1.         This is an appeal filed by the OP (Standard Chartered Bank) against order dated 4.3.2009 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT, Chandigarh (for short hereinafter to be referred as District Forum) passed in complaint case No. 1146 of 2008.

2.            Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the complainant availed the Credit Card facility from the OPs and the OPs issued a Credit Card bearing No. 4129037083944041 and a Supplementary Credit Card bearing No.4129039280201324. The complainant got ceased the facility and entered into one time settlement with the OPs with regard to credit card dues. The OPs issued letter dated 15.5.2007 to the complainant wherein the OPs offered settlement of account on payment of Rs.22,500/- against the outstanding dues of these credit cards but the OPs never issued any statement of outstanding dues to the complainant. The complainant against the said settlement, deposited Rs.27,610/- with OP Bank till February, 2008 and after that he requested the OP to issue No Due Certificate but OP No.1 instead of issuing No Due Certificate, issued a vague letter dated 12.3.2008 whereby the credit card account was showing the balance of Rs.9510.96 paise. The complainant approached the OP No.1 who assured that this account would be corrected and this letter would be withdrawn but to no avail. On 19.9.2008 the complainant received a threatening call from the official of the OP bank asking the complainant to deposit the balance amount, otherwise warrants would be issued against him. Thereafter the complainant visited OP No.1 where the complainant was given a letter dated 19.9.2008 whereby the settlement amount was shown to be Rs.67,145.50 paise. The complainant was pressurized to make some payment by the Recovery Agents to escape the legal proceedings at Delhi and they forcibly took Rs.15,000/- cash from the complainant by threatening him and also took one cheque dated 25.9.2008 for Rs.52,145/-. This was also reported to the OP Bank in writing vide letter dated 23.9.2008 but no fruitful result was received from OP Bank. No Due Certificate was never issued by the OP bank even after the receipt of Rs.27,600/- against settlement amount of Rs.22,500/-, sending recovery agents to the complainant and giving him threats and then increased the settled amount from Rs.22,500/- to Rs.67,145.50 paise and then received the cash amount of Rs.15,000/- illegally and getting the cheque of Rs.52,145/- through recovery agents by threatening the complainant amounts to unfair trade practice, which caused the complainant mental tension, physical harassment and financial loss etc. Hence, the complaint was filed.

3.         Reply was filed by the OP and pleaded that the offer so made by the OP bank vide letter dated 15.2.2007 for deposit of Rs.22,500/- against the outstanding amount of Rs.40,675/- was valid only for a period of 20 days, which the complainant failed to pay the said amount and the complainant continued to use the credit cards and failed to make the payment to OP bank. It was denied that the OP bank received the payment of Rs.27,610/- from the complainant till February, 2008 and submitted that the complainant regularly requested to clear the dues of the bank and in that process a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 19.9.2008 which has been duly accepted and signed vide which an amount of Rs.67,145/- was settled to be paid by the complainant towards closure of his account. In response to the settlement, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- in cash and issued a cheque of Rs.52,145/- in favour of OP bank. The said cheque could not be encashed because of stop payment instructions of complainant given to his banker. Rest of the allegations leveled by the complainant in the complaint were denied and prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.         The parties led their evidence in support of their contentions.

5.         The learned District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OPs to return the cheque dated 25.9.2008 of Rs.52,145/- in original to the complainant forthwith and also directed to pay Rs.35570 – Rs.22500/- = Rs.13,070/- which was taken in excess from him illegally, along with Rs.20,000/- for indulging in unfair trade practice and litigation costs of Rs.1100/-. The said order was directed to be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order failing which they would be liable to pay the same with interest @ 18% p.a. since the filing of the present complaint i.e. 24.9.2008 till its payment.

6.            Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned District Forum, the present appeal has been filed by the OP Bank. Sh.Sandeep Suri, Advocate has appeared on behalf of appellants and Sh.Sandeep Bhardwaj, Advocate has appeared on behalf of respondent.

7.         In appeal, the learned District Forum has failed to even refer to the clause in the one time settlement dated 15.5.2007 wherein it has been categorically provided that the offer for one time settlement is valid only for a period of 20 days and the payment be made during that time period. That it has been categorically provided that

-the letter is valid for 20 days and

-the amount of Rs.22,500/- is being accepted towards the payments outstanding of Rs.40675/- as a one time settlement.

The complainant failed to make the payments of one time settlement within the time period. He continued to make the payment as per his desire. It is evident that the same were not made within a period of 20 days and in fact spanned over a period of 10 months.  That as on 15.5.2007 the complainant was liable to pay an amount of Rs.40,675/- to the bank. The card was used by the complainant, hence he was liable to pay the charges. The complainant has never disputed the amount of Rs.40,675/- as payable on 15.5.2007. The learned District Forum has failed to consider the fact that a second one time settlement was again reached between the parties on 19.9.2008. The same has been provided by the complainant himself and is dated 19.9.2008 Annexure C-4, before the learned District Forum. It was agreed that on the payment of amount of Rs.67,145/- the accounts of the complainant shall stand settled. The complainant deposited Rs.15,000/- in cash and further issued a cheque of Rs.52,145/- towards the settlement of the account. The cheque was dated 25.9.2008 and the complainant duly accepted the settlement dated 19.9.2008 and also issued a cheque with due date as 25.9.2008 in respect of the same and when the time to present the said cheque came, he had second thought and in order to avoid his liability under the said cheque, the complainant instituted the present complaint. It is submitted that the complainant had availed the credit card facility from the bank and yet the Forum has held that the credit card has been thrusted on the complainant. The complainant has issued the cheque of Rs.52,145/- after duly verifying his liability and the complaint was filed only to avoid his liability to face the court in the criminal proceedings on account of the bouncing of the cheque. The order passed by the learned District Forum is based on mere conjectures and not only the basis of the documents and facts. The amount of Rs.40,675/- as payable on 15.5.2007 was never in dispute. The second settlement was reached after a period of nearly 16 months. The charges was payable on the same and the amount of Rs.67,145/- was agreed to be paid by the complainant. The complainant cannot be allowed to take the benefit of his own wrongs. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal may kindly be allowed and the complaint may kindly be dismissed.

8.         It is admitted fact that the complainant availed the credit card facility from the OPs for which the OPs had issued a credit Card bearing No.4129037083944041 and supplementary Credit Card bearing No.1429039280201324.  Thereafter, the complainant got  ceased the facility and entered into a one time settlement with the OPs regarding this the OPs had issued a letter dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure C-1) vide which the OPs offered for settlement of account on payment of Rs.22500/- against the outstanding dues of these credit cards.

9.         During the course of arguments it was contended by the learned counsel for the appellant/OPs that the complainant had to deposit the above said amount of Rs.22500/- within 20 days from the date of offer i.e. 15.5.2007 (Annexure C-1). By all means the complainant had to deposit this amount on or before 5.6.2007 which the complainant failed to deposit within the prescribed time. It was further contended that subsequently, the complainant continue to use the credit card and failed to make the payment to the OPs for the due amount. It was next contended that a second time settlement was again reached between the parties on 19.9.2008 (Annexure C-4) vide which it was agreed that on a payment of Rs.67145/- the account of the complainant shall stand settled and in view of that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/- in cash and also issued a cheque dated 25.9.2008 of Rs.52145/- towards the settlement of account.  Hence the OPs have rightly charged this due amount from the complainant.

10.       On the other hand the learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the complainant had paid a sum of RS.27,610 till Feb.2008 (Ann.C-2). Collectively (9sheets) and the last payment was made on 27.2.2008. After making this payment the complainant requested the Ops to issue a No Due Certificate as the complainant had made the payment even more than the settled amount of Rs.22,500/- but the OP No.1 instead of issuing a No Due Certificate issued a vague letter dated 12.3.2008 Annexure C-3 whereby his credit card account was showing the balance of Rs.9510.96 paise. It was strongly resented by the learned counsel for the complainant that when the complainant had already ceased the credit cards and made the payment over and above the settled amount then there is no question of any amount due towards the complainant. The learned counsel for the complainant vehemently denied that there was any settlement between the parties for the second time, rather a letter dated 19.9.2008 was forcibly handed over to the complainant whereby the settlement amount was shown to be for a sum of Rs.67,145.50 paise and the recovery agents of the OPs threatened the complainant to pay this amount. Not only this the complainant got the threatening calls from the office of the OPs that some matter is pending against the complainant in the court of law at Delhi, either he pay the amount of Rs.67,145/- or warrants will be issued against him. With these pressure tactics the recovery agent of the OP bank forcibly took a sum of Rs.15,000/- in cash and also  took one cheque dated 25.9.2008 for a sum of Rs.52,145/-. Regarding this whole episode, the complainant well informed the officials of the OPs and also had written a letter dated 23.9.2008 Annexure C-6 wherein it was asked by the complainant not to encash the said cheque dated 25.9.2008 for Rs.52,145/- which was taken illegally by the recovery agents of the OPs. It was next contended that there is nothing on file to suggest that if the complainant was liable to pay any late fee, late charges, over limit fee or interest as is being alleged by the Ops. Not only this, the OPs have failed to produce any document to show that the Ops are entitled to levy any interest if there is any delay in the payment of the settled amount. Hence, it has been proved that there is unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.

11.       After going through the file carefully and hearing the arguments and contentions made by the learned counsel for both the parties, we have come to the conclusion that there is definitely unfair trade practice on the part of OPs by thrusting upon the complainant unilateral second time settlement and took a sum of Rs.15,000/- in cash and a cheque of Rs.52,145/-  forcibly by threatening the complainant. Moreover the account statement of the complainant placed on file by the OPs does not make a mention as to what is the rate of interest levied by the OPs on the amount due from the complainant and what is the rate of late charges, late fee or over limit fee or interest . Even the OPs have failed to place on file any document to show that if there is any agreement between the parties by which the complainant was liable to pay interest if there is any delay in making the payment of the settled amount. In our opinion there is no justification for the OPs to levy any such charges in the absence of any agreement between the parties to this effect. We are in consonance with the view taken by the learned District forum that the OPs are guilty of unfair trade practice qua the complainant by keeping the complainant in dark and levying the charges which the complainant is not liable to pay and by taking a sum of Rs.67,145/- forcibly by threatening the complainant. 

12.       On the other hand, it is also proved on file that the complainant due to some monetary constrained being a poor person could not deposit the said amount of Rs.22,500/- within 20 days as asserted by the learned counsel for the OPs but keeping in mind the intention and the efforts made by the complainant which is proved from the fact that the complainant had paid more amount then what was settled between the parties. Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant is at fault only to the extent that the complainant did not make the payment within 20 days but in the absence of any agreement between the parties regarding charging of interest on the delayed payment the OP bank could not charge the interest. Moreover the OPs have failed to show us that how they have calculated an amount of Rs.67,145/- vide letter dated 19.9.2008. In such a short span of time as in the earlier one time settlement amount shown was Rs.22,500/- (Annexure C-1). In this view of the matter, the appellant/OPs cannot be permitted to abuse their fiduciary relationship to exploit the helplessness of their customers.  

13.       In our opinion, the learned District Forum has rightly held that in the absence of any agreement between the parties regarding charging of penal interest, the bank is not entitled to charge any interest on the delayed amount and the learned District Forum has rightly rendered in the order that the complainant has already deposit a sum of Rs. 35,570/- against the settled amount of Rs.22,500/-. Hence, the bank is liable to refund the excess amount of Rs. 13,070/- to the complainant. As regards the penalty levied by the learned District Forum for a sum of Rs.20,000/- we are of the opinion that as the complainant is also to some extent at fault by not depositing the settlement amount of Rs.22,500/- within time. Hence, the penalty imposed upon the bank on account of unfair trade practice is seems to be on a higher side. Therefore, in the interest of justice we feel it will be appropriate to reduce it to a sum of Rs.10,000/-.

14.       In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal is partly allowed with the modification mentioned above and we direct the Ops

1.         To return the cheque dated 25.9.2008 for a sum of Rs.52,145/- in original to the complainant forthwith.

2.         To pay an amount of Rs.13,070/- (Rs.35,570/- - Rs.22,500/- = Rs.13,070/-) which was taken excess.

3.         To pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as penalty along with costs of Rs.1100/- as litigation expenses.

4.         To issue a No Due Certificate to the complainant as prayed by the complainant in complaint after doing the needful.

            We further direct the OPs to comply with the aforesaid order within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which interest @ 12% p.a. would be charged.

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

Pronounced.                                                                           

5^th October, 2010.