

1. Aggrieved by the order dated 09.05.2008 of the District Consumer Forum, K.G. Marg, New Delhi in complaint case no. 1257/2003, the Standard Charted Bank Ltd, successor of the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred to as the Appellant), has filed the present appeal.

2. By the impugned order, Ld. District Forum has directed the appellant to return a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- towards the sale consideration of the vehicle plus Rs. 2 lacs as compensation as well as Rs. 20,000/- as legal charges.

3. Facts giving rise to this appeal , precisely stated, are that Erstwhile American Express Bank Limited, who have now been amalgamated in the Appellant Bank vide R.B.I. vide order dated 04.03.2008, had financed Rs. 1,85,000/- vide agreement dated 4.6.2002, bearing loan account no. 67286 , in favour of the complainant (hereinafter referred to as the Respondent ) for the purchase of 8-seater Maruti Van . Loan was repayable in 36 equal monthly installment of Rs. 6,550/- w.e.f.15th of June, 2002.

4. According to the Respondent , the OP bank was given 35 post dated cheques of Rs. 6,550/- each. During December, 2002, the mother of the respondent became seriously ill and during March, 2003, the respondent himself met with an accident and broke his collar bone and , therefore, he defaulted in two post dated cheques. The respondent paid a sum of Rs. 13,600/- regarding his two unpaid installments, in cash and in this regard , a receipt dated 25.11.2002 was issued to the respondent. Thereafter, he issued one more cheque for a sum of Rs. 6,440/- in April, 2003 and gave it to the representative of Appellant Bank. The neighbour and friend of the respondent, Shri Homnath borrowed the vehicle of the respondent to visit his sister who was not well and on this way to R block, Rajinder Nagar, some persons appeared all of a sudden in front of vehicle and asked the above said Sh. Homnath to stop the car. Immediately , thereafter, when the car was stopped, the above said persons forcibly took him out of the vehicle and started beating him badly thereby causing injuries to him. Before leaving the place, these persons told Homnath that they belonged to the Appellant Bank and got from him signed one unfilled printed document forcibly. He was told to ask the respondent to meet the bank officials. The respondent visited the Appellant Bank and asked the reason of snatching the vehicle without any notice. The officials of the Appellant Bank behaved in a very rude manner and asked the Respondent to deposit a sum of Rs. 3 lacs immediately if he wanted to get the vehicle back. The respondent protested and got back the document filled by the Appellant arbitrarily got singed from Sh. Homnath.

5. The Appellant/OP, when appeared before the Ld. District Forum, took the plea that Respondent was chronic defaulter. The Appellant/OP admitted that on 25.11.2002, respondent/complainant paid Rs. 13,600/- to the Appellant Bank which was adjusted towards EMI for November, 2002 and December, 2002 and Rs. 500/- was adjusted towards cheque bouncing charges. The payment of EMI for March, 03 in cash was also admitted. The Appellant/OP bank had engaged the service of M/s S. Sabharwal & Co. and directed it to repossess the respondent/complainant’s vehicle. They sold the vehicle for Rs. 1,53,000/- to recover its outstanding dues. The Appellant/OP bank claimed that the respondent/complainant is still liable to pay Rs. 4,292.73.

6. After considering the pleadings and evidence of both the parties and hearing their respective Ld. Counsel, the District Forum opined that the OP violated the guidelines of Reserve Bank and hence are liable to pay back the sale consideration of the vehicle of Rs. 1,53,000/- to the Respondent and would not make any further demand in respect of loan amount. The Ld. District Forum also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- to be paid as compensation to the Respondent who has been treated with cruelty , suffered mental agony and OP being deficient-in-service . Cost of Rs. 20,000/- being litigation charges is also awarded.

7. We have heard the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of parties and have gone-through the material on record.

8. It is submitted on behalf of the Appellant that as per invoice value of the car was Rs. 2,31000/-. Car was purchased in June, 2002 and was repossessed by the OP in April, 2003. As per settled law market value of a vehicle depreciates @ 5% per annum. Hence, the Respondent could not have been awarded the entire value of the vehicle Rs. 1,53,000/- as received after its sale. He also submitted that the amount of compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- in this case, with cost of litigation of Rs. 20,000/- is also unjustified, because the OP in their evidence by filing affidavit of Shri Manoj Adlakha , their authorized signatory , who categorically, deposed that the complainant was irregular in repayment of hire-purchase installments and committed frequent defaults in payment in respect thereof. The cheque for the installment due on 15.10.2002 when presented for encashment got bounced on 21.10.2002, which when presented second time on 23.10.2002 at the instance of the complainant got bounced on 25.10.2002 again. Similarly, the cheque for the installment due on 15.11.2002 when presented for encashment bounced on 21.11.2002, which when re-presented on 23.11.2002 at the instance of the complainant again got bounced on 26.11.2002. The cheque for the installments due for the months December, 02, March, 03 and April ,02 also met with the same fate.

8. According to the testimony of Shri Adlakha, the complainant/respondent grossly defaulted in honouring his commitments of payment of EMIs as is reflective in the Statement of Account. The Appellant /OP issued a legal notice to the complainant on 3.4.2003, informing him that as some of his cheques were dishonoured , the Bank in exercise of its discretion , was recalling the entire loan facility. The complainant was directed /requested to repay the entire outstanding loan amount within three days of the receipt of the said legal notice. The complainant was further informed that upon his failure to make payment within three days of the receipt of the legal notice, the Bank would be forced to initiate legal proceedings against him including repossession of the vehicle in terms of the Agreement. As per clause 14 of the Agreement the OP was empowered to repossess the vehicle in the event of default committed by the respondent.

9. It is further deposed by Shri Adlakha that the OP vide its communication dated 23.4.2003 informed the Officer-in-charge of the Pahar Ganj Police Station of its intention to repossess the respondent’s vehicle. After taking repossession of the vehicle on 23.4.2003, another communication was sent to the Officer-in-charge of Pahar Ganj Police Station, informing them about the factum of repossessing having taken place. After repossession of the vehicle the respondent issued a pre-sale notice dated 23.4.2003 to the complainant wherein the respondent informed the complainant that the vehicle hypothecated with the Bank would be sold by the Bank as per its policy. The respondent following the principles of natural justice, gave yet another opportunity to the complainant to clear all its outstanding dues, over-due interest etc. within one day of the receipt of the pre-sale notice to obtain the release of the vehicle , failing which the Bank would dispose off the vehicle towards repayment of its loan. On 30.5.2003 the vehicle was sold to M/s Magic Motors for Rs. 1,53,000/-.

10. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that sworn testimony submitted in evidence duly corroborated by relevant documents filed before the Ld. District Forum, are not considered. Relying upon the bald testimony of the respondent the Forum held that RBI guidelines have been violated by the OP.

11. As against these submissions, the Ld. Counsel for the Respondent/Complainant has stated that the appeal is not maintainable being barred by limitation, because the order was passed on 9.5.2008 and appeal is filed in September, 2008 i.e. after more than five months.

12. Since the appeal has already been admitted on 19.11.2008 and is listed for final hearing, there appears to be no reason to reopen this issue, now at this final stage. Hence, we propose to proceed with the merit of the case.

13. It is admitted fact that the Respondent defaulted in payment of installments against his loan and was also irregular in clearing the dues. He paid a total sum of Rs. 65,500/- till the vehicle was repossessed , as against loan of Rs. 1,85,000/-.

14. Assuming that while re-possessing the vehicle, OP violated the guidelines as held by the Ld. District Forum , though this finding is assailed by the Appellant in view of the documentary as well as oral evidence produced by the OP before the Forum yet by no stretch of reasoning it can be justified that the Respondent is entitled to entire resale value of the vehicle and that the OP/Appellant cannot make any demand in respect of the balance loan amount.

15. By any calculation, the Respondent/Complainant can be paid back the depreciated value of the vehicle after adjusting the amount already paid by the respondent.

16. As per the Appellants themselves value of the vehicle depreciated @ 5% p.a. It was purchased in June, 2002 for sum of Rs. 2,31,000/- and was sold in April, 2003 i.e. within less than one year. Thus the depreciated value comes to Rs. 2,31,000 x 95/100 = Rs. 2,03,650/- rounded to Rs. 2,05,000/-. There can be no denial that Respondent paid a sum of Rs. 65,500/- though irregularly till the vehicle was repossessed . Thus he can be held entitled to Rs. 85,000/- only ( Rs. 2,05,000/- + Rs. 65,000 minus loan amount of Rs. 1,85,000). The District Forum has asked for return of Rs. 1,53,000/- which is not justifiable . Furthermore, we also do not agree with the Ld. District Forum with regard to the amount of compensation. It is too much on higher side. In the facts and circumstances of the case as discussed above, it should not be more than Rs. 50,000/- and the cost of litigation of Rs. 20,000/- also needs reconsideration.

17. Hence , without going into the merits of the car, we come to the irresistible conclusion that the impugned order requires modification as follows :-

That the Appellant shall return a sum of Rs. 85,000/- as value of repossessed vehicle and shall also pay Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) as compensation including cost of litigation.

18. The appellant shall comply with the order within one month of the receipt , failing which, they shall liable to pay interest 9% on the awarded amount ill realization.

19. Appeal is, accordingly , allowed partly.

20. FDR , if any, deposited by the appellant, be released after completing due formalities.

21. A copy of this order as per statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and , thereafter , the file be consigned to Record Room.

ppeal No. FA-09/722

(Arising out of Order dated 17-09-2009 passed by the District Consumer Forum(South), C-22, Udyog Sadan, Qutab Institutional Area, Mehrauli, New Delhi, in Case No. 671/2009)



Sh. Uday Ratra … Appellant/Complainant

Vasundhara Farm, In person

C/o S.P. Master,

I.A. Dharuhera,

Haryana-123110.



Versus



Standard Chartered Bank … Respondent/OP

17, Parliament Street,

Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001.



CORAM



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi … President

Mr. M.L. Sahni … Member



1. Whether Reporters of local newspapers be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?



Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi(Oral)

1. Heard the appellant-complainant in this appeal at the preliminary stage of admission.

2. This appeal has been filed against order dated 17.09.09 passed by the District Consumer Forum, South in Complaint Case No. 671/09 vide which the District Forum rejected the complaint of the complainant at the admission stage.

3. As will appear, from the certified copy of the order available on record that the order was passed and signed by the President of the District Forum alone which is clearly in breach of the provisions contained in Section 14(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The provision can be referred below for ready reference ;

“Every proceeding referred to in sub-section (1) shall be conducted by the President of he District Forum and at least one member thereof sitting together:

[Provided that where a member, for any reason, is unable to conduct a proceeding till it is completed, the President and the other member shall continue the proceeding from the stage at which it was last heard by the previous member.]”

4. The impugned order therefore being unwarranted and unauthorized cannot be sustained and the appeal is allowed remanding the case back to the concerned District Consumer Forum, for hearing and to decide it afresh.

5. A copy of this order be sent to the District Consumer Forum, South within three days from today.

6. The appellant will remain present before the District Consumer Forum, South in his Complaint Case No. 671/09 on 30.11.2009.

7. Bank Guarantee/FDR, if any furnished by the appellant, be returned forthwith.

8. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record room.

9. Announced on 04th day of November, 2009.

FIRST APPEAL NO. 69/2007.

DATE OF DECISION: 24/12/2009.

In the matter of:

Standard Chartered Bank,

H-2, Connaught Circus, New Delhi.
Appellant.

Versus
1. Shri D.R.Sood, S/o Shri N.R.Sood,

R/o Uma Niwas, Upper Kaithu, Shimla.,

2. Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata having

registered office at Flat No.2 Paul Mansions, 6,

Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata, 700 020.
Respondents.

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

Hon’ble Mrs. Saroj Sharma, Member.

Hon’ble Mr. Chander Shekhar Sharma, Member.
Whether approved for reporting ? No.


For the Appellant: Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate

Vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate.

For the Respondent No.1: Present in person.

For the Respondent No.2: None.

O R D E R:
Justice Arun Kumar Goel (Retd.), President.

M.A. No. 172/2007:

1. Appellant is aggrieved from the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by District Forum, Shimla in Complaint No.50/2006. While allowing the complaint ex parte, appellant has been directed to pay sum of Rs.1,06,455/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 17.1.2006 till actual payment was made alongwith Rs.10,000/- as cost of litigation.

2. This appeal is barred by limitation. As such M.A. No. 172/2007 has been filed for condonation of delay. It is admitted by the appellant that copy of the order dated 20.9.2006 was forwarded to it vide letter dated 10.1.2007. Assuming this position to be correct, as alleged by the appellant, as also keeping in view the fact that there were winter vacations, appeal should have been filed on the first opening day before this Commission. That was admittedly not done as is evident from the date of presentation of this appeal as it was presented on 8th March, 2007. Therefore, appeal is patently barred by time.

3. In the light of these facts now we have to deal with this application so far prayer for condonation of delay is concerned. In the aforesaid background it was urged on behalf of the appellant that in the face of the facts detailed in the application deserves to be condoned. For ready reference, contents of this application are extracted here-in-below:-

“APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5 OF LIMITATION ACT:

RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

1. That the appellant has filed the accompanying appeal against the order dated 20th September, 2006 passed in complaint case No.50/2006. The contents of the said appeal and the grounds be read as part of the present application as the contents of the same are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity.



2. That as disclosed, copy of the impugned order dated 20.9.2006 was forwarded vide letter dated 10.1.2007 of the Consumer Forum. It is the case of the appellant that they were never served and was, therefore, not having any record of the case.



3. That in view of the intimation received vide letter dated 10.1.2007, the appeal was to be filed on/or before 11.2.2007. It is submitted that the Consumer Forum as well as this Hon’ble Commission was closed on account of winter break and it resume functioning on 27.2.2007 and therefore, the appeal was to be filed immediately on the date of opening. However, the appeal could not be filed immediately on the date of opening as the Consumer Forum resume on 27.2.2007, there were some information which was to be collected from the Consumer Forum for which necessary steps were taken by the lawyer. It is further submitted that the appellant bank has no branch in Shimla and the lawyer also who was to conduct the appeal was out of station. Therefore, the appeal could not be filed immediately on the opening and there is a delay of 2-3 days which has taken place in filing the appeal.

4. That it is submitted that the delay which has taken place is bonafide and there exist sufficient reasons for condonation of delay which has taken place in filing the appeal.



5. That it is submitted that appellant has a good case on merits and therefore, the delay of 2-3 days which has taken place in filing the appeal may kindly be condoned and appellant seek indulgence of this Hon’ble Forum for this purpose.



PRAYER:



It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the delay in filing the appeal against the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Shimla in Complaint Case No.50/06 be condoned.



Any other order this Hon’ble Forum may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed.”



4. When put to notice, respondent seriously contested this application and pointed out that no sufficient cause is made out from the allegations made in the application. Amongst other things, respondent has further mentioned in his reply that application was vague and misconceived. Affidavit of the counsel or his clerk in support of the contents raised in the application was not filed and estoppel was also set up as a ground due to its own wrongful acts, deeds, conduct and acquiescence. It was further pleaded by the respondent that the appellant did not appear despite service during proceedings before District Forum below. With his reply respondent has attached an envelope, that according to him contained notice sent to the appellant by the District Forum below envelop containing the notice is also filled by the respondent. .

5. With a view to get the matter sorted out, number of orders were passed which, for ready reference, are extracted here-in-below:-

(i) “30.5.2007:



Present: Mr, Ajeet Jaswal vice Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for the Appellant.



Sh. D.R. Sood respondent in person.



Main thrust of the submission of Mr. Jaswal in this case is that all the appellant has been condemned unheard to its prejudice without their being served. Further, according to him, no notice was ever received of the complaint filed by the respondent. Thus, according to learned counsel, the order is not only illegal, arbitrary, unjust and harsh, but is also opposed to the principles of natural justice and fair play. Therefore, the appeal needs to be allowed and case remanded back to the District Forum below. After setting aside the impugned order with a direction to afford opportunity to the appellants to file their version and then after taking evidence of the parties to dispose of the matter in accordance with law.



2. So far plea based on non-service of the appellant is concerned, it is belied from the two ADs of the notices which were duly served upon opposite parties No.2 & 3. Learned counsel has been confronted these ADs. Before taking into consideration his submission, we may mention that appellant bank has been sued at three addresses. First it has been sued through Manager, N.R. (Northern Region), Standard Chartered Bank, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. Then it has been sued through Area Manager, 23-25, Mahatma Gandhi Road, Fort Mumbai and thirdly, it has been sued through 19 H.R. Benefits and Funds Administration, 19 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata. So far service at Mumbai and Kolkata is concerned acknowledgements are there on record. So far service at Delhi office who is the only appellant in this appeal is concerned, registered notice was sent to it on 20.3.2006. Since, the registered Letter was neither received back, either served or un-served and none appeared for the other two parties, therefore, appellant alongwith the other two branches were set ex-parte on 1.5.2006 by the District Forum below. For ascertaining as to when the registered letter was sent to the appellant, we had requisitioned the record of postal receipt which was also shown to the learned counsel and could not controvert the same.



Faced with this situation, Shri Jaswal submitted that this case may be taken up on 1.6.2007 for further hearing. Prayer allowed. Be listed on 1.6.2007.”



(ii) “1.6.2007:



Present: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate vice Counsel for the appellant.



Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the respondent.



Heard further.



Before further examining this case, we feel that in the circumstances of this case, let appellant place on record material to show as to how the staff erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank which subsequently merged into Standard Chartered Bank is to be dealt with so far payment of their pension, medi-claims and other benefits alike are to be ensured by the appellant-Bank. We may also note that by referring to Annexure-N, Shri Gupta learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that after 31.1.2004, his client is not liable for payment of any amount of compensation, so far reimbursement of medi-claims is concerned. For the present we say nothing in this behalf save and except that in case retired staff of the erstwhile ANZ Grindlays Bank was being reimbursed for their medi-claims, then how and from where they provide, is not the concern of the respondent. Appellant having obtained medi-claim policy if any for the retired staff and its shifting the same from one insurer to another, it is the internal matter of the Bank and it would not in any manner effect the rights of the retired staff of the Bank like the respondent in the present case, in case there is provision for medical reimbursement of the staff of ANZ Grindlays Bank.



In the light of the above facts, prayer of Shri Gupta is allowed. Case be listed for further proceedings on 29.6.2007. Meanwhile we direct that the appellant should re-examine the matter as per rules if any so far claim made in the complaint out of which the present appeal has arisen, is concerned. In case respondent is found eligible for being reimbursed either for the whole amount and/or any part thereof, pendency of this appeal will not come in the way of the appellant-Bank to reimburse after examining the whole case. Reconsideration of the matter will be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in this appeal.



Be listed on 29.6.2007. Dasti copy.”



(iii) “30.7.2007:



Present: Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate vice counsel for the appellant.



Respondent is present in person.



According to learned counsel for the appellant, though they have received a windows live hotmail print message, but complete documents have not been received.



Further according to windows live hotmail print message the staff of ANZ Grindlays Bank is to be dealt with for payment of medical claims, and pensioners settle their dues through hospitals and apply to Medicare for reimbursement. Bank pays premium to Medicare with the list of eligible pensioners and in case of any direct settlement by the latter, bank is not involved. Policy started in case of respondent once he joined ANZ Grindlays Bank, when appellant had tie-up with National Insurance Company Ltd. And in 1999 it was shifted to Medicare Services. Respondent is entitled to Medi Claim upto 31.12.2004. Bank paid premium to Medicare who will directly pay maximum sum of Rs.75,000/- after receiving original papers from him, (i.e. Sh. Dr. Sood) and in this settlement bank was not involved. Respondent was covered under Medicare upto 31.12.2004 and his claim against this date i.e. 2.3.2004 to 16.3.2004 is to be reimbursed by the Medicare.



Whereas stand of the respondent is that so far he is concerned, the amount is to be reimbursed to him by the appellant bank as was being done in the past while he was in service. He further stated that, if any arrangement is made between the bank and the Insurance Company, he has nothing to do with it, save and except that the appellant is entitled to be reimbursed by the bank, how and from where is a matter with which he is not concerned.



In the light of above facts we deem it necessary to direct that some responsible officer of the appellant bank to be present on the next date of hearing well acquainted with the rules and regulations as to what is the position of reimbursement of Medi claim if any, of the respondent and also how the bank proposes to reimburse his claims after 1st January, 2005 onwards and why his Medi claim has not been settled. In the face of the admitted position respondent is entitled to be reimbursed qua his Medi Claims upto a particular amount.



Time for depositing the balance amount in terms of order dated 16.3.2007 is extended as prayed for, which prayer is not opposed. Longer date is given at the request of Mr. Jaswal. It is made clear that in case needful is not done then the stay against execution shall stand vacated automatically, so far amount over and above Rs.25,000/- deposited in this appeal is concerned. And in such a situation the respondent willl be free to execute the order qua the balance amount without any further direction from us. List this case on 11th October, 2007.”



“Copy Dasti”.



(iv) “4.4.2008:



Present: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate,

Mr. Ajay Monga, Advocate,

Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate,

For Standard Chartered Bank Limited

alongwith Ms. Anju Sharma, Officer of the Bank.



Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the respondent with

Mr. D.R.Sood, respondent in person.



Though number of pleas were urged in support of this appeal on behalf of the appellant bank. However, its learned counsel on instructions received from the Officer of the bank stated at the Bar that the medical insurance benefits arrangement is made by the appellant with Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., at its Kolkata office. Further, according to learned counsel to these benefits employees like respondent and their family members are entitled to upto the age of 70 years, and not beyond that. This position was contested by Mr. Bhasin on instructions received from his client. We say nothing in this behalf for the present.



So far the claim made which is subject matter of this appeal is concerned, admittedly it pertains to period prior to 31.12.2004, upto which date respondent is entitled to medical insurance benefit. Earlier it was with NIC Ltd., but after it was changed and now it is with Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., which is clubbed with General Insurance Co. Ltd.



It was further stated that all admissible claims on receipt of original bills will be examined by the said Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. and within reasonable time, admissible amount will be reimbursed by the said Insurance Company to the respondent.



We feel that for doing complete justice between the parties, Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata having registered office at Flat No.2 Paul Mansions, 6, Bishop Lefroy Road, Kolkata 700020 needs to be added as party in this case, ordered accordingly. Notice be issued to this newly added respondent in this appeal returnable for 25.6.2008.



Meanwhile we feel that in the face of the above noted facts this matter needs to be sorted out without delay, if possible amicably. As such without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in this appeal, as an interim measure we order as under:-



a) that all the original bills and other relevant documents upto 31.12.2004 will be furnished by the learned counsel for the respondent alongwith a list thereof to Mr. Neeraj Gupta during the course of day to day against receipt.



b) After receipt of the originals, those will be forwarded by the appellant to the newly respondent, who shall process the same and release the admissible amount to the respondent, if any by or before 25.6.2008 under intimation to the appellant, as well as to the respondent.



c) Some responsible officer of the newly added respondent will appear in person in case, only if it has any reservation or otherwise in settling the claim. This direction is necessary keeping in view the fact that at least upto 31.12.2004, the respondent is entitled to the medical insurance benefit as admitted by the appellant from the said newly added respondent because premium stands already paid by it (the appellant), to cover such risk.



M.A.No.217 of 2008:



Amount tendered with this application is ordered to be invested with PNB, Kasumpti, Shimla. This application stands disposed of.



Since entire amount according to the appellant has been deposited in this appeal, execution and operation of the order passed by District Forum, Shimla in complaint No. 50/2006 decided on 20.9.2006 will remain stayed till the disposal of this appeal.



“Dasti copy to the parties.”



(v) “25.6.2008:



Present: Mr. Ajay Monga, Advocate with Mr. Ajit Jaswal, Advocate for

Standard Chartered Bank Ltd.



Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for the respondent with his client.



Mr. Sanjay Khanna, Advocate for the newly added respondent i.e. Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd.



When this matter came up for consideration it was stated by Mr. Khanna, that after receipt of papers from the appellant in terms of the order dated 4.4.2008 passed by us alongwith copy of the said order. He further stated that his client had taken up the matter with the Insurance Company i.e./ National Insurance Company Ltd., however till date final decision had not been taken, though as per the order dated 4.4.2008 needful should have been done by now. He prayed for extension of time for complying with the directions issued on 4.4.2008 so far release of admissible amount by the newly added respondent in favour of respondent No.1 Mr. Desh Raj Sood is concerned. There appears to be no justification in allowing this prayer particularly when all the documents were received by respondent No.2 as far back as on 7th May, 2008 from the appellant. Without saying anything further in this behalf, we hereby direct the newly added respondent i.e. Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta shall scrutinize the papers forwarded to it by the appellant and then shall release the admissible amount due and payable on or upto 31.12.2004.



In this behalf we may clarify that Mr. Monga though contested the maintainability of the complaint by Mr. Desh Raj Sood qua his client, but at the same time he fairly stated, that upto 31.12.2004 premium has been paid and respondent No.1 alongwith his family members is entitled for medical reimbursement till he, (the respondent No.1) attains the age of 70 years. This question has been left open as is evident from our earlier order and will be adjudicated upon by us. So far respondent No.2 i.e. Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., is concerned, it is duty bound in law to consider and to have thereafter released the admissible claim to respondent. Let needful be done and case is ordered to be listed on 1.8.2008.



In case the amount is not released, CMD of Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Calcutta will remain present in person, and in case he fails to appear, coercive process may have to be issued against him for procuring his presence. This direction has been necessitated in the face of the order dated 4.4.2008 and having not complied with by the newly added respondent.



“Dasti Copy.”



(vi) “28.8.2008:



Present: Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate for the appellant.



Mr. Deepak Bhasin, Advocate for respondent No.1

alongwith his client.



When this case was taken up today, Mr. Gupta prayed for adjournment, as according to him cheque in the sum of Rs.6,458/- dated 24.5.2008 has been sent to him, for what and in which case and against which medi-claim bill of the respondent, has not been informed to him.



While allowing prayer for adjournment of Mr. Gupta now following directions are issued to the appellant;



a) to produce the copy of the Rules and Regulations as ordered on 1.6.2008. In addition to this what were the terms of take over/merger of ANZ Grindlays Bank Limited, with the appellant will also be produced particularly those relating to the retired employees like respondent in this appeal of ANZ Grindlays Bank Ltd;



b) how the matter was dealt with by the appellant to ensure that admissible and due amount upto the period i.e. 31.12.2004 to which the respondent is entitled to be reimbursed by the appellant, after examination of the bills pertaining to this period those were delivered to the appellant by the respondent through its learned counsel;



c) We may clarify that M/s Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata was added as a party with the sole purpose of getting the matter settled. Instead of this being settled we are of the view that it is getting complicated, because the newly added respondent has now applied for adding National Insurance Co. Ltd. as a party. We feel that there is no need of its being added as a party. As such we reject M.A. No.589/2008 filed by the newly added respondent No.2 i.e. Medicare Services (I) Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata.



Learned counsel for the parties are directed to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Reader of the court during the course of this week. Be listed on 1.10.2008.”





6. We must confess that all our efforts failed in getting the dispute resolved, rather the decision got delayed on this count.

7. In the aforesaid circumstances it was prayed on behalf of the respondent that appeal being barred by time and no sufficient cause having been shown, the application may be dismissed and appeal be ordered to be consigned to records. We are alive to the situation that while considering a case for condonation of delay, approach of the Court does not have to be too pedantic or technical. To the contrary, it has always to be justice oriented, aimed at not only minimizing the litigation but also setting the controversy between the parties at rest for all times to come. Another reason to favourably consider an application for condonation of delay, is that no litigant stands to gain by filing a time barred lis. To the contrary, he runs the risk of getting his case dismissed. We are also aware that Courts are respected for doing justice between the parties. Therefore, on facts being there, approach of the Court has to be liberal in favour of an applicant, who applies for condonation of delay.

8. However, at the same time we are also sanguine of the fact that with a view to enable the Court to favourably consider its prayer for condonation of delay, a litigant like appellant in this appeal, is supposed to provide adequate and sufficient material on record, thus enabling the Court to condone the delay. Therefore, the party applying for condonation of delay has always to place sufficient material on record explaining that delay is bonafide. That being the position, we shall now examine whether a case is made out for condonation of delay or not.

9. It was urged on behalf of the appellant that on an overall examination, sufficient cause was made out, therefore, delay needs to be condoned. We have already extracted the contents of the application in preceding paras of this order. We are prima facie satisfied that no case is made out for condonation of delay from the application. To the contrary, if anything is made out from the contents of the application (supra), then it is only unnecessary delay, as also it cannot be said that delay in filing the appeal is bonafide.

10. Even after the appeal etc. with affidavit was prepared and attested on 19.2.2007, it was preferred on 8.3.2007. What the learned Counsel had to say in this context on behalf of the appellant, Shri Jaswal submitted that this is a hard case and according to him this application be allowed, otherwise his client will be condemned unheard. As already discussed, from the contents of the application for condonation of delay its beauty is its brevity and nothing more.

11. In addition to this, sufficient cause is neither shown nor is even made out from the facts detailed in the application. In the absence of material on record, we are unable to interfere with the impugned order. It is also by now well known that sufficient cause is a question of fact to be established by a litigant, like the appellant in this appeal. 12. Faced with the situation Shri Jaswal finally urged that in case the delay is condoned his client would only be heard on merits and nothing more. Therefore, he prayed for allowing this application. This submission on the face of it appears to be very innocuous, but when examined in depth on the facts (supra), its hollowness is exposed. Reason being that a right accrues to the respondent on account of appeal being time barred, therefore, until the appellant satisfies that there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay, prayer made by Shri Jaswal needs to be rejected. Ordered accordingly.

13. For the view we have taken in this case while rejecting the application for condonation of delay, we place reliance on the Four Member Bench of the National Commission in the case of Cativision Products Ltd. vs. Nagpur Entertainment and News Network and Another, 2005 (1) CPC 357 and of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of P.K. Ramachandran vs. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1998 SC 2276.



In the light of the above discussion, no cause much less sufficient cause is made out from the facts detailed in the application as extracted here-in-above, therefore, this application is dismissed.

APPEAL NO. 69/2007.

Since delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, as such this appeal is ordered to be consigned to record as time barred.

All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith.

Learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order free of cost from the Court Secretary. A copy of this order also be sent by post to the respondent No.2, free of cost as per rules.

Complaint Case No.:1545 of 2008

Date of Inst:24.12.2008

Date of Decision:18.11.2009

Karnail Singh s/o Sh.Dalip Singh r/o H.No.1030, Phase VII, Mohali.

---Complainant
V E R S U S
1. Standard Chartered Bank through its M.D., 90, Mahatma Gandhi Road-400001, Mumbai.
2. Incharge Card Services, Standard Chartered Bank through its Branch Manager, SCO No.137-138, Sector 9-C, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh
3. Tata Finance through its Branch Manager, # 1328, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh
---Opposite Parties

QUORUM SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA PRESIDENT

SMT.URVASHI AGNIHOTRI MEMBER

SHRI ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI MEMBER

PRESENT: Sh.Varun Katyal, Adv. for complainant

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs.


PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

Sh.Karnail Singh has filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying therein that OP be directed to pay Rs.2 lacs as compensation for mental harassment caused to him and his family members besides costs of litigation.



2. In brief, the case of the complainant is that on the persistent persuasion of the representatives of the OP, he agreed to have a credit card of OP-Bank. The representatives of OPs got signed some papers from him. After waiting for some time, he did not receive any credit card of OP-Bank. Therefore, he obtained credit card of ICICI Bank and is paying his dues regularly. According to the complainant, his son wanted to purchase a vehicle. So he applied for loan to Tata Finance. Tata Finance Company asked his son to arrange for a surety/guarantor. The complainant wanted to act as surety for his son. But OP-3 refused to accept the surety of the complainant as he (the complainant) was shown defaulter of Standard Chartered Bank for non-payment of Rs.19000/- towards the credit card account. The complainant was shocked to see that a credit card was shown to have issued in his name during the year 2004 and an amount of Rs.19000/- was shown as outstanding. The complainant immediately contacted Mr.Vishal Gulati, Executive of OP-Bank and met higher officials and made them aware of all the situation but his name was not removed from the defaulter list. Subsequently, the complainant made a representation (Annexure C-1) to the OP-Bank and upon which OP replied as under:-

“we have arranged to reverse the balance amount outstanding on your card account ending 9617. This credit will reflect in your next statement.

Post reversals, there will be no amount outstanding on your card account”.

According to the complainant, due to the above said acts of the OPs, he and his family suffered mental agony and harassment. In these circumstances, the present complaint was filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3. In the reply filed by OPs No.1 and 2, it has been pleaded that since the card amount has been reversed on the request of the complainant and therefore, there is no deficiency in service on its part. It has been pleaded that Satyam online has not been impleaded as an OP. It has further been pleaded that the list is a list of all customers and not of defaulters. In these circumstances, according to OP, there is no deficiency in service on its part and the complaint deserves dismissal.

4. In its separate written statement, OP-3 pleaded that no relief is claimed against it and therefore, the complaint qua it deserves dismissal.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including documents, annexures, affidavits etc.

6. Admittedly, a sum of Rs.19000/- was shown as outstanding against the complainant in the records of OP-Bank. The entry regarding the outstanding amount against complainant is not correct and genuine. So OPs No.1 and 2 reversed the said entry. Though the case of OPs No.1 and 2 is that credit card was issued to the complainant but no document showing the receipt of the credit card by the complainant has been placed on record. On the other hand, the complainant has filed an affidavit to the effect that he has not received any credit card from OPs No.1 and 2. Thus showing an outstanding amount of Rs.19000/-, against the complainant, on the online net without any basis amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs No.1 and 2. No doubt, the said entry has been reversed. However, by putting the name of the complainant in the list of defaulter and putting the said list online net, OPs No.1 and 2 have caused mental agony and harassment to the complainant.

7. The complaint against OP-3 stands dismissed as no relief is claimed by the complainant against it.

8. In view of the above findings, this complaint is allowed with a direction to OPs No.1 and 2 to pay a sum of Rs.7000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental agony and harassment besides Rs.5000/- as costs of litigation.

9. This order be complied with by OPs No.1 and 2 within one month from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which OPs No.1 and 2 shall be liable to refund the aforesaid amount of Rs.7000/- to the complainant along with penal interest @ 18 % p.a. from the date of order till its realization besides costs of litigation.

10. Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.
Announced

Complaint no.373 of 5.6.2008.

Date of Order 10.11.2009
Tarandeep Singh Khatra son of Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh, resident of H.No.2452, H.I.G. Flats, Phase-II, Dugri Road, Urban Estate, Ludhiana.

…..Complainant.
Versus
Standard Chartered Bank, SCO 16-17, Feroze Gandhi Market, Ludhiana, through its Manager.

….Opposite parties.

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 12 OF THE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

Quorum:-

Sh. T.N. Vaidya, President.

Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Member.

Present:- Ms Simran Kaur Gurm Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Jaswinder Singh Adv. for opposite parties.

O R D E R
T.N.VAIDYA, PRESIDENT:

1- Complainant who was working with Fullerton India Credit Company Limited, had taken credit card no.4129/0348-9006-3503 from opposite party bank, in the year 2004. Against this card, he obtained loan of Rs.15,000/- vide loan I.D. No.9356-5008-0111-5353 from opposite party bank, returnable in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.1332/-. Complainant paid first installment in his credit card account and was called by officials of the opposite party that it was to be credited to loan account and not credit card account. They asked him to pay in future installments in loan account and that first installment would be transferred by them to his loan account. Then complainant continuously and regularly paid loan installments. Then obtained housing loan of Rs.7 lacs from opposite party on 5.10.2005, returnable in 120 equated monthly installments of Rs.6567/-. These installments were paid regularly. In the meantime, complainant sought top loan of Rs.3 lacs and on 14.3.2007, opposite party asked him to pay Rs.15,685/- due and recoverable on account of credit card loan amount of the complainant. Complainant showed all the receipts of payment and that nothing was due, under loan account from him. But they remained adamant. As complainant was in need of top up loan, so by force deposited Rs.15,685/- on 14.3.2007 to opposite party, obtained no due certificate after paying Rs.15,685/-. Then, loan of Rs.3 lacs was advanced. Opposite party wrongly and illegally entered name of the complainant on website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., showing him defaulter of Rs.15,685/-, due to which he had to lose his job with Fullerton India Credit Company Ltd. It is for refund of Rs.15,685/-, the present complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is instituted, claiming that opposite party adopted unfair trade practice and by force, got deposited Rs.15,685/- in credit card loan account from the complainant, though he had already paid the same earlier. He has also claimed compensation of Rs.5 lacs and Rs.2 lacs for deficiency of service, alongwith Rs.11000/- litigation costs.

2- Opposite party in reply took stand that complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint, he has twisted the facts; this Fora has no jurisdiction to try the same; complainant is not a consumer and there is no deficiency in service on their part. It is admitted that complainant obtained credit card from them also took loan of Rs.15,000/- on his credit card relationship in April, 2005. Complainant also then took house loan of Rs.7 lacs. But claimed that complainant despite reminders, failed to pay EMIs of credit card loan account regularly. So, due to such reason, financial charges as well as interest had been debited to the account of the complainant. Also conceded that complainant approached them for top up loan of Rs.3 lacs in March, 2007, but denied that he was forced at that time, to pay Rs.15,685/-, to receive the loan. Rather, that amount was due from the complainant, in his credit card loan account. Against paying loan amount of Rs.15,982.68, he simply paid Rs.15,632.76. So, due to such reason, interest penalty was liable to be paid by him, including late charges. But it is denied that they wrongly charged that amount from the complainant. Nor due to their act, complainant was forced to leave his job. No wrong information on website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. was provided by them. No illegal or unlawful act was committed by them. So, complaint being false, deserves dismissal.

3- Both parties adduced evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their counsels.

4- There are two disputed aspects in the case. Firstly, whether opposite party forced complainant to pay Rs.15,685/- against his credit card loan account, despite having received the same, as per loan EMIs. The second point is whether opposite party despite receipt of such amount, wrongly and illegally displayed on website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., name of complainant, causing immense suffering to his reputation and prestige.

5- Aforesaid aspects have cropped up in the light of admitted and undisputed aspects that in 2004, complainant obtained Visa Olympic Primary Card from the opposite party. Then against this card, he took loan of Rs.15,000/-, vide loan ID No.9356-5008-0111-5353, returnable in 12 equated monthly installments of Rs.1332/-. Complainant claimed that he had paid that amount in agreed instalments. But when sought further top up loan of Rs.3 lacs, was forced by opposite party to repay the amount of Rs.15,685/-, on the ground that he hadn’t repaid the credit card loan amount.

6- In order to show payment in installments of credit card loan account, complainant has brought on record, receipts Ex.C9 to Ex.C19 . Under these receipts, full and entire amount of installments of Rs.1332/- wasn’t paid by the complainant regularly. It would be apparent from the following chart prepared from these receipts:



Sr. No.


Receipt Exhibit


Date of Payment


Amount Paid(Rs.)

1


C9


July, 2005


1300

2


C10


5.8.2005


1300

3


C11


7.10.2005


1332

4


C12


3.11.2005


1332

5


C13


6.12.2005


900

6


C14


22.12.2005


450

7


C15


4.1.2006


1332

8


C16


4.2.2006


1332

9


C17


6.3.2006


1332

10


C18


3.4.2006


1332

11


C19


3.5.2006


1332

Under all these receipts, complainant consequently paid Rs.13,274/- to opposite party. Though was required to pay Rs.15,984/-. So, he stands belied that had paid all the installments regularly and was forced to pay Rs.15,685/-, in order to avail top up loan of Rs.3 lacs. This amount he was forced to pay on the ground of delayed payment, penal interest etc. as had failed to repay the credit card loan amount within 12 months, as agreed by him with opposite party. So, for refund of the same, in our view, complainant would not be entitled.

7- Now adverting to second plea of displaying on website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., the name of the complainant. Ex.C25 is CIBIL Consumer Credit Information Report dated 2.4.2008 pertaining to the complainant. This report was lodged by opposite party with CIBIL on 19.2.2008, due to non payment of Rs.15,684/-, status of which was recorded as “Written Off”. This account is stated to be opened on 4.8.2004 and last payment received on 17.3.2007, closed on 17.3.2006 and reported on 31.1.2008. Though it is admitted case of the parties that complainant in order to avail top up loan of Rs.3 lacs, had paid Rs.15,685/- to opposite party, vide cheque dated 14.3.2007 of Rs.8000/- and obtained receipt Ex.C22 and Rs.7685/- vide cheque and obtained receipt Ex.C21 dated 14.3.2007. Consequently on 15.3.2007, opposite party bank had issued no due certificate in favour of the complainant. As there was no dues outstanding in credit card loan account of the complainant and the complainant, as paid Rs.15,685/- on 15.3.2007.

8- So, apparent that nothing was due qua credit card account of the complainant towards the opposite party, as he had cleared that account and obtained NOC Ex.C23 dated 15.3.2007 from the opposite party. But despite receipt of payment and issuance of NOC, opposite party displayed name of the complainant on website Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., as apparent from their report Ex.C25. This report as per entry was lodged on 31.1.2008. Though, much prior thereto on 15.3.2007, complainant had cleared his credit card loan account. Consequently, by displaying name of the complainant in website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd., opposite party certainly would be guilty of misconduct and resorting to unfair trade practice which must have caused immense loss of reputation to the complainant. Though, there is no link qua blacklisting name of the complainant and his leaving the job of Fullerton India Credit Company Limited. But we agree with sentiments of the complainant that his reputation was hurt, causing immense loss to him. It happened due to negligent act of the opposite party.

9- Therefore, for such negligent act on part of opposite party, we allow this complaint and consequently, order opposite party to get removed name of the complainant from the website of Credit Information Bureau (India) Ltd. and also to pay him compensation of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand Only) alongwith litigation costs of Rs.4000/-. Order be complied within 45 days of receipt of copy of order which be made available to the parties free of charge. File be completed and consigned to record room after registration.

Dear sir/madam,
i was possessing a credit card of STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. However they had atached
one life insurance product into the same without obtaining any written approval from
my side. I neither made any use of that insurance product nor made any other use of
card. Now i have alredy submited my card as i found the their this behavior qiute
unsatisfactory & bank is now using Recovery agents to recover the money which i
have never used .
Kindly suggest me the protection against the bank
Kindly also guide me whether bank is right of lien aginst my account in the same bank.

Ritesh Chakravarty
Jaipur
9829182379
9829272379

Consumer Complaint No

1167 of 2009

Date of Institution

18.08.09

Date of Decision


24.12.09

Madan Mohan Malhotra, s/o Late Sh.Ram Sharan Dass, Aged 65 years, r/o #3398, Sector 46-C, Chandigarh.

…..Complainant

V E R S U S

1]Standard Chartered Bank, SCO NO.137-138, First Floor, Sector-9, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, through its Branch Manager.

2]Standard Chartered Bank, Consumer Banking, Customer Care Unit, Chennai, through its In-charge Officer.

……Opposite Parties

CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER

Argued by: Sh. Ajit Singh, Adv. for complainant.

Sh. Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OPs



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Succinctly put, the complainant in the month of July 2005, got the Balance Transfer Offer of Rs.30,000/- from his credit card to other bank i.e. Citi Bank and the amount of Rs.30,000/- was transferred by the OP bank vide letter dated 16.07.05. The installment of Rs.995/- for 36 months was fixed to be paid by the complainant and a total amount which was to be paid by the complainant was Rs.35,820/- from July 2005 to July 2008 which comes to 36 installments. The complainant submitted that he deposited an amount of Rs.14,950/- from 2005 to July 2007 which was deducted from his bank account and further stated that OP bank also collected an amount of Rs.50,423 from him through their agents. The complainant stated that a recovery team of OP approached him in the month of February 2008 and threatened that non-bailable warrants have been issued from Delhi Court against him and at the same time the recovery team gave a proposal of settlement of accounts upto Rs.40,000/- against Rs.55,558.67P. The complainant stated that he signed the proposal letter of settlement of accounts dated 18.02.08 to escape from the fear of non-bailable warrant and arrest. On 19.02.08, the complainant gave the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the recovery team of OP bank. The complainant later on came to know that against total amount of Rs.35,820/- i.e. an installment of Rs.995/- of 36 months from July 2005 to July 2008, the amount of Rs.65,373/- has already been recovered by OP bank upto the month of February, 2008, i.e. 5 months prior to the expiry of the loan period whereas in the month of February 2008, Rs.30,845/- was due(i.e. Rs.995 x 31 installments) to be paid by the complainant. After the complainant noticed, that he had paid excess amount of Rs.34,525/- to OP bank, he contacted OP-1 and OP-2 several times to refund the excess amount and was told many times by OP-2 that they were working on the query and would revert shortly but no positive response was sent by the OP bank till date. Hence this complaint alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and the complainant prayed that the OP bank be directed to refund the excess amount of Rs.34,525/- and pay compensation towards mental torture and harassment caused to him.

2. In their written reply OP-1 and OP-2 admitted the factual matrix of the case and stated that the payment was required to be made in accordance with the terms and conditions of the credit card which the complainant failed to abide and has purposely not produced on record, the monthly statement of accounts in respect of the said credit card. OPs stated that apart from the said transfer of the loan facility, the complainant was also enjoying the benefit of the credit card, that as per the document produced by the complainant, it was evident, that the amount to be paid by the complainant to the OP bank as on 19.02.08 was Rs.55,558.67P. After that it was mutually agreed between the complainant and OP bank, that on the payment of an amount of Rs.40,000/- the OP bank was ready to settle the dues payable by the complainant to the OP bank in full and final, though an amount greater than the same was payable to the bank. OPs further stated that the payment has been made by the complainant, in accordance with the letter of settlement and the settlement agreement has been signed by the complainant himself, after which the account of the complainant was settled in full and final. OPs lastly stated that the payments as made by the complainant are a combination of the balance transfer as well as the credit card. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant, OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint with costs.

3. Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4. We have heard the parties and have also perused the record.

5. The contention of the complainant is that the OPs have taken from him more amount than was due, that he had been paying installments regularly and the OPs have charged from him Rs.34,525/- excess which amounts to an unfair trade practice on their part. His contention is that the OPs should be burdened with Rs.2,00,000/- for mental torture and harassment and should refund excess amount of Rs.34,525/- alongwith Rs.7,000/- as miscellaneous expenses. The OPs have produced the account statements starting from Feb, 2006 now marked as Annexure R-1 (Colly). The statements show that the complainant was paying the amount by cheque and had been issued two visa cards against which also he used to make purchases. He was not even paying the minimum payment and every time this fact was pointed out to the complainant through the monthly statements that he had missed his minimum payment due and therefore the balance attracted finance charges. The card facility was temporarily suspended as is clear from the statements dated 06.02.06, 7.05.06, 6.09.06 and the card facility was ultimately cancelled as per statement dated 6.11.06. He was then informed through the statement dated 6.12.06 that his name had been included in the defaulters list, which was a serious matter and affected his creditworthiness. He was asked to contact the manager customer assistance. This fact was repeated in all the remaining statements. The statements dated 6.02.08 shows that a sum of Rs.55,558.67P was due from him. In order to recover their amount the OPs through their letter dated 18.02.08 Annexure C-9 told him that they were compelled to settle the credit card account and were constrained to accept the payment of Rs.40,000/- only against a total outstanding of Rs.55,558.67P. The complainant agreed and readily came forward to deposit the said amount vide Annexure C-10. The complainant was then informed vide letter dated 25.08.08 that there was no amount payable towards his credit card amount and he would not receive any statement in this regard. Ordinarily when the complainant had been receiving the account statements and knew that a sum of Rs.55,558.67P was due from him and he ultimately agreed to settle the account by paying a sum of Rs.40,000/-, he should have felt satisfied but he wrote a letter dated 18.09.08 Annexure C-12 that the OPs have received from him excess amount of Rs.37,000/- because only a sum of Rs.3,000/- was due from him. The matter was inquired into by the OPs. The complainant however filed the present complaint to recover the said amount alongwith compensation and miscellaneous expenses. He however could not produce any document to suggest if he had been paying the amount regularly against the credit card statements which were being received by him. He could not prove that the amount of Rs. 55,558.67P was not due from him on 6.02.08 or that only Rs. 3,000/- was due. Otherwise also when the complainant agreed to settle the account for Rs. 40,000/- he would have verified the facts and agreed to the same only if the settlement was to his advantage. However the greed of the complainant was not satisfied even by coughing Rs.15,558.67P which was given by the OPs as rebate. The present complaint has been lodged by the complainant due to that greed to harass the OPs and to garner the handsome amount of Rs.2,41,525/- in the shape of refund and compensation. We are therefore of the opinion that there is no merit in this complaint which has been filed by the complainant with the malafide intention to harass the OPs and to enrich himself unduly at their cost. We accordingly dismiss the complaint.

6. Since the complainant has filed this complaint with malafide intention and the complaint is false and frivolous, the complainant is directed to pay to the OPs a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards the costs of litigation.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

Complaint Case No : 1084 of 2009

Date of Institution : 31.07.2009

Date of Decision : 09.12.2009



Dinesh Kumar son of late Sh.Mohan Lal, R/o 3389/1, Sector 45/D, Chandigarh.

….…Complainant

V E R S U S

Standard Chrtered, SCO No.137-138, Madhya Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh.

..…Opposite Party



CORAM: SH.JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL PRESIDENT

SH.SIDDHESHWAR SHARMA MEMBER

DR.(MRS) MADHU BEHL MEMBER



Argued by: Complainant in person.

Sh.Sandeep Suri, Adv. for OP.



PER SHRI JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, PRESIDENT

Concisely put, the complainant and his wife were issued Credit Cards (Visa Gold) by the OP but the same were never used since date of their issuance. However, the OP without any request sent a cheque of Rs.30,000/- as a loan in favour of the complainant, which was immediately returned vide letter dated 19.1.2005 (Ann.C-1). It is averred that the OP issued one statement of account dated 6.2.2005 (Ann.C-2) and thereafter did not issue any such statement till June, 2009. It is also averred that on 26.6.2009 complainant received a telephonic call to the effect that OP had lodged a complaint against him and his wife before JMIC, Jodhpur where they had to appear on 27.6.2009. He was also asked to contact one Vashisht, Legal Advisor of OP, who told the complainant that an amount of Rs.16,470/- was due from him on his credit card. It is next averred that the complainant had to deposit the said amount with OP but inspite of that the OPs did not supply him either the account statement or the copies of the proceedings of the court. It is asserted that due to the above deficient act of OP, the complainant had to suffer great mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss. Hence, the present complaint has been filed.

2] OP filed reply and admitted the issuance of credit cards to the complainant and his wife. It is stated that the facility on the said credit cards was free only for the first year and not for life, as alleged. The Credit Cards were available with the complainant and his wife for the purposes of usage as and when they liked and they never surrendered it and continued to enjoy the credit card facility. It is also stated that since the complainant never surrendered the credit cards and availed the facility thereof, as such he was liable to pay the charges accrued thereon including charges of Annual Fees. As regards the advancement of loan of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant, it is submitted that the same was cancelled on the request of the complainant. The complainant has been regularly issued the monthly statements and the amount deposited by the complainant was as per the statement issued to him with regard to availing facility of credit cards. All other the allegations have been denied and it is prayed that the complaint be dismissed.

3] Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4] We have heard the complainant and ld.Counsel for OP and have perused the file.

5] There is no dispute about it that the complainant holds a credit card issued by the OP and that a cheque of Rs.30,000/- was sent to him by the OP as a loan without any request from the complainant. The OP admitted having sent the cheque as loan but have not been able to produce any such document to suggest, if any request was made by the complainant for granting him the above said amount of loan. It appears the OP is squandering the money even without request and causing harassment to their customers. The complainant has to send the money back, sending the request annexure C-1 that the Demand Draft should be cancelled. Annexure C-2 is the copy of the statement showing that the amount was sent as a loan to the complaint and the same was thereafter returned. This in itself constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

6] It appears that OP got infuriated due to the return of the unwanted loan by the complainant. OP therefore started threatening him to pay Rs.16,470/- and also imposed a sum of Rs.493.18/- on him. The call made to the complainant was a threat given to him that a criminal case has been lodged before the JMIC, Jodhpur from where the warrant would be obtained, if he did not pay the said amount promptly. It was on account of this threat that the complainant had to deposit the said amount. It is admitted that the amount of Rs.16,470/- was paid by the complainant on 26.06.09. The OP has attached in their reply the credit card statement dated 27.05.09(now marked as Ann. R-1) showing that the sum of Rs.16,469.65P was due from the complainant , there is another statement dated 28.06.09(now marked as annexure R-2) showing that the said amount was paid by the complainant on 26.06.09. However, even after the payment of the total amount, the OP showed in annexure R-2 another sum of Rs.493.53P, on the very next date that is 27.06.09, showing it to be interest. The said amount was carried forward in the next statement annexure R-3 dated 21.07.09. However, without any deposit having been made by the complainant, the said amount was said to have been credited leaving zero balance. The Learned Counsel for the complainant has argued that it was done only after repeated phone calls and visits made by the complainant to their office causing mental and physical harassment to the complainant. This conduct of the OP is deplorable and they must compensate the complainant for the harassment caused to him.

7] The Learned Counsel for the OP has argued that the use of the credit card was free only for one year and thereafter the complainant was liable to pay the charges therefor. This fact is denied by the complainant. The OP however did not produce any such contract between the parties under which the complainant was liable to pay rent for use of the credit card after the expiry of one year. It appears that the OP is introducing a new term in the existing agreement to harass the complainant to pay the charges which are not due from him. It also amount the unfair trade practice adopted by the OP which they may be adopting in number of other cases also.

8] Needless to mention that the facts referred to above have caused mental and physical harassment to the complainant for which he needs to be compensated. The OP is therefore directed not to demand any such rent etc. from the complainant for use of the credit card. The OP is also directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs of Rs.1,100/-, from the date of receipt of the copy of this order failing which they will be liable to pay the same alongwith penal interest @12% p.a. since the date of filing of the complaint i.e.31.07.09, till the amount is paid to the complainant. The complaint stands allowed in above terms.

Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.