STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

(APPEAL NO.361 Of 2009)

                                                Date of Institution: 29.06.2009

                                                Date of Decision  : 29.10.2010.

Surinder Singh Bal aged 50 years s/o Sh. Surjan Singh, resident of House No.2646-A, MIG Super Sector 70, Mohali.

……Appellant

V e r s u s

1.                State Bank of India, Customer Service, SCO No.110-111, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh, through its Manager.

2.                State Bank of India, Cards and Payment Services, Local Head Office, 11, Parliament Street, New Delhi.

              ....Respondents.

BEFORE:          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRITAM PAL, PRESIDENT.

                    MRS. NEENA SANDHU, MEMBER

                    S. JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

Argued by:        Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

                None for Respondents.

PER JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL, MEMBER.

1.                This is complainant’s appeal under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) against the order dated 26.5.2009, passed by Learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, U.T., Chandigarh (hereinafter to be referred as District Forum), for enhancement of the compensation  awarded to him.  The ld. District Forum through the impugned order directed the OPs to withdraw the bills (Annexure C-14 to C-39) issued to the complainant and also to pay him a sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment and a sum of Rs.5,000/- as costs of litigation.  The order was to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order failing which the OPs/respondents were liable to pay the compensation of Rs.30,000/- alongwith penal interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till realization.

2.                According to the complainant/appellant the facility of credit card was issued to him by the OPs/respondents when a cheque No.190600 drawn on the Union Bank of India, Mohali was obtained from his wife as security.  On 8.4.2002 the complainant requested the OPs to close the facility of credit card and to deactivate the account.  On 26.8.2002 he was told that there was outstanding amount against him which could be settled fully and finally on his payment of Rs.10,000/-.  On 26.8.2002 he handed over the cheque amounting to Rs.10,000/- which was duly encashed by the OPs and, therefore, nothing remained due from him.  However, two years later he received a letter dated 13.4.2004 from the OP/2 showing an outstanding amount of Rs.9,241.03 to which he immediately sent a reply alongwith the receipt dated 26.8.2002 vide which he had paid the amount of Rs.10,000/- and the amount was finally settled.  He, however, received a reply (Annexure C-4) and thereafter he received summons from the Court at Delhi in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by OP against him.  According to the complainant he once could not appear on the date of hearing and a sum of Rs.500/- was imposed as penalty.  When he informed the court at Delhi that there had been full and final settlement, the OPs withdrew the complaint but thereafter they moved an application before the Lok Adalat at Kharar where the complainant was required to appear on 18.12.2004. Before the Lok Adalat also the complainant told about the full and final settlement.  It is further alleged by the complainant thereafter he received a notice dated 30.3.2006 to attend the conciliation proceedings as a sum of Rs.17,054.37 was due from him.  He claims to have attended those proceedings  and informed about the full and final settlement.  Thereafter he again received a letter dated 3.10.2006 for conciliation showing an outstanding amount of Rs.20,010.48.  He, however, had been receiving the bills and in the last bill issued in October 2008 the outstanding amount of Rs.39,716.41 was shown outstanding against him which was said to be illegal and amounted to deficiency in service  and unfair trade practice on their part.  The complainant, therefore, prayed for Rs.4 lacs as compensation for harassment and mental torture, Rs.50,000/- as litigation expenses and Rs.5,000/- as miscellaneous charges.

3.                The contention of the OPs is that a credit card was issued to the complainant but it was denied if the cheque No.190600 was obtained from his wife as security.  It was contended that the complainant never approached them to deactivate the credit card and rather he was a defaulter from the very beginning due to which the amount of Rs.10,000/- was paid by him.  Further he forced the representative of the OPs to mention “full and final settlement” on the receipt dated 26.8.2002, though there was no such offer from their side.  It was admitted that a sum of Rs.9,241.03 was due from him regarding which a letter dated 13.2.2004 was issued and subsequently other notices were also issued to him.  It was alleged that the wife of the complainant issued a cheque No.190600 dated 31.5.2001 for a sum of Rs.2,380/- against the discharge of payment in the account of the credit card but the said cheque was dishonoured regarding which a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed against the complainant instead of his wife which was later on withdrawn by the OPs.  Even the payment against the bounced cheque was not made by him.  The OPs then approached the Lok Adalat for reconciliation but the complainant refused to settle his account and was subsequently informed about the reconciliation proceedings where also he did not agree and the amount against the credit card was still due.  It was denied if they caused any harassment to the complainant or if they are liable to pay any compensation.

4.                Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their contentions

5.                After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint in terms mentioned in the opening para of this order. The complainant has filed the present appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record. However, none appeared for the respondents.

7.                A perusal of the record produced by the complainant/appellant shows that he was issued two cards and not one as alleged by him.  The last 4 digits of one of the cards were 3193 regarding which full and final settlement took place between the parties whereas there was another card, the last 4 digits of which are 9451. The complainant himself has placed the bills Annexure C-14 to C-39, which were received by him from the OPs/respondents with respect to the arrears in respect of the card No.9451. Annexure C-14 shows that a sum of Rs.11,744.97 was due from him on 13.12.2004 and this amount rose to Rs.39,716.41 on 13.10.2008. The ld. District Forum rightly accepted his contention having fully and finally settled the account with respect to credit card No.3193 vide Annexure C-1 but the complainant has not been able to show any document to suggest if he had settled the account of credit card No.9451.  Annexure C-8 is the cheque No.190600 dated 31.5.2001 issued by Harjinder Kaur, who admittedly is the wife of the complainant who made payment towards the credit card No.9451.  There is no dispute about it that the said cheque was dishonoured regarding which a complaint was filed against  the complainant instead of filing it against Harjinder Kaur.  This was precisely the deficiency in service on the part of the OPs to file the complaint against  him and not against his wife. It is not the case of the complainant if he was not holding the credit card No.9451 and rather he has himself attached the copies of the bills issued to him in this respect. The only mention made by him in the complaint in this respect is in para 12 wherein it is mentioned that the complainant regularly received the bills showing the outstanding and moreover, even after intimating the OPs about the full and final settlement, the copies of bills were received upto October 2008 and copies of bills from 2004 upto October 2008  were attached as Annexure C-14 to C-39.  It is nowhere his case if these do not pertain to the credit card No.9451 or that the said credit card had not been issued to him. It is of common knowledge that add on cards are issued by the companies which also are in the name of the principal card holder but are for use by his family members and sometimes by himself. More than one credit cards are issued to the same person also.  The issuance of another credit card No.9451 was, therefore, neither objected to by the complainant nor ever disputed by him nor the payment against those bills is shown to have been made by him. So far as credit card No.3193 is concerned, he had already made the payment vide Annexure C-1 and the said account finally stood closed.  It may be due to mistake on the part of the OPs that they have mentioned this card No. in the complaint or in the notice which actually pertained to the card No.9451.  The complainant has admitted having received the statements (Annexure C-14 to C-39) but he never objected to the issuance of the same and never challenged if the same do not pertain to him.  His only contention was that the account has been fully and finally settled but it was, in fact, in respect of credit card No.3193 and not 9451.  So, his defence to avoid payment was factually wrong.  The issuance of notices to the complainant was, therefore, not without justification nor was it intended to cause him harassment.

8.                It is true that instead of filing the complaint against Harjinder Kaur wife of the complainant, the OPs filed the complaint against  him before the Court at Delhi.  It is also true that in certain notices, the card No. has been wrongly mentioned as 3193 instead of 9451.  However, for this deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the ld. District Forum has awarded adequate compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant besides litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-. We do not find any justification for enhancing the said amount.

9.                In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

        Copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.

Pronounced.

29th October, 2010.

Sd/-

[JUSTICE PRITAM PAL]

PRESIDENT

Sd/-

[NEENA SANDHU]

MEMBER

Sd/-

[JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL]

MEMBER

hg

STATE COMMISSION

(F.A. NO. 361 OF 2009)

Argued by:   Sh. Ajit Singh, Advocate for the Appellant.

                        None for Respondents.

Dated the 29^th day of October, 2010.

ORDER

                Vide our detailed order of even date recorded separately, this appeal filed by the complainant/appellant has been dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(JAGROOP SINGH MAHAL) (JUSTICE PRITAM PAL)  (NEENA SAHDHU)

               MEMBER                            PRESIDENT                    MEMBER