This appeal has been directed against the judgement and order of the District Forum in CD Case No.10 of 2005 whereby CD Case No.10 of 2005 was allowed on contest and the Respondent was directed to restore the CAN card with all privileges and further to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to complainant therein. An application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was filed by the Respondent herein alleging before the Forum below that the Appellant Canara Bank issued a CAN card for three years from December 2004 to 2007 with which the Respondent herein could purchase or invest up to the limit of Rs.10,000/-.The Complainant /Respondent never exceeded the limit of Rs 10,000/- and in his current of the side bank a sum of Rs 49,000/- and odd was lying in deposit. The bank all on a sudden black listed the complainant on the ground that the surety withdrew his responsibility in writing and further in the application from for CAN card the consumer wrongly showed the value of fixed asserts as 1 Lakh. The application was contested by the bank by stating that there was a dishonest concealment with regard to disclosure of the permanent address of the Consumer and also a wrongful assertion that the Consumer had fixed asset to the tune of 1 Lakh.The another ground for black listing the complainant was that the guarantor expressed his inability to act as such.

2. The forum below on the basis of documentary evidences filed by the parties came to the conclusion that the complainant at no point of time exceeded the permissible limit ,that the cause communicated to the complainant for declaring him “Black Listed” his baseless and that the Bank authorities by abruptly withdrawing the card facility and without giving any opportunity and notice committed gross error.On such grounds, the Court below allowed the Complainant’s in the terms stated above.

3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Forum below, this bank has come forward with this appeal.

4. In course of hearing the Ld.Lawyer for the Appellant bank argued that the bank has power to withdrew the facility of CAN card at any moment without assigning any reason and to fortify this argument Rule No.22 framed by the bank was relied upon. The Rule States:-

          “The issuer resever its right to cancel the card and/or withdrew privileges extended to the card holder under the card at any time and without assigning any reason.”

5. In our opinion this clause under Rule 22 does not authorized the bank Authority to act whimsically and to decide to cancel the card within two or three months from the date of issue without any valid reason . That would be an act of insanity and no Government concerned can be permitted to do so. There is no allegation that the amount lying with the bank to the credit of the consumer fell short of expenditure incurred by the Card. It is admitted case the card was sufficiently covered by the savings bank account which had enough money to cover such expenditure. The Consumer never crossed the limit of Rs.10,0000/- The papers submitted before this Commission clearly the Bank Authorities recovered the money from the current account. When there was no case of default and no case of exceeding the expenditure beyond the ceiling. So there was no ground for cancellation of card. The Forum below rightly rejected the bank’s plea. In course of hearing the Ld.Lawyer for the Appellant submitted that a fresh card would be issued in favour of the Respondent and an application to that effect has also been field. Further discussion on this point is not necessary.  

6. It appears to use that the ground for revoking the CAN Card facilities are frivolous particularly when there is enough money in the current amount of the consumer who is businessman and the CAN Card is extremely necessary for him. The Ld. Lawyer for the Bank has assured of granting a fresh CAN Card within minimum time. We hope that the Bank Authorities would honour the submission of the Ld Advocate. The appeal, therefore must fail.

7. The appeal No 4 has been  preferred by the complainant with a prayer for enhancement of the cost of Rs 5,000/- granted by the Forum below. The Forum granted Rs 5,000/- as compensation in the favour of complainant. It has been argued by the Ld.Lawyer for the Consumer/Appellant that Rs 5,000/-. Against the claim of Rs 20 Lakhs as compensation is too significant and such amount should be enhanced by the Appellant Authority. It is significant to note that the claimant demanded Rs 20 Lakhs for grating compensation. No evidence has been adduced by the claimant to show how he arrived at compensatory amount in each case. Had there been evidence the Respondent could have got the opportunity to cross examine and for the evidence of both side the Forum could have come to decision about the compensation.

 

8. In the particular case, the Forum awarded Rs.5,000 /- as compensation only from the circumstances of the case which are discernable by it. We do not like to interfere with the amount of compensation fixed by the Forum below. There is no material before us to do so. So the Appeal preferred by the Complainant/Appellant in appeal Case No.4 of 2006 is also dismissed.

9. In the result, it is order that both the appeals are dismissed. The judgement and order passed by the Forum below is hereby affirmed. Canara Bank Authorities are given three weeks time from this date to issue a fresh CAN Card in favour of the Respondent Shri Chittu Singh failing which the order would be executable at once along with the compensation amount of Rs.5000 granted by the Forum below. No cost of the appeal.

10. The judgement and order of this appeal shall govern the appeal case No.4 of 2006.