Petitioner Shri Varadarajan having suffered two successive setbacks; one from the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Seshadripuram, Bangalore (the District Forum for short) and the other from the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (the State Commission hereinafter for short), has filed this revision petition challenging the dismissal of his complaint by both these fora.

There is a delay of 43 days in filing the revision petition.  This delay is condoned for the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay.

Facts, in brief, are that the petitioner had obtained a credit card of the respondent Bank.  This credit card was linked to his savings bank account maintained with the respondent Bank.  Until 2005, he was availing the credit facilities and was clearing the dues regularly.  When the respondent Bank floated a scheme called ‘Smart Pay Facility’, under which a credit card holder could pass on his liability for payment of the LIC premiums to the Bank, who would make the payment of such premiums directly to the LIC, and the policy holder under the scheme would be entitled to a period of 45 days of credit for clearing the dues to the Bank; the petitioner opted for the scheme.  According to the petitioner, he had informed the respondent Bank that he had a LIC policy, the premium of which at the rate of Rs.2500/- was to be paid every quarter.  However, when he received the bill of the respondent Bank on the 23^rd of December, 2005, to his surprise, he noticed that the respondent Bank had charged an amount of Rs.5033.50 on account of payment of premium towards his insurance policy.  He promptly protested against the over-payment and claims to have cleared the dues after deducting the amount paid over and above Rs.2500/- from the bill.  He further requested the respondent Bank to withdraw the ‘Smart Pay Facility’ which was done by the respondent Bank w.e.f. 18^th of January, 2006.  However, the respondent Bank did not reverse the entry with regard to the over-payment and continued to charge interest and late fees even thereafter.  Despite his repeated approach and legal notice, the respondent Bank did not budge from its stand and a stage came when the petitioner-complainant was threatened on telephone to either pay up or face the consequences.  Finally, the respondent Bank issued a notice to exercise their right of lien and set off the amount available in his savings bank account against the dues. 

Faced with this situation, the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 before the District Forum, who after hearing the parties, firstly held that the complaint was barred by limitation since the cause of action arose during the year 2005 and the complaint had been filed on 18^th of December, 2008, which was clearly beyond the period of two years as provided under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  In addition, it also disbelieved the contention of the petitioner/complainant that he had cleared the entire amount due to the respondent Bank as he had failed to produce any evidence with regard to the date on which the due amount was cleared and failed to disclose the amount paid towards the full clearance of the dues.  The complaint in view thereof was dismissed by the District Forum. 

The petitioner/complainant thereafter challenged the said order dated 18^th of March, 2009 before the State Commission, who set aside that part of the District Forum’s order vide which it held the complaint to be barred by limitation but the State Commission agreed with the finding of the District Forum that the complainant had failed to prove that he had paid the entire amount due to the respondent Bank as claimed by them in their letter dated 4^th of November, 2008.  Holding in consonance with the District Forum that the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that he had paid the entire amount due to the respondent Bank, the State Commission did not believe the allegations of the complainant and dismissed the complainant’s appeal.

Thus, having failed to get any relief to his grievance that the complainant is before us in this revision petition.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records of the case.  The case of the complainant, as already stated above, can be stated in simple terms that the respondent Bank having lured him to obtain 45 days of credit facilities for payment of his LIC premiums have without any prior information or authorization from the complainant made over-payment to the LIC.  The complainant has brought this to their notice and he has exercised his right not to pay the unauthorized payment and has cleared the bill after deducting the over-payment.  It was, therefore, open for the respondent Bank to have taken action to reverse the over-payment and not continued with it as arrears and charge interest and late fees thereupon.  Since the stand of the respondent Bank before the fora below was that they are commonly concerned with the payment of respective demands made by the insurance companies/biller, they are not aware of the exact terms of the insurance policy of the complainant like premium amount and its period etc.  Since this was the main defence, we had called upon the respondent Bank to place on record the bills/demands raised by the Insurance Company with regard to the payment made to the LIC.  Despite repeated opportunities, neither any proof of having paid the stated amount towards the premium to the Insurance Company nor any affidavit of a responsible officer of the Bank has been filed by the respondent bank.  It would have been very simple for us to decide or even for that matter for the fora below if the respondent Bank had produced the demands received by them from the LIC towards their claim for the premium to be paid by the petitioner/complainant and in that event even the complainant would have been satisfied that the respondent Bank has acted only as per the demand of the LIC, which may or may not have been correct.  Thereafter it was upto the complainant to take up the matter with the LIC if they had overcharged the amount of quarterly premium.  It is noted that the respondent Bank has not even produced its own account to show that the amount claimed to have been remitted to the LIC has been debited from their account and paid to the LIC.  It is, therefore, difficult under the circumstances for us to believe that the amount so claimed as due from the complainant had indeed been remitted to the LIC on the face of the specific allegation of the complainant that his instructions covered payment of Rs.2500/- only towards the quarterly premium. 

We are in agreement with the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner/complainant that the District Forum has erroneously passed on the onus to prove that the entire due amount was cleared to the complainant.  It was the call of justice that the District Forum should have asked the respondent Bank to produce the evidence/proof with regard to the demand notice received from the LIC, based on which they made the payment.  Clearly, both the District Forum as well as the State Commission have gone wrong in holding that the complainant failed to establish his claim of clearing the dues, which was strictly not relevant to the dispute.  The State Commission while arriving at the finding refers to letter of the respondent Bank dated 4^th of November, 2008, which says that a sum of Rs.21866.77 was due from the complainant but the complainant has not produced any evidence to show that the entire amount had been duly paid.  The State Commission, however, failed to take into consideration that the complainant had referred to the over-payment by the respondent Bank during the year 2005 and demand was made in 2008.  It is not uncommon by financial institutions/Banks issuing the credit cards to charge exorbitant rate of interest and late fee charges and the amount which may seem small results in manifold demands over the years.  While no one can object to the right of the Bank of its lien on the complainant’s account and its power to set off, but in the present case the Bank has arbitrarily exercised that power without showing the proof that it had only acted as per the demands received from the LIC on behalf of the petitioner/complainant.  The deficiency on part of the respondent Bank, thus, stands clearly established.  We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the impugned order and quashing the demand of the respondent Bank.  For the harassment caused to the complainant for being forced to resort to multiple litigation, we also award to him a compensation of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the respondent Bank within a period of four weeks from the date of pronouncement of this order, failing which the amount will bear interest @ 9% per annum till its payment.

The revision petition, accordingly, is allowed in the above terms.