Complainant/respondent was offered a free credit card by the appellant.  Respondent filled in an application form and submitted the required documents.  Her application was rejected.  Being aggrieved, respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission.  State Commission allowed the complaint with the following observations:

          “We deem that facts and circumstances of the case also call for punitive damages for having defamed and demeaned the legal profession as a whole by branding it ‘A Negative Profile’ for financial facility of even credit card whereas such a facility is being made available to peons, clerks, vegetable vendors and others.  It is an act of corporate authoritarianism.”

2.      Besides granting compensation of Rs. 50,000/-, the State Commission imposed a punitive damages of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the appellant to be deposited in the “State Consumer Welfare Fund.”  Opposite party being aggrieved filed the present appeal. 

3.      While admitting the appeal and granting stay to deposit
Rs. 10,00,000/- by way of punitive damages in the State Consumer Welfare Fund, we had directed the appellant to deposit a sum of
Rs. 50,000/- with this Commission.  Respondent was directed to withdraw the same by furnishing personal bond.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the State Commission has erred in awarding the compensation as there was no completed contract between the appellant and the respondent.  Offer was made by the respondent, which was not accepted by the appellant.  Since no credit card was issued, there was no completed contract between the appellant and the respondent and the State Commission has erred in holding that the appellant was in any way deficient in rendering the service.

5.      We find substance in this submission.  There was no completed contract between the parties.  Under the circumstances, the State Commission has erred in holding that the appellant was guilty of rendering service to the respondent.  Findings recorded by the State Commission are conjectural in nature and cannot be sustained.

6.      Findings recorded by the State Commission regarding deficiency and direction issued to the appellant to pay punitive damages of
Rs. 10,00,000/- and compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is set aside.  However,  the counsel for the appellant states that the appellant would not recover the sum of Rs. 50,000/- already paid to the respondent.

          Appeal stands disposed of  in above terms.