O R D E R <br /> <br /> <br /> SRI. D.KRISHNAPPA., PRESIDENT., <br /> <br /> <br /> Brief facts of the compliant filed by the complainant against the Ops are, that herself and her husband obtained credit cards from the Ops and in connection with the settlement of dues Rs.34,526/- due by them to the Ops, A dispute was raised before permanent Lok Adalat, Bangalore for which one Krishna Kumar Gupta, Customer service executive of the Ops and an advocate appeared. At the end of the discussions that Gupta offered to reduce the amount due, to Rs.19,000/- plus and they wanted their cards be re-activated and continued. But due to the mis-guidance of Ops executive there was default in the payments. That Gupta told them that on they paying Rs.6210/- before 18-06-2009 their cards would be re-activated within three days. Accordingly they made a payment of Rs.7500/- to the Ops through cheque dated 16-06-2009. But thereafter their cards were not re-activated and that Gupta was transferred to Hyderabad. Despite writing several letters to the Ops they have not re-activated their cards. Thereby attributing deficiency to the Ops have prayed for a direction to Ops to re-activate their credit cards, to waive late payment and penal interest and award compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with other ancillary reliefs. <br /> <br /> Ops have appeared through their advocate and filed their version contending that the compliant is mis-conceived one and not maintainable in law. Ops admitting that the complainant and the husband were the credit card holders of their bank, further have admitted raising of dispute before permanent Lok Adalat. But they denied that they have agreed to re-activate the credit cards. That the complainant is a defaulter in not making payment due under the credit cards and even the permanent Lok Adalat rejected the complainants contentions for re-activating the cards. Therefore contending that credit cards are de-activated for non-payment have submitted for dismissal of the complaint. <br /> In the course of enquiry into the complaint, the complainant and one Kannayiram for OPs have filed their affidavit evidence by reasserting what they have stated in their respective compliant and version. The complainant alongwith the compliant has produced a copy of letters she had addressed to the OP, a reply sent by Ops to the complainant with a copy of the account statement. Ops have not produced any documents. Complainant has filed a narrative statement claiming it to be her arguments with a copy of some account statements. We have heard the counsel for the Ops. Perused the records and written arguments filed by the complainant. <br /> <br /> On the above materials, following points for determination arise.<br /> <br /> 1. Whether the complainant prove that the OPs are deficient in not re-activating her and her husbands credit cards? <br /> <br /> 2. To what relief the complainant is entitled to ?<br /> <br /> Our findings are as under:-<br /> <br /> Point No: 1 in the negative.<br /> Point No: 2:see the final order.<br /> <br /> REASONS: POINT No:1:: <br /> <br /> On going through the material allegations of the complainant, the version of the Ops and the documents produced. We hold that the dispute between the parties is very simple and do not detain us long for reaching the conclusion. The complainant has claimed relief on behalf of her husband also who is not a party in this compliant as such that part of grievances and relief cannot be heard and granted. <br /> <br /> Coming to the claim of the complainant, as admitted they had used the credit card issued by Ops and were due in a sum of Rs.34,526/-. When the dispute was referred to Permanent Lok Adalat at Bangalore as a pre-litigation dispute one Mr. Krishna Kumar Gupta appeared on behalf of OP with an advocate and had offered to reduce the amount due from Rs.34,526/- to Rs.19,000/-. But no proof or document have been produced in this regard. It is the further contention of the complainant that said Krishna Kumar Gupta had told her that on their paying rs.6210/- before 18-06-2009 he had agreed to re-activate her credit cards within three working days. But it was not done and thereafter that Gupta was transferred to Hyderabad. Thereafter the alleged settlement was not pursued effectively and that dispute did not reach the finality. The complainant stated to have paid Rs.7500/- on 17-06-2009 through cheque but the cards are not re-activated. Ops are not denying the receipt of this amount. But the complainant has not proved that Gupta had agreed to re-activate the cards on payment of this partial amount. If the complainant was sure of this promise made by the Gupta she could have got an affidavit of that Gupta filed and moved the Ops through that Gupta for re-activating the cards. But nothing was done. After payment of Rs.7500/- the complainant found to have kept silent by not paying the balance amount of Rs.19,000/- if it was really agreed as a final settlement or towards the out standing amount of Rs.34,526/-. The complainant therefore when not proved as to what transpired between herself and Gupta between the permanent Lok Adalat and when she has not paid the entire amount due under the credit cards, she in our view has not right to claim for re-activation of their credit cards. Therefore the silence of the Ops in not agreeing to re-activate the credit cards of the complainant cannot be construed as a deficient act. Therefore the Ops are within their limit in not acceding to the claim of the complainant in the absence of full settlement of the card dues. Hence we find no merits in the complaint and the same is liable to be dismissed. As the result we answer Point NO:1 in the negative and pass the following order. <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> Complaint is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. <br />