16/02/15

HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. KALIDAS MUKHERJEE, PRESIDENT

            This Appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by Learned District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-I in case no.CC 340 of 2010 allowing the complaint and directing the OPs jointly and severally to give effect to the letter dated 31/08/09 and Complainant be permitted to make payment of subsequent instalments in terms of the said letter dated 31/08/09.  The OPs were further directed to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.3,000/-. 

            The case of the Complainant/Respondent, in short, is that he availed himself of the credit card facility from the OP Bank.  The said card has limit of an amount of Rs.1 lakh.  From the last part of the year 2008 the OP started making problems in sending statements to the Complainant.  The OPs started making various false and illegal claims from time to time and the OPs claimed an amount of Rs.1,43,515.64.  The Complainant filed the complaint case before the Learned District Forum bearing no.CC 494 of 2009.  The case was admitted and notices were issued.  After receipt of the notice one Md. Ismail of OP No.1 approached the Complainant for settlement and requested the Complainant to make a payment of Rs.35,000/- in 6 equal instalments towards the settlement of the dispute by and between the parties and upon such offer being made by the representative of the OP the Complainant agreed to the request of the OP and thus a payment of Rs.5,700/- only towards the first instalment of the settled amount was made with a forwarding letter dated 31/08/09.  The Complainant was asked by the OP to withdraw the case and the said fact was recorded in the letter dated 31/08/09.  The Complainant instructed his Learned Advocate not to proceed with the case and hence the case was dismissed for default.  The Complainant was waiting for a letter of settlement from the OP in terms of the letter dated 31/08/09 so that he could make payment of the subsequent instalments in terms of the letter, but to the utter surprise the Complainant was served with the letter dated 05/06/10 written by the Learned Advocate on behalf of the OPs.  By the said letter the OP demanded a sum of Rs.1,15,700/- leaving aside the initial demand of the OPs.  The demand of the OP was illegal.  For the said reason, the complaint has been filed before the Learned District Forum. 

            The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the Complainant had credit card facility and there were dues which were not regularly paid.  It has been submitted that the Complainant issued a letter dated 31/08/09 which was received by the OP, but there was nothing to show that the OP accepted the contention of the Complainant as raised in the said letter.  It is submitted that no settlement was done.  It is contended that the Bank has right of lien.  The Learned Counsel for the Appellant has referred to the decision of the State Commission, Maharashtra being no.A/11/481 [Shri Santanu Ghosh vs. HDFC Bank]; decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1992 SC 1066 [Syndicate Bank vs. Vijay Kumar & Ors.]; IV (2006) CPJ 1 (NC) [M. Mallika vs. State Bank of India and Anr.].

            The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that the credit limit was Rs.1 lakh and the Complainant used to pay the dues from time to time.  It is submitted that the OP Bank accepted the offer of settlement and, accordingly, the Complainant issued that letter dated 31/08/09 and it was not denied by the OP in the W.V.  The Learned Counsel has referred to the questionnaire and the reply given by the OP admitting that the settlement was made.       

            We have heard the submission made by both sides and perused the papers on record.   Admittedly, the Complainant had the credit card facility to the tune of Rs.1 lakh.  It is also evident that the Complainant used to make payment from time to time.  The Complainant put question no.14 to the OP which runs thus:-

“It is put to you that the claim of the opposite parties was settled at Rs.35,000/- as full and final settlement of the account and the same was payable into six monthly instalment of Rs.5,800/- with a condition that all dispute and/or all pending cases at the instance of the parties shall be withdrawn.  What do you say?”

The reply was given by the OP stating that the Complainant has not paid as per the settlement agreement, so the settlement was cancelled.

From the reply given by the OP as against question no.14 it becomes evident that the settlement was made as per the discussion held between the parties, but there is nothing to show that the said settlement was cancelled.  The OP Bank could not produce any document to show the cancellation of the settled amount.  Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Learned District Forum was justified in passing the impugned judgment and order.  There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the Learned District Forum. 

            The Appeal is dismissed.  The impugned judgment is affirmed.