Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member
Aggrieved with the decision of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I(North) dated 20-07-2017, whereof the complaint case has been dismissed, this Appeal is filed by Sri Ashok Kumar Khan, the Complainant.
The complaint case, as narrated in the petition of complaint, in brief, is that, on receipt of statement of accounts in respect of the credit cards from the OP Bank, the Complainant used to pay the outstanding dues regularly. As per the demand of the OP Bank, he paid the settlement sum in the year 2004. In the month of October, 2015, he applied for a personal loan from another bank. However, the said bank refused to grant any loan to him on the ground that as per CIBIL report, he owed a sum of Rs. 75,211/- against the credit card issued by the OP Bank on 11-05-2002. Taken completely aback, the Complainant immediately shot email to the OP Bank seeking due clarification from it. Although the OP assured to get back to him in this regard in no time, ultimately it did not give any reply; hence, the complaint.
Counter case of the OPs in this respect is that, the Complainant did not pay outstanding due in time which resulted in accumulation of considerable overdue. Subsequently, the Complainant approached the OPs for debt restructuring of Rs. 40,605.04 which was duly approved by the OPs. Accordingly, the outstanding stood in respect of card nos. ended with 1001 and 0113 as on 12-01-2004 were zeroised. Pursuant to such debt restructuring, the EMIs were billed under the Instabuy account. As the Complainant did not pay the 1st EMI amount of Rs. 1,480.11 in time, the debt re-structure plan became null and void. Subsequently, the balance principal sum was re-debited to the credit card account of the Complainant. It is stated that the Complainant made last payment on 23-03-2006. Since the Complainant was a defaulter, as per rules, his name featured in the CIBIL.
Decision with reasons
Heard both sides and gone through the documents on record.
The Appellant notwithstanding claimed that he used to pay the billed amount in respect of the credit cards in question on a regular basis; he has not furnished requisite cogent documentary proof in support of his claim. In fact, as it transpires, the Respondents even once restructured the debt that stood in the name of the Appellant. In case, the Appellant used to maintain clean slate all through, certainly it would not occasion restructure of his debt.
Further, there is nothing to show that he made any transaction using the credit cards concerned since 2004 onwards. Yet, the fact that the Appellant paid a total sum of Rs. 35,220/- during the period from 23-02-2005 to 23-03-2006 clearly show that there stood some outstanding in his name.
All these facts go to show that the Appellant was a defaulter. Therefore, the Respondents were well within their right to impose penalty and other charges as per terms and conditions.
Be that as it may, let us discuss the feasibility of various reliefs sought for by the Appellant.
It is alleged by the Appellant in his Memo of Appeal that the Respondents sent him Statement up to 12-01-2004 and thereafter they did not send any statement for the period between February, 2004 and January, 2010. Significantly, the Respondents have not refuted such allegation by placing on record relevant statements. This is not acceptable. While the bank is well within its right to take necessary steps against the defaulter to realize the outstanding due through legal means; at the same time, it cannot refuse providing periodical statement of account even to a defaulter. As a bank of international repute, all its dealings are expected to be above board. Thus, we find enough merit into the claim of the Appellant for detail Statement of Accounts for the aforesaid period.
However, his prayer for giving necessary direction to the Respondents to waive their demand for Rs. 75,211/- cannot be acceded to because of the fact that even the limited papers furnished on record by the Appellant is suffice to discern that he did not pay the sum of Rs. 36,720/- in time.
That apart, as per the WV, he owed a total sum of Rs. 40,605.04 to the Respondents as reflected in the Statement issued by the Respondents on 12-01-2004. Undisputedly, the Appellant failed to discharge his obligation in tune with the debt restructure plan set out by the Respondents. On the other hand, the Appellant has not furnished any document to show that the Respondents made any settlement offer to square off the entire outstanding amount on payment of a sum of Rs. 36,720/- within 23-03-2006. Over non-payment of outstanding due within the stipulated time, the Respondents were duty bound to refer the name of the Appellant to the CIBIL authority. There was no arbitrariness in doing so.
Consequently, the Appeal stands allowed in part.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
The Appeal stands allowed on contest against the Respondents in part. Respondents are directed to furnish all relevant Statement of Accounts from February, 2004 onwards through Speed Post/recognized Courier service within a fortnight hence failing which, they shall be liable to pay compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the Appellant. The impugned order stands set aside accordingly.
