Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is presented before us, questioning the legality/rationale of dismissal of the complaint case bearing no. 452/2016 by the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata-II (Central) vide its order dated 28-02-2017.

Brief facts necessary to be noted for deciding this Appeal are that the Appellant was issued one Credit Card by the Respondents.  The Appellant also availed of a loan worth Rs. 2,63,000/- from the Respondents against the said Card.  It is alleged that, due to non-payment of two EMIs in respect of the said loan, the Respondents abruptly, without serving any prior notice, blocked the Credit Card causing great prejudice to him; hence, the complaint case was filed by the Appellant. 

Both sides were heard through their Ld. Advocates and available documents on record gone through meticulously.

The crux of the matter is whether such blocking of the Credit Card by the Respondents was tantamount to deficiency in service or not.

It is seen from the clarification given by the Respondents vide their communiqué dated 12-07-2016 that an amount of Rs. 2,63,000/- was granted to the Appellant as loan which was repayable in 48 EMIs.  The EMI in respect of said loan facility and balance conversion facility availed of by the Appellant were billed in the monthly statements as per the terms and conditions of balance conversion facility.  Further, the EMI also formed a part of the mandatory minimum due payable every month.  The EMI narration used in the monthly statement of account indicated the count of EMI billed against the total tenor of the balance conversion availed. 

Admittedly, the loan was granted to the Appellant by the Respondents against the credit card being issued by them.  Therefore, we do not find any infirmity behind clubbing of total outstanding comprising the due stood unpaid in respect of the card as well as the EMIs. 

It is also seen that acting upon the representations of the Appellant, the Bank reversed various charges from time to time; yet, the Appellant did not reciprocate the gesture by cleaning the slate promptly. 

Vide aforementioned letter, the Respondents also clarified that since the Appellant did not pay minimum amount due for consecutive months, the credit card was delinquent at the time of renewal.  So, the card was not renewed in consonance with the terms & conditions applicable (Clause No. 25.2) for credit cards.

There can be no manner of doubt that the Appellant himself was at fault for non-payment of EMIs in time.  Therefore, the amount at stake being public money, we are fully appreciative of the steps taken by the Respondents in this regard. We find no deficiency of service on the part of the Respondents in this regard.

Dismissal of the complaint case, in the above context, appears to be quite justified.  There being no merit in this Appeal, we dismiss it without any cost.