29.01.2015
MR. TARAPADA GANGOPADHYAY, HON’BLE MEMBER
The instant Appeal has been filed by the OPs-Bank against the judgment and order dated 22.3.2013 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, in C.C.Case No. 459/2012, directing the Ops-Bank to close the accounts related to the Credit Card in question treating the same as finally settled and also not to raise any demand in future on the concerned Credit Card. The Ops-Bank were also directed to pay to the Complainant/Respondent Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, Rs. 25,000/- as punitive cost and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost. All the directions were ordered to be complied with within one month from the date of the order, failing which Rs. 100/- per day shall have to be deposited with the S.C.W.F., W.B. for the entire period of default.
Brief facts of the case, as appearing from the materials on records, are that the Complainant/Respondent obtained in his personal name for personal loan a Credit Card, bearing No. 4346 7710 0126 3897 related to Savings Bank A/c No. 01062000004378 from the Ops/Appellants-Bank. Against the said Credit Card the Complainant/Respondent secured personal loan of Rs. 58,443.11, repayment of which was being made directly to the Ops/Appellants-Bank through the Savings Bank Account of the Complainant/Respondent. In this process, when the outstanding amount of loan grew higher the Ops/Appellants-Bank agreed with the Complainant/Respondent for one-time settlement of loan at Rs. 19,500/- on the condition that it was to be repaid by cash of Rs. 2840/- on 27.6.2008, by post-dated cheques of Rs. 5554/- on 23.07.2008, Rs. 5553/- on 22.08.2008 and Rs. 5553/- on 22.09.2008, vide Ops’-Bank’s letter No. S 0237747 dated 27.6.2008 (Running Page-23 of Memo of Appeal). After such settlement the Complainant/Respondent tendered with the Ops/Appellants-Bank the post-dated cheques bearing No. 631901 dated 22.7.08 for Rs. 5554/-, 631902 dated 22.8.08 for Rs. 5553/- and 631903 dated 22.9.08 for Rs. 5553/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Gora Bazar Branch, as per receipts dated 27.6.08 and 5.7.08 (Running pages 22 & 23 of Memo of Appeal). After such repayment of the entire amount of one-time settlement of loan and no more use of the Credit Card by the Complainant/Respondent as averred, the Ops/Appellants-Bank continued raising further demand in respect of the said Credit Card in question. Then the Complainant/ Respondent requested the Ops/Appellants-Bank several times to resolve the said dispute, but the Ops/Appellants-Bank threatened the Complainant/Respondent with dire consequences instead. In this factual background, the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment and order in the aforesaid manner. Aggrieved by such judgment and order the Ops-Bank have preferred this Appeal.
The Ld. Advocate for the Appellants/Ops-Bank submits in the beginning that the Ld. District Forum erroneously mentioned in its judgment and order the Credit Card No. 5176 3580 1017 0834 in addition to Credit Card No. 4346 7710 0126 3897, but the former one was not the subject matter of the present dispute. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the Appellants-Ops/Bank are entitled to resort to all means of recovery including exercising right of lien on any account of the borrower as well as security as per terms and conditions of the Card Member Agreement and hence, the Appellants/Ops-Bank have not committed any illegality or irregularity in taking the recovery steps as alleged, when the Respondent/Complainant defaulted in repayment of the one-time settled amount of loan. In this context, the Ld. Advocate refers to the following decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble National Commission.
- Syndicate Bank Vs. Vijaya Kumar – reported in IV (1992) 2 SCC 330.
- M.Mallika Vs. State Bank of India – reported in IV (2006) CPJ I (NC).
- Canara Bank Vs. C.D.Patel – reported in II (2001) CPJ 19 (NC).
It is also submitted by the Ld. Advocate that because of default on the part of the Respondent/Complainant in repayment of the outstanding loan amount, the Miscellaneous charges, such as Late Payment Charges, Financial Charges, Auto Debit Charges, etc., contributed to the gradual increase of the outstanding amount. The Ld. Advocate concludes that in view of the aforesaid position of the case, as there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, the impugned judgment and order should be set aside, it being unjust and improper.
On the contrary, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant submits that the Respondent/Complainant had repaid in full the one-time settled amount of loan, i.e. Rs. 19,500/- in the following mode – Rs. 2840/- on 28.6.08 by cash, Rs. 5554/- on 22.7.08 by post-dated Cheque No. 631901, Rs. 5553/- on 22.8.08 by post-dated Cheque No. 631902 and Rs.5553 on 22.9.08 by post-dated Cheque No. 631903, all being drawn on Vijaya Bank, Gora Bazar Branch, as it is evident from the Appellants/Ops-Bank’s receipts bearing No. S237747 dated 27.6.08 and F6094509 dated 5.7.08 as available on records. The Ld. Advocate further submits that despite the one-time settled amount of loan having thus been fully repaid, further demand for re-payment of outstanding loan, coupled with threatening on behalf of the Appellants/Ops-Bank on the ground of non-payment of the one-time settled amount of loan, constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on behalf of the Appellants/Ops-Bank, and hence, the impugned judgment and order should be sustained, it being just and proper.
We have heard both the sides, considered their rival submissions and perused the materials on records including the BNA filed by the Appellants/Ops-Bank.
Customer’s copy of the receipt bearing No. F6094509 dated 5.7.08 with the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank and the signature of the recipient on behalf of the Bank, as available on records (Running Page 22 of Memo of Appeal), demonstrates that the Appellants/Ops-Bank received, on account of repayment of the one-time settled amount of loan, the post-dated cheques as the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent/Complainant mentioned hereinbefore. Further, the Appellants/Ops-Bank’s letter bearing No. S0237747 dated 27.6.08 with the logo of the Appellants/Ops-Bank and the signature of the recipient on behalf of the Bank, as available on records (Running Page-23 of Memo of Appeal), reinforces the receipt by the Appellants/Ops-Bank Rs. 2840/- on 27.6.08 by cash in addition to the receipt of three post-dated cheques, as mentioned hereinbefore, and all these receipts indicate the total receipt of Rs. 19,500/- being the entire one-time settled amount of loan. Thus, the evidence on records point to the repayment by the Respondent/Complainant the entire one-time settled amount of loan within the specified date.
On the above facts and evidence on records the impugned judgment and order, which had been passed by the Ld. District Forum below after correct appreciation of the facts and evidence on records, does not warrant any interference by this Commission.
Consequently, the Appeal having no merit is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Appellants/Ops-Bank to the Respondent/Complainant within 30 days from the date of the order. The impugned judgment and order is affirmed.
