Instant appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been filed by the Appellants/Complainants challenging the Judgement and Order dated 28.12.2015 passed by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in CC/363/2015 disposing of the case finally on the basis of the admission of the OP/Bank and on the basis of the settlement made by the OP/Bank by giving all the redressal to the Complainants.

          The facts of the case, in brief, were that the Appellants/Complainants came into settlement with the Respondent/OP Bank in respect of his overdue payments on the credit card account bearing No.4129 0370 9001 7899 17722 60 issued by the Respondent OP/Bank in favour of the Appellant/Complainant No.1.

          Annexure-I, running page-33, being the letter dated 03.10.2000 addressed to the Appellant/Complainant No.1 indicated that the settled amount of Rs.13,000/- was agreed by both the parties to be liquidated by the Appellant/Complainant No.1 in three successive and equal monthly instalments of Rs.4,333.33 each without any break.

          The father of the Respondent/Complainant, a senior citizen and the person of repute as well, the Appellant/Complainant No.2, volunteered to repay the said settled amount on behalf of the Appellant/Complainant No.1 and accordingly, issued three post dated cheques, each of Rs.4,333.33 dated 03.10.2000, 03.11.2000 and 03.12.2000 to be encashed in October, November and December 2000 respectively.

          The letter dated 03.10.2000 also recorded acceptance of three cheques, each of the said amount.  The said letter also clarified about the settlement becoming null and void in case of any missed payment or any of the handed over cheques being dishonoured.

          The Bank’s statement for the corresponding months, i.e., October, November and December, 2000, however, revealed that the instalment amounts were debited in the month of October and December, 2000 but, there was no debit of instalment amount in the month of November, 2000.  The terms of settlement being violated this way, the Bank recorded the Appellant/Complainant No.1 a defaulter in the CIBIL.  The adverse status so recorded in the CIBIL, as alleged, turned to be a cause for non-sanction of further loan from any bank which actually stood in the way of the prospect of the future action plan of Appellant/Complainant No.1.

          The cheque for the month of November, 2000 being one of the three handed over cheques to the Respondent/OP, the onus for non-encashment of the said cheque, as alleged, devolved upon the Respondent/OP itself and none else.

          The Appellants/Complainants being aggrieved with the above alleged unlawful activities and deficiency in rendering service by the Respondent/OP Bank, filed before the Ld. District Forum the complaint which the impugned Judgement and Order relates to.

          Heard Appellant/Complainant No.2 in person and Ld. Advocate on behalf of the Respondent/OP. 

          The Appellant/Complainant No.2 submitted that on the basis of the settlement arrived at between the Appellant/Complainant No.1 and the Respondent/OP, the Appellant/Complainant No.2 handed over three cheques to be encashed on three successive months of October, November and December, 2000 each amounting to Rs.4,333.33.

          It is not understood, as the Appellant/Complainant continued, how one of the three cheques which were under possession of the Respondent/OP was not encashed and if it was at all not encashed, the Appellants/Complainants should not at all be made responsible for the same as they had handed over to the Respondent/OP all the cheques in terms of the settlement.

          The Respondent/OP Bank, as the Appellant/Complainant No.2 continued further, harassed the Appellants/Complainants claiming for full payment even by sending muscle men at the residence of the Appellants/Complainants.  The Respondent/OP Bank, as submitted, admitted full repayment of the amount settled afterwards and offered for a negotiation which the Appellants/Complainants did not agree.

          The Appellant/Complainant No.2 maintained that the Respondent/OP, not appreciating his own fault for non-encashment of the subject cheque under his possession, reflected an adverse remark in the CIBIL which stood in the way of sanction of fund by other banks.  This way, the Appellant/Complainant No.1, as the Appellant/Complainant No.2 continued, was deprived of the loan facilities from the financial institution which prevented him from giving shape to his own plan of action in future.

          With the above submission, the Appellant/Complainant No.2 prayed for the appeal to be allowed. 

          The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent/OP, on the contrary, submitted that the bank statement for October, 2000 at running page-48 showed that an amount of Rs. 4,333.33 was debited.  Similarly, a debit of Rs.4,334/- was seen in the statement of the month of December,2000 at page-49 but, no debit was found in the statement of November,2000 at page – 47.  Term of the settlement was violated this way by the Appellant/Complainant No.1.

          Drawing notice of the Bench to running page-50, the Ld. Advocate submitted that as per statement dated 27.04.2015, the minimum payment due was shown as nil and at running page-52, the statement dated 31.05.2015 reflected the status of the loan as ‘settled’ with the date of last payment made as 05.12.2000.

          In view of the facts that the matter has already been settled, the ld. Advocate submitted that the appeal should be dismissed affirming the impugned judgement and order.

          Perused the papers on record.  Admittedly, there was an amount outstanding for payment by the Appellants/Complainants in respect of the credit card account issued in favour of them by the Respondent/OP Bank.  Further, admittedly, there was a settlement arrived at between the parties when the parties agreed to the repayment of Rs.13,000/- by the Appellant/Complainant in three equal instalments of Rs.4,333.33.

          The record revealed that three post dated cheques were issued by the Appellant/Complainant No.2, being the father of the Appellant/Complainant No.1 and handed over to the Respondent/OP.  The record revealed further that one of the cheques meant for payment of instalment for the month of November,2000 was not encashed.  The Appellant/Complainant No.1, since handed over all the three cheques to the Respondent/OP, the onus of non-encashment of the subject should be devolved upon the Respondent/OP Bank.

          It is a fact that the Respondent /OP Bank should have been more careful while recording  any adverse remark against the
Appellant /Complainant No. 1. At the same time, it is also a fact that the Respondent/OP had shown a good gesture allowing Appellant/Complainant No.1 to repay the settled amount in instalments.

          Needless to mention that being a defaulter in repayment of loan, the Appellant/Complainant No.1 had already incurred the demerits for being considered as Consumer.  The order dated 02.05.2014 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in Revision Petition No.4579/2012 is relevant in this regard.

          Further, the Appellants/Complainants’ prayer for compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- appeared to be disproportionately high for actually no financial loss for the Appellant/Complainant No.1.  The claim, in the light of the above, prima facie, appears to be untenable one.

          Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances narrated above, we are of the considered view that the impugned judgement and order does not deserve any intervention from this Commission.

          Hence, Ordered that the appeal be and same be dismissed on contest. The impugned judgement and order is affirmed. No order as to costs.