Justice Pritam Pal, President

1.         This appeal by complainant  is directed against the  order dated 30.10.2007 passed by District Consumer Forum-II, U.T. Chandigarh  whereby   his   complaint bearing  No.540 of 2007 was dismissed being devoid of any merit.

2.       The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their ranking before the District Consumer Forum.

3..         The facts culminating to the commencement of this appeal may be recapitulated  thus ;

           The complainant Sh. Om Prakash Sehgal an Advocate by profession had obtained SBI Credit Card No.  4317-5750-2494-0414   in September 2004 valid up to August 2006 from OP-1 who had its headquarters at New Delhi and had its branch office at Chandigarh, thereby providing services/facilities of purchases, cash withdrawals, flexi pay loans on equal monthly installments  (EMIs) etc. to its card holders.  It was  alleged   that OP-1 was   intentionally negligent in providing proper services/facilities to him specially in sending statements of accounts for the last more than one year due to which he had been continuously  suffering financial losses on account of imposition of unreasonable and hidden charges in the form of fines/fees which had also caused him mental torture and harassment.  The complainant made purchases up to Rs.10,000/- on 8.10.2005 and thereafter through telephonic talk, this amount was converted by OP-1 into a flexi pay loan of Rs.10,000/-  repayable in 24 equal monthly installments   of Rs.500/- each starting from November, 2005.  Subsequently, with the consent of OP-1 on telephone, the complainant made more purchases up to Rs.10,000/- on 11.11.2005 and again through telephone, this amount was converted into another   flexi pay loan of Rs.10,000/- repayable in 24 equal monthly installments   of Rs.500/- each starting with December 2005.  OP-1 imposed Rs.275.50 on the complainant as fee/fine due to exceeding credit limit, which amount he paid through cheque dated 22.12.2005, whose copy is annexure C-35 and copy of the   statement dated 9.12.2005  showing the said amount is Annexure C-36.  According to  complainant,  he was paying every month Rs. 1030/- (Rs. 1000 as installment + 30 as service charges) as two EMIs of Rs. 500/- each to OP-1 on account of the aforesaid two flexi pay loans of Rs.10000/- each.  The complainant on receipt of telephonic message from OP-1 in the first week of June 2006, also paid a sum of Rs.3000/- in respect of last purchase made by him, to OP-1 vide cheque dated 8.6.2006, thus, clearing all the outstanding dues regarding purchases except the future EMIs.    Till May 2006, the complainant was receiving the monthly statement/bills through courier and thereafter OP-1 stopped sending monthly statements to him but even then he was paying all further EMIs of Rs. 1030/- each   of the two flexi pay loans.  It was alleged that OP No.1 was to send monthly statements from June,2006 onwards in order to enable him to clear the outstanding dues, if any, regarding purchases, fees/fines etc. especially when the validity of the SBI card expired after August,2006.    OP-1 then  reissued the SBI Card at its expiry in August 2006 for a period of 2 years to make it effective from September 2006 to September 2008 which the complainant never activated/used, so OP No.1 was not entitled to impose any fee/fine on the complainant after August,2006 . It was further alleged that OP NO.1 had in the month of January,2006 stopped sending the requisite monthly statements/bills  and on sending E.Mail dated 22.1.2006 OP No.1 started sending the monthly statements through courier as usual and after May,2006, it again stopped sending the requisite monthly statements to him. After June,2006, the complainant  on telephone  offered to OP-1 to pay all the remaining EMIs in one time, in case the interest was adjusted but the offer was declined by OP-1 and therefore, the complainant kept on paying the   EMI’s every month from May 2006 to May 2007.  According to  complainant,  OP-1 after 8.6.2006 insisted upon him on telephone to personally give the cheques of EMIs every month to its representative who used to come to his residence for collection of cheques because of the fact that it was physically unable to collect the cheques which were dropped in the requisite drop boxes which version  according to complainant was  false because many cheques dropped in the requisite drop-boxes were got encashed by  it.    The OP-1 charged cheque pick up fees of Rs. 50.51 each two times on 22.1.2007 and on 9.2.2007 respectively and thereafter, the complainant started dropping the EMIs cheques in the requisite drop box of SBI, Main Branch, Sector-17, Chandigarh.  In March 2007,   complainant    received a telephonic message from OP-1 asking him to pay more amount than the normal EMI amount of Rs. 1030/- as minimum amount due without providing a detailed statement of account. Complainant then sent his E.mail dated 9.3.2007 requesting  OP NO.1 to send him the statements.  OP-1 finally sent a statement of account to the complainant on 9.2.2007 showing the total amount due as 5422.56 with due date of payment as 1.3.2007 and the minimum amount due for payment as Rs.2211.13 and the total outstanding  amount shown was Rs. 13922.56.  The complainant then paid a sum of Rs.7050/- vide cheque No. 730798 dated 18.4.2007 for payment of other dues towards the total amount due, excluding future EMIs.  This amount was duly credited to his account accordingly by OP-1 vide its email dated 24.6.2007 .

            It was further alleged that on 30.4.2007 complainant sent a notice   to OP-1 calling upon it to return the charges paid by him in excess i.e. the unreasonable amount of Rs.6020/- (out of Rs.7050/- paid vide cheque dated 18.4.2007 ) within 30 days failing which he would be constrained to  initiate action  against OP-1.  The same was sent to OP-2 as well on 26.5.2007 which was replied to by OP-1 taking the same as mere suggestions for improving the customer services stating that the complainant would henceforth receive statements of accounts through email.  OP-1 did send statement of accounts on 29.5.2007 crediting Rs.50.51 to SBI Card account of the complainant showing total outstanding as Rs.5852.41 (including EMI) and Net payable as Rs.4872.92, thereby adjusting Rs.7050/- as well as EMIs of Rs.1030/-. Another email was received on 29.6.2007 by him.  Thus, the  complainant alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs filed complaint before the District Fourm seeking the following relief ;

                       (i)That the OPs be ordered to return to the complainant, with interest, the amount of charges paid in excess i.e. the unreasonable hidden amount of Rs.6020/- (out of Rs.7050/- paid vide cheque No. 730798 dt. 18.4.2007 Annexure C-32, copy of the said cheque) in order to avoid further mental torture and harassment.

                     (ii)To pay an amount of Rs.1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only) by way of compensation to the complainant on account of the mental torture and harassment, perpetrated upon him for the last more than one year on telephone as well as through the E-mails of OP-1, which is duly proved from the documentary evidence as well, mentioned in the complaint.

                   (iii)Any other relief, to which the Complainant is found entitled on the facts and circumstances of the present complaint, be also granted to him in the interest of justice.

                    (iv)Stay on payment to OP-1 in respect of further equal monthly installments (EMIs) with effect from June 2007 onwards, amounting to Rs. 4,872.92 paise, as per the calculations of OP-1 in its E-mail dated 29.5.2007, 12:48 PM [Annexure C-19 (+c-19/A, copy)], may kindly be granted in the interest of justice.

 4.        Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case but none appeared on their behalf before the District Forum and suffered ex parte proceedings. 

 5.          The learned District Consumer Forum after going through the ex parte   evidence  and hearing   the complainant  came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish his case and  OPs had done their duty honestly and diligently and there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on their part. Accordingly the complaint was dismissed being  without any substance and devoid of merit. Still dissatisfied, complainant has   come up in   this appeal. 

6.            We have heard  the  appellant/complainant  who himself is an advocate as well as   counsel for OPs   and gone through the file carefully.  It was contended by the complainant that OPs did not appear before the District Forum nor chose to file their version of the case but still the District Forum instead of deciding the case against them , gave decision against the complainant by not considering the mental torture and harassment perpetuated upon him on telephone and through E.mails of OP No.1 for more than one year since 22.1.2006. It was further contended that he   had  made payments of all the monthly statements of accounts since the inception of his SBI card i.e. from September,2004 till May,2007 and all the cheques were dropped into the requisite drop-box lying in the main branch of State Bank of India at Sector-17, Chandigarh  because there was no provision for receiving cash payments. However, OPs did not send monthly statements of account from June,2007 to 9.3.2008 in any form to the complainant . It was duty of the OP NO.1 to send to the complainant monthly statements of account for June,2006 onwards atleast the statements for 9.6.2006 when it had to recover fines/late fees/finance charges from the complainant in respect of his SBI card, for 9.7.2006 when complainant had paid all the total amount due as mentioned in the monthly statement of account dated 9.5.2006 and  for 9.8.2006 when the validity of SBI card issued to the complainant expired after August,2006. He further contended that as his SBI card was renewed/reissued by OP NO.1-automically in the absence of any application, so it was proved therefrom that the complainant’s account was good standing at that time and there was nothing outstanding whatsoever till September,2006 against him except the EMIs  which were being paid @ Rs.1030/-  including interest at the flat rate of 10% p.a. on the  two flexi-pay loans of Rs.10,000/- each since their inceptions i.e. 8.10.2005 and 11.11.2005.  OP NO.1 through its E.mail dated 9.5.2007  at its own sweet will subscribed the complainant’s SBI card with E-statement facility, without his filling in forms online,  thereby  OP NO.1 wanted to escape its liability of sending monthly statements by post/courier.

7.         It was further argued by the complainant  that the OP NO.1 did not at all send the monthly statements of accounts original or duplicate either through post  from 8..6.2006 to 9.4.2007 when the E.mail dated 9.4.2007 was received by the complainant enclosing therewith for the first time after 8.6.2006, two months previous SBI card monthly statement dated 9.2.2007 received in April,2007 in which Rs.5422.56 had been unreasonably shown as total amount due and Rs.13933.56 was unreasonably shown as total amount outstanding. At that time i.e. on 9.2.9007 the unreasonable and hidden charges amounted to Rs.5422.56 which should not have been shown at all as payable and the remaining amount of Rs.8500/- ( Rs.13922.56 minus 5422.56 =8500) related to the remaining EMIs from March,2007. The complainant dropped in the relevant drop-box, on approximate basis, under protest and stress as well as  to avoid further mental torture and harassment cheque dated 18.4.2007 for Rs.7050/-  i.e. Rs.6020/- as roughly calculated unreasonable hidden charges + Rs.1030/- as EMI for April,2007. Thus, the aforesaid amount of Rs.6020/- was paid by the complainant in excess which was not refunded by OP NO1 and as such it was vehemently argued that the complaint of the complainant was not without any substance and was based on cogent documentary proof  and the impugned order is liable to  be set aside and complainant is entitled to refund of Rs.6020/-  as well as to compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on account of mental torture and harassment.

8.         On the other hand, the learned counsel for OPs argued that on 8.10.2005 the complainant made purchases of Rs.10,000/- which was converted in Flexi-pay-loan of Rs.10,000/- on the request of  complainant and as per the plan the complainant was required to pay the amount of Rs.10,000/- in 24 equal monthly installments of Rs.500/- starting from November,2005 to October,2007. Further on 11.11.2005 complainant again made purchases of Rs.10,000/- and the amount was converted into flexi-pay loan and as per opted plan, he was required to pay Rs.10,000/- in 24 EMIs of Rs.500/- each starting from December,2005 to November,2007 and as per the plan Rs.2000/- each was charged as interest from the  complainant. In the month of February,2006 the complainant deposited the cheque dated 24.2.2006 qua EMI for the month of February,2006   but the same could not be honoured and was  returned unpaid with the remarks ‘drawer’s signature required ’ and this fact finds reflected in the statement dated 9.3.2006. The complainant deposited the said amount of Rs.1030/- through cheque dated 21.3.2006. As per flexi plan opted by the complainant, he was required to make regular payment of Rs.1000/- + service tax as applicable each month  but  he made payment of February,2006 only on 21.3.2006 and made another payment of Rs.1030/- on 30.3.2006 vide cheque bearing No.701363 which was again delayed payment on account of  which finance charges were imposed on unpaid flexi pay amount as reflected in the statement dated 9.4.2006. Complainant used the card on 29.4.2006 and made purchases of Rs.3000/- which transaction was reflected in the statement dated 9.5.2006. According to the statement dated 9.5.2006 the due amount was required to be deposited by 29.5.2006 but complainant paid only Rs.1030/- and deposited the amount of Rs.3000/- on 10.6.2006 and for delayed payment the charges were imposed as reflected in the statement dated 9.6.2006.  It was further argued that the complainant used to make payment of flexi plans in his credit card account and had never made the payment of finance charges imposed on him due to   late payment or payments after due dates and as such finance charges were carried forwarded to every month. The complainant was required to pay the amount of Rs.1030/- till October,2007 being EMIs of two flexi loan amounts and Rs.515/- till November,2007 plus the payment for purchases made by him. He further argued that OPs were regularly sending monthly bills to the complainant to make him aware the outstanding amount in his account but he never approached the OPs for settlement of his account by clearing his outstanding amount and defaulted in repayment of his flexi loan as well as in the repayment of purchases made by him and had filed the complaint just to escape from the repayment of amount against his credit card.

9.              We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and find that  the contention of complainant  with regard to straightway allowing the complaint in his favour and against the OPs as they were  proceeded against ex parte  is  devoid of any merit inasmuch-as  it is not binding upon the Forum to decide the case against the party who is proceeded against ex parte as every case is decided on the basis of  its merits as well as evidence/documents  produced on file. In the instant case the learned District Forum did not find any substance in the complaint of complainant and as such dismissed the same without granting any relief to him.      The complainant was being issued bill every month  and further his SBI card was subscribed with E-statement facility  for  sending monthly statements without any extra charges. Sending the statement through post or E.mail makes no difference, rather it is convenient to send/receive such statements through email than through ordinary post. During the pendency of this appeal, OPs were directed to file accounts statement showing as to on which dates the purchases were made by the complainant and as to when he was required to make the payment and as to when he actually made the payment and how much amount had been charged as late payment by way of interest or penalty.  A perusal of the said statement shows that the late payment charges and finance charges were carried forward as the same were not paid by the complainant .

10.                   The complainant has not been able to establish as to how  the  amount of Rs.6020/- was paid by him in excess  and it  constituted any hidden charges. Undisputedly   the  purchases  made against his SBI credit card   on two occasions for Rs.10,000/- each were  converted   into two flexi pay loans repayable in 24 equal monthly installments (EMIs) of Rs.500/- each plus interest payable @ 10% per annum on the outstanding amounts, in addition to the service charges payable by him as per government rules.  However, while making all the calculations in respect of re-payments made by him to the OPs for the two flexi loans, the complainant has not shown any calculation in respect of the interest component which was due and payable by him to OPs not only on the two flexi pay loans but also on  other outstanding dues.   By just paying a sum of Rs.1030/- per month as principal sum in discharge of the loan liability, the complainant cannot be absolved of repaying the interest component, late payment charges and finance charges to the OPs.   Further the complainant  has not been able to quantify any financial loss caused to him on account of re-issuance of the SBI credit card by the OPs to him for another period of two years from September 2006 to September 2008 without there being any  specific request from his side.     OPs had not  made any extra charge for renewing the credit card in favour of the complainant.    

11.       In these set of circumstances, the complainant has failed to substantiate his claim with regard to refund of excess amount of Rs.6020/- on account of hidden charges. The claim of the complainant regarding grant of compensation of Rs.1.00 lac on account of mental torture and harassment is  also without any basis and could not be substantiated.

12.       For the reasons stated above, the findings of the District Forum dismissing the claim of the complainant-appellant are liable to be confirmed  as they are based on correct appreciation of entire materials and evidence available on record and they do not suffer from any basic infirmity, illegality or perversity. There is absolutely no reason to interfere with the findings and the impugned order passed by the District Forum. In the result, the appeal  fails and same is hereby dismissed. However, we make no order as to costs.