JUDGEMENT

        Complainant Pulak Sinha by filing this complaint has submitted that the complainant as a Borrower of the op availed of the Credit Card facility to the extent of Rs.12,000/- and during subsistence of the said Credit Card facility complainant arrived at settlement with the op in the year 2008 for a sum of Rs.12,000/- and op issued a letter to the complainant by settling amount of compromise which will appear from the letter of the op under Reference No. S 0240148 dated 17.07.2008.

          In compliance of the said settlement complainant paid that amount op received it.  But fact remains that it was paid from time to time.  But op received that amount without any objection, but on the contrary they have blocked the Credit Card on or before the date of settlement.  But in spite of clearing entire settled amount and outstanding dues the complainant is being harassed by the op and though complainant claimed NOC and for which op committed negligence having rendered no due service to the customers though customer has cleared that settled amount and his outstanding dues as per settlement.  In the premises complainant has filed this case for relief praying for damage, compensation etc.

          Whereas op by filing written statement submitted, rather admitted the fact and settlement payment of said amount by installment received of the same but it is their allegation that it was not paid as per settlement clause and subsequently amount was increased and total amount has become Rs.1,48,549.65/- as on 01.11.2012 and complainant has not paid the same for which it is being increased day by day and in fact the complainant has filed this case suppressing entire fact and the statement of account will reveal the present position and outstanding and for which the complaint should be dismissed.

                                               Decision with reasons

          On proper consideration of the entire fact and disclosed in the complaint including the defence has taken by the op, it is admitted position that complainant is a Credit Card Holder of the op and no doubt settlement paper was issued by the op with reference No. S 0240148 dated 17.07.2008 and fact remains as per said settlement paper Exhibit-B, it is proved that complainant paid cash Rs.1,800/- and by cheque Rs.2,200/- dated 01.08.2008 vide cheque No.004678 and Rs.8,000/- vide dated-30.08.2008 being cheque No.004679 and from the settlement paper it is found that those are complete fact. But truth is that op has not stated whether the op encashed the said two cheques being No.004678 & 004679 and probably only to make the complainant a defaulter about encashment of cheque op is very much silent in his written version.  But we have gathered from Exhibit-C, as customer, the complainant paid Rs.15,000/- on 04.09.2008, Rs.1,800/- on 24.07.2008 and Rs.10,200/- (Rs.2,200/- + Rs.8,000) on 26.07.2008.  Thereafter on 04.10.2008 complainant again paid Rs.1,900/- and on 28.04.2008 complainant paid Rs.2,020/- and on 28.12.2007 complainant paid Rs.2,800/-.  So considering all these documents, papers that is C-Series it is found that even after settlement dated 17.07.2008 and even after receiving of the entire amount by the op, op has tried to show that complainant failed to pay the settle amount of Rs.12,000/-.  But truth is that complainant paid it and op received it without any objection.  Then after that complainant already paid more than Rs.12,000/-, even after settlement dated 17.07.2008 and from the terms and conditions of the settlement, it is proved that complainant paid the entire amount.  So, question of further charge of interest or EMI does not arise.  However, it is the HDFC Bank who are giving a piece of loaf to the customer and against that ops merchantable attitude to get pound of flesh from his customer day to day and ultimately then skeletonic figure of the customer is made in the hands of the HDFC Bank.  It is known to general public that if any customer enters into HDFC Bank, he must have to return on the foot path with a mug what is proved in this case even after payment of settlement amount by the complainant and received the same by the op, op prepared monthly bill and now he is claiming more than Rs.1,48,000/-.  Now the entire act of the op is unmerchantable and fact remains that HDFC Bank can be equated with Kabuliwala also and truth is that the complainant paid the entire settlement amount to op and op has received it.  Not only that op received more than Rs.12,000/- which is evident from Exhibits-B,C & D series and considering the above fact and materials we have gathered that op Bank realized more than amount the settled or that of settled amount and by this way they are squeezing money from the poor customers and they are sitting in cool glass rooms by adopting such process to cheating the depositors and present case simply proves they have adopted unfair trade practice like Kabuliwala and are charging interest over small amount when interest amount is found 15 times than that of the total amount.  Such an unmerchantable establishment should be punished for that and fact remains complainant’s grievance as made before this Forum against op is proved beyond any manner of doubt and it is unfortunate that HDFC Bank is claiming more than Rs.1,48,000/- against settlement claimed amount which had already been paid and such an act on the part of the op is not only unfair trade practice but also it is unmerchantable and fact remains complainant paid not only Rs. 12,000/- but more than that even after such settlement and for which we are convinced to hold that the complainant is entitled to get NOC from the op and op’s claim that he is entitled to Rs.1,48,000/- and above from the complainant is vexatious, uncalled for and no doubt unmerchantable and such claim as made by the op by adopting unfair trade practice is default with heavy hands.

In the above circumstances, the complaint succeeds.

          Hence, it is

                                                ORDERED

          That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest with cost of Rs.5,000/- against the op.

          Op is directed to issue NOC at once and op is not entitled to get further amount from the complainant against that Credit Card bearing No.4346772001135291. 

          Further for adopting unfair trade practice by the op and by charging illegal charges to the extent of Rs.1,48,000/-, op is imposed a punitive damages of Rs.10,000/- for adopting unfair trade practice that shall be paid by the op to the State Consumer Welfare Fund of this Forum.

          Op shall have to comply the order very strictly within one month from the date of this order failing which for each day’s delay and disobeyance of Forum’s order, op shall have to pay interest @ Rs.200/- per day till full satisfaction of the decree and if any reluctant attitude of the op is found for complying the Forum’s order in that case penal proceeding u/s 27 of C.P. Act 1986 shall be started against them and even for implementation of the order warrant may be issued for sending them jail.