Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by  HDFC Bank Ltd. –opposite parties    is directed against the  order dated 19.8.2009 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh  whereby     complaint bearing  No.802 of 2008 filed by Sqn Ldr.Gurdial Singh, respondent/complainant was allowed in the following terms; 

            “Keeping in view the above, we direct the Ops to make the        following payments, jointly and severally, to the Complainant :-

i)              To pay back the sum of Rs.10196.31 wrongly debited by the Ops from the Savings Bank account No. 1071000052684 of the Complainant on 22.01.2008 alongwith interest @9% per annum from the date of its debit i.e. 22.01.2008 till realization.

ii)            To pay a sum of Rs.25000/- as compensation on account of physical harassment, mental agony and immense pain suffered by the Complainant at the hands of the Ops.

iii)          Rs.5000/- as litigation expenses.

                 This order be complied with by OPs within a period of six weeks                        of  the receipt of its certified copy failing which the OPs shall                      pay the      sum of Rs.35196.31 alongwith interest @18% per                        annum from 22.01.2008 till realization, besides the costs of                               litigation of Rs.5000/-”.

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..       The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

              In the first  week of March,2003 an agent of OPs approached the complainant and impressed upon him that the HDFC credit Card had launched a scheme whereby the members of Chandigarh Club were offered free credit card without any charge and further no charges were leviable on usage of the said credit card provided the amount due was deposited within  the stipulated period on receipt of the statement of account. Allured by the said scheme of OPs,  Complainant submitted the required application form for issuance of a Credit Card and as such a Credit card was issued to him.  Since, the said card was not containing the proper description of the Complainant, so the same was returned to the Bank   with a request to provide a Credit Card containing the complete and proper particulars of the Complainant. Thereafter, credit card bearing No.4346771001338137 was issued to the Complainant vide letter dated 06.04.2003, but they demanded Rs.525/- as membership fee. The complainant then wrote letter dated 3.8.2003 requesting OPs to withdraw the said demand as the same was without any basis. In response to the said letter, OPs demanded Chandigarh Club Membership card which was  submitted by the complainant  and then OPs vide letter dated 17.6.2003 intimated to the complainant that the said charges of Rs.525/- were withdrawn which were reflected in the statement dated 9.7.2003. The Complainant used the credit card for the first time on 06.08.2003 for a sum of Rs.1428/-, which was duly paid by him on 28.08.2003 and there was no problem in the credit card account till March, 2004.

            It was only on 09.04.2004, when the Complainant received the statement of Account in relation to his Silver Credit card in which the Ops demanded a late fee of Rs.162/-, membership fee of Rs.756/- and finance charges (retail) of Rs.177.27  . Subsequently, the Ops waived the amount of Rs.756/- as the membership fee for the 2^nd year but continued to demand the remaining amounts i.e. Rs.162/- as late fee and Rs.177.27 as finance charges. The Complainant paid a sum of Rs.8504/- on 13.05.2004, which according to him was in full and final settlement of the bill dated 09.04.2004 sent by Ops to him. The Complainant received another accounts statement dated 09.05.2004 in which the late fee and finance charges were again demanded by the OP. Subsequently, the OP bank reversed the late payment charges of Rs.324/- and finance charges of Rs.446.55 which had earlier been  demanded by them in April and May, 2004 accounts statements. The statement of account dated 09.06.2004,    clarified all the reversal entries as also the payment of Rs.8504/- duly received by the Ops. In the ensuing statements of account dated 09.07.2004, 9.8.2004, 9.9.2004, 9.10.2004, 9.11.2004  late fee and finance charges were also shown to have been  levied.

            On account of  protracted   correspondence,  the complainant was totally fed up with  OPs in respect of the various transactions in his credit card account, so  he cut the credit card into  pieces and returned the same to  Ops for cancellation on 15.11.2004. However, after a gap of about two years, the Ops sent a notice to the complainant on 31.05.2007 intimating him that his credit card account  had got the “Suspended Status,” owing to irregular payment of amounts due and that the OP bank would like to exercise the “Bankers Lien” and Right to Set Off, to the extent of Rs.8401.31 as on 31.05.2007. This letter was replied to by the Complainant on 11.06.2007  but OP Bank did not take into account the submissions made by the Complainant in his letter dated 11.06.2007 and after a period of more than six months, again wrote back to the Complainant on 07.01.2008   stating that the credit card balance as on date was Rs.10196.31 and the “hold on funds” was placed on 07.01.2008. The Complainant wrote back to the Ops on 18.01.2008 but still  the OP bank itself withdrew a sum of Rs.10196.31 from the Saving Bank account of the Complainant on 22.01.2008. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

 4.                On the other hand, the case of OPs before the District Forum was that   the amount of Rs.525/- was rightfully demanded as per terms and conditions of the Credit Card Usage and the membership fee was waived of  only for the first year only. The Complainant was liable to pay membership fee towards usage of the card from the 2nd year onwards. The payments were not made on the due dates and  as such late fee was applicable and finance charges were also payable on account of non payment of dues towards the usage of the card on due dates. The withdrawal of sum of Rs.10196/- from the Saving Bank Account of the Complainant was on account of his failure  to clear the   dues which were attributable to late fee charges and finance charges thereon. It was pleaded that there was   no deficiency in service on their part and a prayer was made for dismissal of the complainant.

 5.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the  evidence  and hearing   learned counsel for the  parties  allowed the complaint as indicated in the opening part of this judgment.  This is how feeling aggrieved, opposite party    has come up in   this appeal. 

6.            We have heard learned counsel for the  appellant  and gone through the file carefully.  The sole point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant is that the amount of compensation  of Rs.25,000/- awarded in this case is on the higher side, so  the same may be reduced. He contended that  as the finance charges/late fee  were levied on account of non-payment of complete dues arising out  of the usage of the credit card   and as the payment was not made on the due date, therefore the appellant had withdrawn the said amount from the account of complainant  by exercising its general lien over the money lying   in his account.  

7.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the sole point of arguments put forth on behalf of the appellant and find the same to be devoid of any merit, inasmuch-as  complainant, who is a retired Indian Air Force Officer  was put to unnecessary harassment for a pretty long time and that too for no fault of his. Moreover, it is also established that inspite of pointing out deficiency in service  occurred on the part of OP  , no steps whatsoever were taken at the appropriate time to rectify the same.  The learned District Forum rightly  held OPs in providing  deficient service and indulging in unfair trade practice by observing that the reversal of entries showed the poor conduct of OPs  which indicated that they had been demanding excessive payments from the complainant under the garb of various charges under different names which they were not entitled to. OPs also continued to charge the late fee and finance charges continuously without ever indicating the mode or manner as also showing proper calculation for levying all such charges and without giving any justification or reasons therefore. Thus, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order dated 19.8.2009  allowing refund of Rs.10196.32 and  further  taking into consideration the unnecessary physical and mental harassment faced by the complainant, we are of the considered opinion that the amount of compensation and costs  awarded  to him in this case is quite reasonable and justified, so, no interference is called for therein. Hence, the appeal is dismissed in limine. 

8.          Before parting with this order, it is also to add here that there is also delay of 3 months and 10 days in filing this appeal. The appellant has taken up the plea that it came to know about the impugned order on receipt of the notice of execution proceedings pending before the District Forum but no date of receipt of such notice has been given in the application for condonation of delay.    Be that as it may, since we do not find any merit even for admission of this appeal, so, the question of limitation is no more required to be gone into.

             Certified copies of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to records.