1.      The present Revision Petition, under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short “the Act”) has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 23.06.2017 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata(for short “State Commission”) in First Appeal No.A/77/2016 wherein the Appeal filed by the Appellants/Petitioners was dismissed.

2.      Case of the Complainants is that a credit card was issued by the Opposite Party/Bank in August, 1999 in the name of Complainant No.1. Unfortunately, after some time he was thrown out of the job and lost capacity to repay the credit card dues. In September, 2000 the Opposite Party/Bank showed a debit balance of Rs.17,722.53. Complainant No.2, father of Complainant No.1 came to know about the debit balance from the statement given by the Bank Manager. On approaching the Bank, a compromise settlement of Rs.13,000/- was agreed. His father gave the Bank three post-dated cheques from his saving bank account. In 2013, when Complainant No.1 approached certain Banks in Bombay for a bank loan, he was informed that the name of Complainant No.1 was found in the CIBIL and no loan could be granted. This caused damage to his integrity, credit worthiness and future financial plans to create assets. He then approached the Bank’s recovery department, Kolkata who informed that the matter could be closed on payment of Rs.25,000/-. After exhausting all hopes for a peaceful settlement of the issue, the Complainants filed a Consumer Forum before the District Forum.

3.      The case was contested by the Opposite Party/Bank in the District Forum. The Bank stated that an opportunity was given to the Complainant to liquidate the dues against his credit card by making payment of a total sum of Rs.13,000/- as per the terms of settlement letter dated 03.10.2000. In terms of the settlement, Complainant No.2 issued three post-dated cheques of Rs.4,333.33 each, dated 03.10.2000, 03.11.2000 and 03.12.2000 towards instalments. As per the settlement, the cheques should be duly paid and honoured on the due dates, in default of which the settlement plan shall be rendered null and void and the dues on account of the credit card would be revived in its entirety. Only two instalments were paid in the month of October and December, 2000 and credit for November, 2000 was not found in the accounts. Having failed to comply with the terms of the settlement, the Bank was entitled to recover the entire dues on account of the credit card of the Complainant. No evidence was shown that the Complainants had actually paid the missing instalment. The Opposite Party, however, later on request of the Complainant waived the dues against credit card and no amount is due and claimed by them from the Complainants at present. The Opposite Party had also placed appropriate entry in the CIBIL record showing that the subject account had been settled. Complaint filed by the Complainants is baseless and motivated and, therefore, the Complainants are not entitled to any relief or compensation or cost as prayed by them.

4.      The District Forum, having heard the Complainants as well as the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party and also considering the evidence and material placed on record, observed that Complainant No.1 was allowed an opportunity by the Opposite Party to pay the dues of his credit card which he did not avail and became a defaulter. His name was entered in the CIBIL list as per the RBI Guidelines. The Opposite Party had also settled the credit card of the Complainant and the matter was recorded as settled in the CIBIL. The District Forum held that the Complaint was not tenable in view of the fact that the matter had already been redressed. The District Forum ordered as follows: -

“ So, apparently it is found that complainants was a noted defaulter in respect of the credit card of the op but op’s credit card has already been closed and there is no dues to pay by the complainants. But invariably on the mercy of the op, complainants have got such relief and in the CIBIL List it is found settled. So, we find that op redressed the claim of the complainants in all respect though they are defaulter and did not pay the entire dues and he suppressed the matter in the complaint for which we find that this complaint is not tenable in view of the  fact that the matter has already been redressed by the complainants and as per admission of the op, this complaint is disposed of accordingly.”

5.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the Complainants filed an Appeal before the State Commission. After hearing Complainant No.2 in person and learned Counsel on behalf of the Respondent, as also perusing the record, the State Commission was of the considered view that the impugned judgment and order did not deserve any intervention. The Appeal was dismissed on contest and the judgment and order was affirmed.

6.      Aggrieved by the orders of the State Commission, the Complainants filed a Revision Petition before this Commission.

7.      Heard Petitioner No.2 in person and learned Counsel for the Respondent and have carefully gone through the record. Petitioner No.2 submitted that Complainant No.1 was issued a credit card by the Respondent Bank in August, 1999 with a limit of Rs.19,000/-. Unfortunately, after some months, Complainant No.1 lost his job and dues got accumulated against his credit card. On receiving the statement from the Respondent/Bank, Petitioner No.2 gave three post-dated cheques from his account in fulfilment of the compromise settlement reached between the Petitioners and the Respondent/Bank. Later when Petitioner No.1 approached some Banks in Bombay for obtaining a bank loan, he was informed that his name was found in defaulters’ list in CIBIL and, therefore, no loan could be granted. This destroyed his credit worthiness and all his future plans to create assets. When the Complainants approached the Opposite Party, the Opposite Party demanded payment of Rs.25,000/- for closing the matter.

8.      The learned Counsel for the Respondent argued that by entering into a settlement with the Complainant, an opportunity was provided by the Respondent/Bank to repay the dues against his credit card by making payment of a total sum of Rs.13,000/- in three instalments. The Complainants did issue three post-dated cheques of Rs.4,333.33 each dated 03.10.2000, 03.11.2000 and 03.12.2000, as per the condition of the settlement letter dated 03.10.2000. From the account statement it appeared that only two instalments were paid in October and December, 2000 and the Complainants failed to pay the agreed instalment in November, 2000. Having failed to comply with the essential condition of the settlement, the Respondent/Bank was entitled to recover the entire credit card dues from the Petitioner. Moreover, the matter has since been settled by them and, therefore, the entire case becomes baseless and needs to be dismissed.

9.      Both the Fora below, after hearing both the parties as well as carefully perusing the record and evidence produced by them, dismissed the Complaint.

10.    Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21 (b) is very limited. This Commission is not required to re-appreciate and reassess the evidences. The Court can intervene only when the petitioner succeeds in showing that the Fora below has wrongly exercised their jurisdiction or there is a miscarriage of justice. It was so held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2011) 11 SCC 269  as under: -

“13.   Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal  principle  that  was  ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

11.    Same principle has been reiterated by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lourdes Society Snehanjali Girls Hostel and Ors. Vs. H & R Johnson (India) Ltd. and Ors. (2016 8 SCC 286 wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

“23.   The  National Commission has to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it only if the State Commission or the District Forum has failed to exercise their jurisdiction or exercised when the same was not vested in their or exceeded their jurisdiction by acting illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission has certainly exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the concurrent finding of fact recorded in the order passed by the State Commission which is based upon valid and cogent reasons.”

12.    From the above, it is seen that the Complainant failed in making payment of his credit card dues and entered into a compromise settlement with the Respondent/Bank for payment of the dues in three equal instalments. Having failed to keep up this commitment, as the Petitioner again became a defaulter, his name was found in the CIBIL list. However, from the evidence placed on record it is found that the Respondent/Bank has since settled the matter of the Complainant by waiving the balance and instalment due against the credit card. No amount is found due and no claim is being made by the Respondent/Bank at present. Even the CIBIL list records that the account has been settled. Since the Complainant’s status as defaulter has already been settled by the Respondent/Bank and the credit card had already been closed with the CIBIL list also showing the matter settled, the Complaint was dismissed by both the Fora.

13.    I find no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the Fora. Petitioners have failed to point any illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the State Commission, warranting interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed.

14.    However, Respondent was to pay Rs.20,000/- to the Petitioners as cost imposed by this Commission, vide order dated 24.05.2019. The amount has not been paid even after expiry of more than one year. The Respondent is, therefore, directed to pay Rs.20,000/- with 9% interest from 24.06.2019 till realization to the Petitioners within eight weeks from the date of this order.