Sri Shyamal Gupta, Member

This Appeal is directed against the Order dated 11-05-2016 of the Ld. District Forum, Kolkata, Unit-II (Central) in C.C. No. 106/2015, whereof the complaint has been allowed in part.

Briefly narrated, case of the Complainant is that, the OPs most arbitrarily charged him a whooping sum of Rs. 55,108.16 (Rs. 48,000/- towards joining fee and Rs. 7,108.16 as service charge).  Although he lodged strong protest with the OPs, the latter did not take any positive step to redress his grievance; hence, the complaint.

The OPs did not contest the case despite receipt of notice.  So, the case was decided ex-parte.

Decision with reasons

Heard the Ld. Advocates of the parties and gone through the documents on record.

At the very outset, we would like to express our deep anguish over the manner in which Appellant has conducted his Appeal. The least expected of a litigant is that he would furnish all relevant particulars in support of his claim/allegation.  There is no point hurling accusation against the other side without adducing supporting documents to back such contention, e.g. it is alleged that in course of proceedings before the Ld. District Forum, the Respondents sent a bill of huge amount which prompted his Ld. Advocate to issue a fresh legal notice.  It is indeed surprising that the Appellant neither placed the copy of that bill before us nor explained what the bill was all about. 

In any case, it appears that the main grievance of the Appellant has been resolved as the Respondents have reversed the joining fee and incidental service charge amount. 

In view of this, the residual point left for our consideration is whether the compensation amount awarded by the Ld. District Forum was adequate or not.

The main grievance of the Appellant against the Respondents was that their representative did not keep him in the loop about the existence of Annual Fee while he was approached for availing of the said Credit Card.  However, he should have appreciated that, in his own interest, he ought to go through the terms and conditions stipulated in the proposal form/brochure of the subject card.  Therefore, simply by crying foul, the Appellant cannot shrug off all his responsibilities in the matter.

Furthermore, Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondents submitted one document, viz., ‘Customer Acknowledgement Form, which was duly signed by the Appellant.  It appears from the said form that the aspect of Joining Fee was clearly mentioned therein.  Practically, such immaculate document put at rest all ambiguities in the matter.  As a literate person, the Appellant was well capable of going through the terms and conditions applicable for the subject credit card.  If he did not do so, the bucks stop at his doorstep. 

However, on going through the impugned order, it appears that the Ld. District Forum committed error in directing the Respondents to cancel the credit card in question because no such prayer was made by the Appellant anywhere in his petition of complaint. Although the Ld. District Forum found fault with the Respondents for issuing the credit card without the consent of the Appellant, the document referred to above, placed before us by the Respondent nullify such finding. 

Considering all these facts, we are inclined to modify the impugned order.

The Appeal is allowed in part.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

The Appeal stands allowed against the Respondents in part.  The impugned order is modified to the extent that the Respondents shall not close the subject Credit Card.  Also, the Respondents need not pay any penal damage to the Ld. District Forum.