15.12.2014

MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER

            The instant Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2012 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit-I, Kolkata, in CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 341/2009 directing the Appellants/Ops to credit, within 45 days from the date of order, Rs.1,50,000/- to the Credit Card A/C No. 4902471000105001 of the Respondent/Complainant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment till the date of credit.  The Appellants/Ops were further directed to pay to the Respondent/Complainant Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation cost within 45 days with interest @ 9% per annum for the entire period of default in case of non-compliance with the direction within the stipulated period.

          The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellants/Ops-Bank allegedly imposed a Credit Card bearing No. 4902471000105001 with credit limit of Rs. 3,37,000/- upon  the Respondent/Complainant on vigorous persuasion.  After issuance of the said Credit Card the Respondent/Complainant was in the habit of using the said Credit Card and paying the dues related to the said Credit Card as and when the demands were raised by the Appellants/Ops-Bank.  In this process, once the Respondent/ Complainant noticed from a Bank Statement dated 17.2.2009 issued by the Appellants/Ops that payments by cash of Rs. 80,000/- on 3.2.2009 and Rs.70,000/- on 8.2.2009 against Money Receipt Nos. 078581575 dated 3.2.2009 and 078583753 dated 8.2.2009, bearing the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, issued by one Mr. Ajay Sinha of M/s. Unique Marketing Ltd. being the recovery agent of the Appellants/Ops, were not credited to the said Credit Card Account for which the said payments were made.  Noticing such absence of credit of the said payments the Respondent/Complainant served an Advocate’s letter dated 17.3.2009 upon the Appellants/Ops-Bank, and lodged a G.D. on 2.3.2009 with the Nimta Police Station, but without any redress.  With this backdrop, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the aforesaid manner.  Aggrieved by such order the Appellants/Ops have carried this Appeal to this Commission.

          Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/Ops-Bank, denying all the allegations,  submits that they have no relation with the collecting agent who issued the money receipts as relied upon by the Respondent/Complainant.  It is also contended by the Ld. Advocate that the instant complaint was filed by the Respondent/Complainant to absolve herself from the liability of bonafide outstanding amount due to the Appellants/Ops.  It is further submitted by the Ld. Advocate that what was demanded as outstanding amount was a bonafide demand in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Card Agreement and also as per RBI guidelines.  The Ld. Advocate also contends that in view of no deficiency in service as appearing from the above, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being improper and unjust.

          Refuting the aforesaid arguments on behalf of the Appellants/Ops-Bank the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the Appellants/Ops-Bank committed gross deficiency in service by not crediting the payments by cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 3.2.2009 and 8.2.2009, through the collecting agent of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, i.e. Mr. Ajay Sinha of M/s. Unique Marketing Ltd., against the Money Receipt Nos. 078581575 dated 3.2.2009 and 078583753 dated 8.2.2009, which were embossed with the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, indicating thereby the genuineness of the said Money Receipts issued on behalf of the Appellants/Ops-Bank.  The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellants/Ops committed unfair trade practice by sending recovery agent at the house of the Respondent/Complainant and also by threatening the Respondent/ Complainant and her family members with dire consequences for non-payment of the said dues which were fraudulently raised.  The Ld. Advocate finally submits that in view of such unfair and fraudulent acts on behalf of the Appellants/Ops,  the impugned judgment and order should be sustained. 

          We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and scrutinized the evidence and other materials on records.

          The materials on records, particularly the Written Version filed by the Appellants/Ops-Bank before the Ld. District Forum, as available on records, do not reflect any challenge to the aforesaid Money Receipts bearing the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, through which the Respondent/Complainant substantiated her payments by cash of Rs. 1,50,000/- on 3.2.2009 and 8.2.2009 against the outstanding dues of the Appellants/Ops-Bank.  Absence of such challenge against the Money Receipts concerned on the part of the Appellants/Ops coupled with the facts of bearing, by the Money Receipts concerned, of the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank and also of absence of any proof of counterfeiting of the said Money Receipts, would convince even a man of ordinary prudence about the bonafide of payment of Rs. 1,50,000/- by the Respondent/Complainant towards the outstanding dues of the Appellants/Ops-Bank.

          In view of the foregoing discussions we find substance in the submission of the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant and find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.

          In the result, the Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment and order stands affirmed.  No order as to costs.