PER MR. JUSTICE R.K. BATTA, PRESIDING MEMBER The Complainant/Respondent had opened roaming current account with Rs.10,000/- with the Petitioner. When the Complainant received statement of account for the period 1.10.2006 to 31.10.2006, he noticed that RCA charges for the month of September to the extent of Rs.1224/- had been added to his account. According to the Complainant the said account was never operated and after the receipt of the statement the Complainant wrote a letter dated 8.11.2006 to the Petitioner to close the said account. The Complainant continued receiving monthly statement after adding RCA charges and in spite of repeatedly writing to the Petitioner for closing the account, the said account was not closed. The Complainant sent legal notice dated 5.10.2006 to the Petitioner with a request to return the deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 18% from 27.6.2006 till date of payment. Thereafter, the Complainant approached the District Forum. Before the District Forum, the Petitioner did not put in appearance even though the Petitioner was served. The District Forum on the basis of material on record came to the conclusion that the Complainant had not operated the account at any time and in spite of repeated requests by the Complainant, the account was not closed and the Petitioner went on sending the statement for enhanced amounts. According to the District Forum, the Petitioner had indulged in unfair trade practice and punitive damages to the extent of Rs.2 lakh were imposed on the Petitioner, besides direction to pay the deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from 21.6.2006 till payment. Out of Rs.2 lakh, Rs.10,000/- were ordered to be paid to the Complainant and Rs.1.9 lakh to the Consumer Welfare Fund. The Petitioner was also directed to pay Rs.3,000/- as cost to the company. This order of the District Forum was challenged by the Petitioner before the State Commission. Alongwith the appeal an application for condonation of delay was filed to condone delay of 33 days in filing the appeal. The State Commission noticed that the impugned order was passed by the District Forum ex parte, inasmuch as the Petitioner had not appeared before the District Forum. The State Commission also noticed that the Petitioner had not explained in the condonation application as to why no reply to the complaint was filed before the District Forum or even representation was made before the District Forum and not a single word of explanation in this regard had been stated even in the appeal itself. The State Commission dismissed the appeal in limini after hearing the Counsel for the Petitioner and the operative part of the order of the State Commission reads as under:- aving considered entire facts and circumstances, we find no error or illegality in the order passed by the District Forum so as to call for any further interference in the present appeal. More so when the District Forum has taken note of the conduct of the appellant bank while imposing penal damages. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having no merits. This order is subject matter of challenge in this revision. With the consent of learned counsel appearing on both sides, the matter was heard for final disposal on merits at the admission stage itself. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the complainant had, infact, opened platinum roaming current account where the complainant was expected to entertain minimum balance of Rs.5 lakh and in this connection my attention was drawn to application form (Annexure P-1) at page 3 of the Revisions. He further submitted that the State Commission did not consider the condonation application, but went on the premises that the Petitioner had not explained as to why the Petitioner failed to appear or filed reply before the District Forum. It was also urged that the State Commission failed to deal with the issues raised in the appeal and merely disposed of the appeal in limini at the admission stage without considering the merits of the claim of the Complainant. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the District Forum erred in coming to the conclusion that the Petitioner was indulging in unfair trade practices and observation of the District Forum that the Petitioner has adopted such unfair trade practice in every case is not based upon material on record. He, therefore, contends that the order of the State Commission be set aside and the matter be remanded to the State Commission. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the representative of the Petitioner had informed the Complainant that the Complainant was required to keep a minimum deposit of Rs.10,000/-; that the Complainant was not informed about the relevant terms and conditions and signatures were taken on many papers and the print of which was so small that it was not possible to read the same. He further contended that once the Complainant had noticed the inclusion of RCA charges, the Complainant had immediately written to the Petitioner to close the account which, in fact, had never been operated by the Complainant but in spite of repeated letters, the account was not closed and the bills were being sent. He also stated that the Petitioner had in fact given in writing on 15.7.2008 to the District Forum regarding closing of the account on 14.7.2008. He, therefore, contends that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity and the revision be dismissed. During the course of the hearing, I had informed the Counsel for the parties that in the facts and circumstances of the case the interest of the parties would not be served by remanding the matter to the State Commission and the matter could be disposed of on the basis of material on record. Learned counsel for the parties had agreed to the same. Admittedly, the proceedings were not contested by the Petitioners before the District Forum and the matter had proceeded ex parte. The case of the Complainant before the District Forum was that the Complainant was assured by the representative of the Petitioner that the minimum deposit of Rs.10,000/- was to be maintained. It was also pleaded that the signatures of the Directors of the Complainant were taken on many papers including the terms and conditions, but the print was so small and it was not possible to read the same. In the memo of appeal, it was stated by the Petitioner that the sales representative of the Petitioner-bank never gave such assurance to the Complainant at the time of opening of the account and the Complainant had signed and executed the declaration form agreeing to pay all necessary and applicable charges as per platinum roaming current account schedule charges. No affidavit of the sales representatives of the Petitioner Bank was filed in support of this plea of the Petitioner in the appeal. After perusal of the documents filed alongwith the revision it can be seen that the print of the said documents and particularly Annexure 7 (from pages 86 to 96) is so small that it is difficult to read the same. In fact, the said documents are in mini micro print which are not clearly visible or readable. Even the declaration, exhibit P-5 which is at page 56 is in mini micro print which is not clearly legible. However, for the benefit of the Commission, typed copy thereof has been filed. Be that as it may, the material on record suggests that the Complainant never operated the said account and after receipt of statement of account from 1.10.2001 to 1.11.2006 the Complainant requested for closer of the account. Thereafter also the Complainant sought closer of the account by sending letters dated 7.2.2007 and 9.10.2007, but the account was not closed and the Complainant was forced to approach the District Forum after sending legal notice to the Petitioner. It appears that the Petitioner never replied to the legal notice. It may also be pointed out here that the Petitioner has also sent notices to the Complainant. Admittedly, the Petitioner had not given any explanation whatsoever in the appeal memo as to why the Petitioner did not put in appearance before the District Forum , as a result of which the District Forum had to proceed ex parte. The Petitioner was expected to deal with this aspect in the memo of appeal, but the Petitioner failed to deal with the same. In spite of repeated requests of the Complainant, the Petitioner did not close the account which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Petitioner, inasmuch as the account holder cannot be forced to continue with the account if he does not wish to continue with the same. However, the conclusion of the District Forum that the Petitioner had been adopting unfair trade practice in every case is neither supported by any material on record nor the District Forum has quoted any instance where it was found that the Petitioner had adopted such unfair trade practice. Therefore, the observation of the District Forum that the Petitioner had adopted unfair trade practice cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Forum on the basis of aforesaid observation had imposed penalty of Rs.2 lakh on the Petitioner under Section 14(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 . In the operative part of the order it is stated that Rs.2 lakh is awarded as compensation for mental agony. In fact, the Apex Court in Sikka Papers Limited V/s. National Insurance Company Ltd. and others III(2009) CPJ 90 ( SC) has laid down that the complainant being a company the claims for mental harassment is not legally permissible and it is only the natural person can claim damages for mental harassment, not corporate entity. The Respondent in the case before me is a corporate entity. In fact, the Complainant had had not sought any punitive damages, In the facts and circumstances of the case, the imposition of punitive damages to the extent of Rs.2 lakh was not called for and this part of the order of the District Forum cannot be sustained as also the observation relating to unfair trade practice. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the direction of the District Forum to the Petitioner to return the deposited amount of Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant with 9% per annum interest thereon from 21.6.2006 till payment thereof and costs of Rs. 3000/- is just, fair and equitable and does not call for any interference. In view of the above the revision is partly allowed in aforesaid terms with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant, inasmuch as the Petitioner failed to contest the case in the District Forum and did not incorporate any explanation in the memo of appeal as to why the Petitioner failed to appear before the District Forum. The Petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- with 9% p.a. interest from 21.6.2006 till the payment with costs of Rs.3000/- awarded by the District Forum as also costs of Rs.25,000/- awarded in this revision to the Complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the order.