Sri Utpal Kumar Bhattacharya, Member

            This is an Appeal under Section 15 of the CP, Act, 1986 filed by the Appellants challenging the judgment and order dated 29.06.2012 passed by the Ld. District Forum Unit-I, Kolkata in Complaint Case No. 59/2011 with the directions as under:-

            “That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against the O.Ps with cost. O.Ps are jointly and/or severally to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on Rs. 46,680.83/- from the date of reverse of the said amount as direction of this Forum in SB A/C. of the Complainant and O.Ps are directed to return the Bank Guarantee to the Complainant in this regard and Complainant need not renewed the Bank Guarantee any longer and O.Ps are further directed to pay to the Complainant compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) only for her harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.e. an interest @ 9% p. a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the Complainant till full realization.”

            The case is that the Respondent/Complainant, the holder of salary Account bearing No. 33710025787 being maintained with the Appellant/O.P No. 1 Bank Branch was allocated, on application, a credit card known as “Visa Silver Personal” bearing Card No. 4563-9810-3897-4509 by the said Appellant/O.P No. 1.

            The Appellant/O.P No. 1 Bank subsequently allocated two more credit cards being “Master Silver International” bearing No. 5431-8620-0037-5536 as well as EMI card being numbered as 5543-7441-5734-0841 to the Respondent/Complainant allegedly without obtaining prior consent or any approval from the Respondent/Complainant.

            The Respondent/Complainant, as further alleged, had used the said credit card till 2004 when, after all the dues being cleared in respect of the said three credit cards, the Respondent/Complainant surrendered the cards.

            The complication surfaced when the Appellant/O.P Bank, all of a sudden, after a lapse of almost six years, claimed the amounts of Rs. 37,416.92/-, Rs. 5023.42/- and Rs. 2927.85/-, total being 45368.19/-, as overdues in respect of credit card Nos. 9356-5008-0123-9880, 4563-9810-3897-4509 and 5431-8620-0037-5536 respectively from the Respondent/Complainant and ultimately, without providing the Respondent/Complainant any opportunity whatsoever to submit her defence against the arbitrarily claim, realised from her Savings Bank Account an amount of Rs. 46,680.83/- as a measure, allegedly faulty, to set off the credit card balance.

            The Respondent/Complainant reported in the complaint that no credit card bearing No. 9356-5008-0123-9880 was actually allocated to her. She, as contended, was reported by the Appellant/O.P Bank that for the sake of Banker’s convenience her erstwhile credit card No. 5543-7441-5734-0841 was renumbered as 9356-5008-0123-9880. The deduction from salary Account, being allegedly arbitrary and illegal, the aggrieved Respondent/Complainant demanded from the Appellant/O.P Bank the statement in respect of her all credit card Accounts for being satisfied about adjustment made from her Savings Bank Account for the amount allegedly overdrawn. The demand being not heeded to by the Appellant/O.P Bank authorities, the Respondent/Complainant filed the complaint before the Ld. District Forum. The impugned judgment and order, which was under challenged in the instant Appeal, arose from the said Complaint case.

            The appeal was heard ex parte against the Respondents.

            The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted that the Appellant/O.P Bank did exactly what it was supposed to do for realizing the overdues. As contended, formal communication made to the Respondent/Complainant requesting for the payment of overdues being left un heeded to, the Appellant/O.P Bank had, in fact, no alternative means but to realize the overdue amount from the salary Account being maintained with the Appellant/O.P No. 1 Bank.

            As submitted, not a single document was cited by the Respondent/Complainant in confirmation of her claim of surrendering the credit cards.

            The Ld. Advocate continued to submit that the  Forum’s order, although farthest from any reasoning, the Appellants/O.Ps, giving honour to the said order, had complied with the Forum’s direction to the extent of re-crediting to the Respondent’s/Complainant’s Account the deducted/realized amount of RS. 46,680.83/-only.

            The Complaint, as the Ld. Advocate contended, revolved mainly round the litigation cost and compensation passed in the impugned order which, the Appellants/O.Ps had hardly any liability to comply with.

            The Ld. Advocate, with the above submission, prayed for the Appeal to be allowed.

Perused the papers on record and considered submission of the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants/O.Ps. It appears from the BNA at para (m) that the Appellants/O.Ps have complied with the order of the Ld. District Forum so far as the re-crediting of the disputed sum of Rs. 46,680.83/- and for furnishing Bank guarantee.

            We fail to understand why a part of an order claimed to have been passed by the Ld. District Forum allegedly without application of mind and arbitrarily, was complied with by the Appellants/O.Ps. Didn’t the Appellants/O.Ps acknowledge their own deficiency agreeing to the above mentioned part compliance of the impugned order? So, conclusively, the Appellants/O.Ps had realized that there was deficiency in rendering services on their part, particularly when disputed amount was adjusted from the salary Accounts of the Respondents/Complainants which the question of subsistence is implicated with.  Again, when there was deficiency, there came the point of payment of compensation which only reflected in the impugned judgment and order and the Appellants/O.Ps are supposed to carry out the same except that part which needed lawful rectification.

            We, in the above circumstances, feel no qualms to arrive at the decision that the Ld. District Forum has made no wrong assessment of the case.

            We, however, feel that the Ld. District Forum is not justified to order for payment of interest on the refundable amount and compensation both together.  We also feel that the cost and compensation have been assessed at a higher side in the impugned order and need to be suitably reduced.  Accordingly, we intend to modify the said order incorporating therein required corrections to that extent.  We, however, refrain from discussing any other point raised in course of submission by the Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellants /O.P. 

 Hence, it is

                      ORDERED

                                                that the Appeal be and the same is allowed in part.  The Appellants/O.Ps are directed jointly and severally to reverse or re-credit the amount of Rs.46,680.83/- to the subject S.B A/C of the Respondent/Complainant. They are further directed to pay litigation cost and compensation of Rs.5,000/- and 10,000/- respectively within 45 days from the date of the  instant order, failing which, simple interest @ 9% p.a  shall accrue to Rs.56,680.83/- only, being the total of the refund amount and compensation, from the date of default till the entire amount of Rs.61,680.83/- is fully realized. The impugned judgement and order stands modified accordingly.