JUDGMENT Per Justice Sham Sunder , President This appeal by the complainant is directed against the order dated 14.7.2010, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh, for award of maximum penalty permissible under the rules, though his complaint was accepted by directing the OP to refund him Rs.4422/-, which had been wrongly shown, as outstanding, dues against him, in July,2008. The OP was also directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant, for causing him physical harassment, mental agony and pain for a period of two years, besides costs of litigation to the tune of Rs.5000/-. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the complainant and his wife used the credit card of OP Bank, from 2001 to 2004, and got it closed, after depositing the final amount of Rs.6875/- and Rs.1040/- on 1.10.2004 and 12.10.2004 respectively, as informed by the staff of the OP. Thereafter, he did not receive any bill till July 18, 2008. However, on July 19, 2008, the complainant received a phone from one Mr.Negi, who claimed himself to be from Delhi police and he told him that non-bailable warrants had been issued against him. He directed him to contact Mr.Sunit Soni, Advocate for getting further details. Upon this, the complainant contacted said Sunit Soni, who told him that non-bailable warrants had been issued because of non-payment of the bank dues. As per advice of Sunit Soni, having no other alternative and also being compelled by the circumstances, the complainant had to deposit a sum of Rs.4422/- with ICICI Bank shown outstanding against his name, on 19.07.2008. The OP Bank assured the complainant to supply him the details of the bills for payment, but the same were never replied, despite numerous requests, made and letters having been written by him(complainant). It was further stated that, thus, the OP failed to clear the position, as to how, the said amount became due against the complainant, after he had cleared all his dues as early as Oct., 2004. It was further stated that, thus, the OP indulged into unfair trade practice and its act aforesaid also amounted to gross deficiency in service, resulting into great mental agony and physical harassment to him(complainant). Left with no other alternative, a complaint was filed by the complainant. 3. In reply, the OP pleaded that the complaint was barred by time. It was also admitted that the complainant was availing credit card facility with the OP. It was stated that the complainant was making regular defaults, in the schedule of payments, as a result of which, he was fined by recovering the late payment charges. It was further stated that the complainant was regularly intimated about the outstanding amounts, against his credit card account, at various occasions, but he filed to pay the dues. It was denied that the payment made by the complainant in the month of Oct., 2004 was full & final payment in settlement of all his outstanding dues. It was admitted that a sum of Rs.4422/- was deposited by the complainant on 19.7.2008, on account of the outstanding amount due against him, as per the statements, Annexures C-3 & C-4. It was further stated that the details of the outstanding amount had already been provided to the complainant, by the OP and so, the question of deficiency in service or indulgence in unfair trade practice did not arise. It was further stated that the entire story that the complainant was asked to contact some lawyer as the Delhi Police had issued non-bailable warrants for arrest, was concocted one. The remaining allegations were also denied. 4. After hearing the complainant, the Counsel for the OP, and on going through the evidence and record, the learned District Forum accepted the complaint, in the manner, referred to in the opening para of the judgment. 5. Feeling aggrieved, on account of non-grant of maximum penalty, the instant appeal was filed by the complainant. 6. We have heard the appellant/complainant, Counsel for the respondent/OP and have gone through and perused the record carefully. 7. The order of the District Forum has not been challenged by the OP. The short question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether the appellant is entitled to the maximum penalty, in other words, the punitive damages, claimed by him. No doubt, the appellant faced physical harassment and mental agony, on account of the issuance of non-bailable warrants against him, yet the District Forum, took into consideration all these factors, while granting compensation of Rs.10,000/- as also litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/-. The object of the Consumer Protection Act, is not to enrich the complainant, at the cost of the service provider. Its object is only to adequately compensate the consumer, if it comes to the conclusion that on account of deficiency in service, and or indulgence into unfair trade practice by the OP, he (Consumer) suffered mental agony and physical harassment. The Consumer Forum is required to strike a balance, while granting compensation, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of each case. In the instant case, in our considered opinion, the District Forum took into consideration the status of the complainant, the extent of physical harassment and mental agony suffered by him, as also other relevant factors, and awarded adequate compensation, besides refund of amount and cost of litigation, to him. It is, in our consideration opinion, not a fit case, in which the punitive damages, should be awarded to the appellant. The ordered rendered by the District Forum, does not suffer from any illegality, warranting the interference of the commission, as claimed by the appellant. The order, thus, deserves to be upheld. 8. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of any merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. The impugned order of the District Forum dated 14.7.2010 is upheld. 9. Certified Copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge. The file be consigned to record room.
| | HON'BLE MR. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER | HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER, PRESIDENT | , | |
