STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, UNION TERRITORY, CHANDGIARH

(Revision Petition No.7 of 2010)

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

..…Appellant.

Versus

Sh. Dinesh Kumar son of Late Sh. Mohan Lal, R/o H.No.3389/1, Sector 45/D, Chandigarh.

..…Respondent.

BEFORE:            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                        MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

Argued by:            Sh. Sandeep Suri, Advocate for the revisionist.

                        Sh. Dinesh Kumar, Respondent in person.

MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER.

1.                     This is a revision petition against order dated 9.4.2010 passed by District Forum-I, U.T., Chandigarh in Execution Application No.4 of 2010.

2.                     We have gone through the record on file and have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist/OP and the respondent/complainant in person.

3.                     The learned District Forum has allowed the complaint                    vide order dated 9.12.2009 and directed the OP not to demand any such rent etc. from the complainant for use of the credit card. OP wase also directed to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with litigation costs of Rs.1,100/- from the date of receipt of copy of order failing which they would be made liable to pay the same along with penal interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the complaint i.e. 31.7.09 till actual payment. Although, there is no specific direction regarding the refund of an amount of Rs.16,470/-, as alleged by the OP. But in the impugned order dated 9.4.2010 passed in execution petition, the learned District has specifically directed the OP to refund an amount of Rs.16,470/-  to the complainant.

4.                     After perusal of order dated 9.12.2009 passed in original complaint as well as the impugned order dated 9.4.2010, it has been observed by us that although the complaint has been allowed and deficiency in service has been proved qua the OP, as such, there is no specific direction regarding the refund of an amount of Rs.16,470/-. From the circumstances of the case, it has been established that as no transaction has taken place against this credit card and OP has also failed to produce any corroborative evidence to show that the complainant had made any purchase by using the credit card and is liable to pay any amount apart from the fee. It is also established on record that the complainant had deposited an amount of Rs.16,470/- with the OP and in our opinion, this amount was wrongly charged by the OP as there is no such transaction of this amount, hence, the complainant is legally entitled for the refund of the said amount. The learned District Forum has vide impugned order dated 9.4.2010 has rightly clarified about the refund of an amount of Rs.16,470/-, which has been wrongly demanded by the OP and the same was also deposited by the complainant. In our opinion, the order dated 9.4.2010 is just a clarification and not an amendment of the order dated 9.12.2009.  In the interest of justice, without going into to much of technicalities, we are of the considered view that the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by learned District Forum in the execution petition is not beyond the scope of the original order passed in the main complaint. As such, the learned District Forum has not gone beyond the decree by directing the OP to refund an amount of Rs.16,470/- along with the other amounts as awarded by it vide the impugned orders.

5.                     In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same is dismissed.

6.                     Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

14^th September 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[MRS. NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Ad/-

Ad/-