HON’BLE JUSTICE ISHAN CHANDRA DAS, PRESIDENT

             This appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 24.09.2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Pagans, Barasat in C.C. Case No. 248/2013 wherein Ld. Forum concerned while disposing of the complaint case allowed the same on contest against the OPs and directed them to refund a sum of Rs. 13,671.21 with interest @ 12% per annum to be paid within one month from the date of the order, Rs. 25,000/- for harassment of the complainant for an unfair trade practice and Rs. 3,000/- as litigation cost with default clause.

              Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 24/09/2014 the present appeal has been preferred by the OP/HDFC Bank Ltd.

              Brief fact of the case is that the complainant/respondent (hereinafter complainant) a Mechanical Engineer took one credit card (Gold Loan) being no. 4346781005170543 from the HDFC Bank, Card Division and the same was upgraded to Platinum Card in November, 2010 due to regularizing payment by the petitioner. The complainant was a regular payee of the amount utilized but incidentally he suddenly faced financial disaster and as a consequence thereof he was forced to make monthly part payment as per direction of the officer of the bank concerned. The complainant not only paid the entire principal amount taken from the OP herein, but he already paid an amount which was substantially more than net value of the interest. The complainant approached the officer of the appellant/OPs (hereinafter OPs) for a settlement of the dispute between them but no satisfactory reply was received from them. On the contrary the complainant was regularly harassed and threatened by some officers of the OPs over telephone. Subsequently on 03.05.2013 the complainant wrote to the OP no. 1, informing the OPs that by using the Platinum Credit Card he credited an amount of Rs. 74,576.02 with 12% interest against the said credited amount, amounting to Rs. 88,247.23 to the OPs which exceeds to the tune of Rs. 13,671.21 over their actual dues. The complainant further claimed that he paid an excess amount of Rs. 13,671.21 to the OPs but they instead of returning the excess amount to the complainant demanding Rs. 68,358.41 without having any basis and he sent a letter to the OP no. 1 which was received by the authority on 08.05.2013, but no reply was given to the complainant which forced him to knock the door of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking recovery of Rs. 13,671.21 and consequential reliefs for mental pressure, anxiety, agony etc.

              The record reveals that the OPs filed a written version denying material allegations like payment in excess of Rs. 13,671.21 by the complainant to the OP/Bank and denying all other averments as contained in the petition of complaint they contended that the complainant took no attempt for settling the entire dues and ultimately it prayed for dismissal of the complaint case.

              Now the point for consideration is whether Ld. Trial Forum was justified in passing a decree in favour of the complainant and asking the OPs to repay the amount deposited with them by the complainant in excess of the amount, he took by the credit card facility. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant in course of hearing drew our attention to the terms and conditions (which is at page 60 of the file Annexure-‘E’) and submitted that the “Finance charges are payable at the monthly percentage rate on all transactions from the date of transaction in the event of the Cardmember choosing not to pay his balance in full, and on all cash advances taken by the Cardmember, till they are paid back. Finance charges, if payable, are debited to the Cardmember’s account till the outstanding on the card is paid in full”.

              It is argued before us that the appellant/bank authority is a financial institution dealing with the public money and cannot be asked to make any sort of charity rather the financial institution are duty bound to deal with the business as per established norms and there is no scope of showing any mercy or making any charity. In the instant case the complainant by producing his statement of accounts of credit card in his own way cannot be permitted to claim the balance amount which according to him the was excess amount paid to the bank authority. On careful consideration of the finding of Ld. Forum concerned, we are of firm opinion that Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Barasat simply disposed of the case in favour of the complainant without assigning any reason, discussion on the statement of accounts and held that the appellant was responsible for harassment and unfair trade practice. Since the judgment impugned passed by Ld. Trial Forum in CC 248 of 2013 does not reflect the reasons behind the decision, it should not stand on record, directing the OP/bank authority to pay the amount from the public money, particularly when no reason has been assigned by the Forum concerned while dealing with the complaint case. Hence, taking into consideration the amount involved in this proceeding, the period of pendency   of the case we are of considered opinion that the appeal should be disposed of by way of allowing it, resulting dismissal of the claim of the complainant, since the harassment of the complainant or deficiency of service is not established at all particularly when the complainant voluntarily accepted the credit card for transacting his day to day business.

              With these observations we set aside the judgment and order impugned dated 24/09/2014 passed by Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24-Pagans, Barasat resulting dismissal of  C.C. Case No. 248/2013. We pass no order as to costs.