Complainant Ravi Ranjan has filed this instant complaint under Consumer Protection Act against the opposite parties and prayed that direction may kindly be issued to opposite parties to settle the account with him on the basis of actual usage of his credit card after deducting unreasonable charges/interest, in the interest of justice.

2.       The case of the complainant in brief is that he is retired from P.S.P.C. Ltd. and he applied for credit card facility with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 released the credit card bearing No.4197891569249003 in April, 2013 to him and he used the same till March, 2017 and after that the same was not using by him. It was pleaded that in March, 2017 he approached to opposite party No.2 with the request to cease the said credit card and settle the account with him but the opposite party No.2 told him that in near future their bank will bring One Time Settlement Scheme and when the scheme will come they will inform him for making the remaining payment of said credit card but after his numerous requests through email on his email portal CCDNPA@PNB.CO.IN        they did not respond.  It was further pleaded that thereafter complainant again approached to opposite party No.2 and requested them that to settle his account after deducting unreasonable charge imposed upon him and to calculate the dues outstanding towards him from the date since he stopped using the credit card facility but they putting off the matter with one pretext or the other and said that they will convey him soon regarding his actual dues. It was also pleaded that on 08.08.2018 a demand notice of Rs.1,56,672.66/- was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant which was not based on actual usage of the credit card and the same is illegal, null and void, hence this complaint.

3.       Upon notice opposite parties were appeared through their counsel Sh.Kuldeep Raj Mahajan, Advocate but after that neither opposite parties nor their counsel have appeared and opposite parties were proceed against exparte vide order dated 17.09.2019.     

4.       In order to prove the case, counsel for the complainant has filed affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith copy of document Ex.C1.

5.       Written arguments not filed by the complainant.

6.       We have carefully examined all the documents/evidence produced on record for its contained statutory merit and have also judiciously considered and perused the arguments duly put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant.

7.       As detailed above, the complainant applied for credit card facility with opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.2 released the credit card bearing No.4197891569249003 in April, 2013 to him and he used the same till March, 2017 and after that the same was not using by him. It was pleaded that in March, 2017 he approached to opposite party No.2 with the request to cease the said credit card and settle the account with him. but the opposite party No.2 told him that in near future their bank will bring One Time Settlement Scheme and when the scheme will come they will inform him for making the remaining payment of said credit card but after his numerous requests through email on his email portal CCDNPA@PNB.CO.IN   they did not respond. on 08.08.2018 a demand notice of Rs.1,56,672.66/- was issued by the opposite parties to the complainant which was not based on actual usage of the credit card and the same is illegal, null and void. To support his pleading complainant has produced on flie his affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Ex.C-1. Upon notice opposite parties were appeared through their counsel but after that neither opposite parties nor their counsel have appeared and opposite parties were proceed against exparte vide order dated 17.09.2019 and did not care to contest the claim of the complainant and rebut the evidence led by him as aforesaid as such it can be concluded without any hesitation that either opposite party admit the claim of the complainant or has nothing to say in the matter. In this way, the evidence led by the complainant goes unrebutted and unassailed.

8.       In view of the above we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, as the request of their customer (Complainant) has not considered and no weightage has been given for timely settlement of account but he has made to suffer on this account whereas it was duty of the opposite parties to settle the account of the complainant as and when it was requested by him.

9.       In view of the above said discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, the present complaint is partly allowed and opposite parties are ordered to settle the account with the complainant on the basis of actual usage of his credit card after deducting reasonable charges/interest within a period of 45 days from the receipt of copy of this order. Besides this, opposite parties are directed to pay lump sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant as cost of litigation and mental harassment.

10.     The complaint could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court Cases, vacancies in the office and due to pandemic of Covid-19.

11.     Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record room.                                                                                                                                                          

                               (Kiranjit Kaur Arora)

                                                                         President   

Announced:                                          (B.S.Matharu)

March 17, 2023                                             Member

*YP*