DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

Dharam Vir son of Late Sh. Raghvir Singh resident of House No.2490, Sector 20-C, Chandigarh.

                                                              ---Complainant.

V E R S U S

State Bank of India Credit Card Division through Local Head Office, Bank Square, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh.

---Opposite Party.

BEFORE:  SHRI LAKSHMAN SHARMA                 PRESIDENT

                   SHRI JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh. Vikram Singh, Adv. for the complainant

                        Sh., Sandeep Suri, Adv. for the OP.

PER LAKSHMAN SHARMA, PRESIDENT

1.                           Sh. Dharam Vir has filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act only) praying for the following reliefs :-

i)       To pay a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment;

ii)      To pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- as costs of litigation.

iii)              To pay any other relief, which the Forum deems fit.

2.                           In brief, the case of the complainant is that he took a Credit Card bearing No.0004006661030475938 from the opposite party in the year 2004. Thereafter, the opposite party issued an Add-On Card bearing No.4006661034626882 without any request from the complainant. However, according to the complainant, he had been using the above said credit card for some time. According to the complainant, as he was not satisfied with the service of the opposite party, he decided to close down the facility. At that time, some amount was outstanding against the complainant. Some dispute arose between the complainant and the opposite party regarding the actual dues for use of the credit card. According to the complainant, ultimately, a settlement was arrived at between the parties and opposite parties agreed to close the case on payment of Rs.7,000/- by the complainant in full and final settlement of the dispute. Thus, according to the complainant, he paid a sum of Rs.7,000/- vide receipts dated 18.01.2005, 26.04.2005, 27.05.2005 and 28.06.2005 [Annexures C-1 (Colly.)]. It has further been pleaded that despite the payment of the entire amount, as settled by the parties, the complainant received a legal notice dated 28.04.2006 asking the complainant to appear before the Conciliation Officer to settle the account. So, he appeared before the Conciliation Officer. However, the matter was not settled. According to the complainant, on 28.04.2006, he again received a legal notice demanding Rs.15,969.48Ps. From March 2008, opposite party again started issuing bills to him qua the said credit card. The said bills were sent to him on 23.03.2008, 23.06.2008, 23.03.2009, 23.09.2009, 23.12.2009 and 23.06.2010. According to the complainant, demand of the amount against the said credit card is illegal and unjustified as the complainant had settled the account in the year 2004 and had paid the required payment.

                   Thus, according to the complainant, the demand made by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. It has further been averred that the opposite party threatened the complainant through musclemen and caused great mental agony to him.

                   In these circumstances, the present complaint has been filed seeking the reliefs mentioned above.

3.                           On the other hand, the case of opposite party is that the complainant had himself applied for issuance of the credit card and on his request, the Add-On card was issued to him. It has further been pleaded that the complainant was satisfied with the service provided by the opposite party and no complaint to this effect was ever received. The opposite party has denied any settlement between the parties on payment of Rs.7,000/-. According to opposite party, it is a concocted story. It has been pleaded that a sum of Rs.51,805.33Ps was outstanding against the complainant as on 23.09.2009. So, legal notice was issued to him asking him to appear before the Conciliation Officer. The complainant appeared but did not make the payment. It has further been pleaded that as the amount was due against the complainant, so the bills were issued to him. According to opposite party, there is no deficiency on its part. A number of preliminary objections have also been taken such as complaint is barred by limitation; the complainant has no locus-standi to file the present complaint; Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint and the complaint being false and frivolous.

4.                           As none appeared on behalf of the complainant on 19.09.2011 therefore, we proceeded to dispose of the present complaint on merits under Rule 4(8) of the Chandigarh Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 read with Section 13(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in his absence. After hearing the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the opposite party and on going through the documents on record, this complaint was dismissed vide order dated 20.9.2011 on the ground that the complainant had failed to place on record any document with regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties. 

5.                           Aggrieved against the said order, the complainant preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission.  During the pendency of the appeal, the complainant produced on record a copy of the settlement letter as Annexure A-1.  The Hon'ble State Commission after taking into consideration the said letter, set aside the order passed by this Forum and remanded the matter back to this Forum for deciding the same afresh after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.

6.                           Thereafter, the complainant placed on record his affidavit by way of additional evidence alongwith copy of the settlement letter dated 18.1.2005 as Annexure A-1.  Ld. Counsel for the opposite party did not produce any evidence in rebuttal and his statement to this effect was recorded on 8.10.2012.

7.                           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents on record.

8.                           Annexure A-1 is the letter dated 18.1.2005 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that SBI Account No.0004006661030475938 stands settled for Rs.7,000/- only.  Vide this letter the opposite party also acknowledged the receipt of Rs.4,000/-.  Alongwith the complaint, the complainant has annexed receipts [Annexure C-1 (Colly.)] dated 26.4.2005, 27.5.2005 and 28.6.2005 for Rs.1,000/- each. In view of the above, the opposite party has received total amount of Rs.7,000/-. Thus, it is proved that the complainant has paid the entire amount and the account has been settled as per the letter of settlement.

9.                           Faced with this situation, it was argued by the ld. Counsel for the opposite parties that the three receipts of Rs.1,000/- each (Annexure C-1 colly.)  do not relate to the account in question.  Hence, these receipts do not prove that the entire amount has been paid.

10.                       To our mind, the argument advanced by the ld. Counsel for the opposite party has no force.  Admittedly the complainant was issued a credit card which was used by him.  Admittedly, an add on card was also issued to the complainant. Thereafter the account was settled vide letter dated 13.1.2005 (Annexure A-1) and the complainant surrendered both the cards.  In the letter (Annexure A-1), number of the original credit card is found mentioned as 0004006661030475938 against SBI account No.  To our mind once the settlement has been arrived at against the original card, there is no question of anything due against the add on card as the same has been offered against the original card only.  Still further, the opposite party has not placed on record any document/account statement in respect of any other credit card or the add on card to show that there were two different accounts pertaining to each card.  Otherwise also, it is not the case of the opposite party that the complainant used any of the cards after 18.1.2005 when the settlement was arrived at between the parties.  Hence, the issuance of notices (Annexure C-4 colly.) is illegal and amounts to deficiency in service.

11.                       In view of the above discussion, the present complaint is allowed and the opposite party is directed as under :-

(i)                to pay Rs.20,000/- as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the complainant.

(ii)             to pay Rs.10,000/- as litigation expenses.

12.                       This order be complied with by the opposite party, within 45 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which the amount of Rs.20,000/- shall carry interest @18% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment besides payment of litigation costs.

13.                       Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced

09.10.2012.

Sd/-

(LAKSHMAN SHARMA)

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER