This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection act for an order directing the opposite parties to surrender the  credit card facility availed by the complainant from opposite parties to waive all interest collected from the complainant and to pay  `75,000  as compensation with cost..

          The complainant’s case is that he availed the credit card facilities a induced by the opposite party by putting attractive offers having credit card No. was 4477466631891008 with 3 years validity which was expired during 2009. The complainant had availed the facility only one occasion and has cleared the liability immediately and there after has never used the facilities. On 19.11.08, the complainant issued a registered letter to opposite party with a request to cancel the credit card and before this letter the complainant approached opposite party several times to close the same and an official of opposite party informed the complainant to pay `441 towards dues as service charges and interest and the complainant deposited the same along with a request to cancel the card. Since there was no reply the complainant was under the impression that the opposite party cancelled the same. But to his utter surprise, on 10.3.11 he received a notice from opposite party asking to pay outstanding balance of `8973.27 in respect of his credit card. The complainant is maintaining SB account with 1^st opposite party having account NO.018101004541.The complainant received a notice again on 24.03.11 informing that the opposite party has debited an amount of `6841 from SB towards the outstanding in the credit card account. So the complainant issued a lawyer notice calling upon to redress the grievance and also to make arrangements to surrender the credit card availed. But opposite party has neither issued nor complied the demands even though they acknowledged the same. Due to the deficient service of opposite parties, he had suffered mental, physical and financial. Hence this complaint.

          In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum 1^st  opposite party  appeared and filed their version. 2^nd opposite party remains absent. 1^st opposite party had filed version admitting that credit card facility. The complainant availed the same by accepting the terms and conditions attracted.  The complainant used the credit card facility number of times. The averment that he had used it only once and cleared his liability immediately is incorrect. The customer had converted purchases into equated monthly installment and hence repaid few EMI’s. The opposite party had issued a notice to clear outstanding amount of `8973. So there is no action on the part of complainant to pay the same, the opposite party was forced to exercise its statutory right of general lien and was informed the same to the complainant. there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any claim since he has approached the Forum not with clear hands. The complainant is not entitled to get any amount from the opposite party since there is o deficiency of service on the part of opposite party and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.    

Upon the above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.

1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite

     Parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as

    prayed in the complaint?

3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1,DW1 and Exts.A1 to A8, X1 & X2.

Issue Nos. 1 to 3

          The complainant contended that even though he had informed the opposite party to close his credit card they are not ready to do so and instead they have adjusted `6841 towards the balance accrued in the credit account from the S.B account of the complainant. In order to prove his case he was examined as PW1 and produced documents such as copy of notice dt. 19.11.08issued to opposite party, notice dt. 10.03.2011 issued by 1<sup>st</sup> opposite party to complainant, letter dt.24.3.11 issued by opposite party to complainant, copy of lawyer notice, postal receipt. Acknowledgement, pay in slips dt.8.11.08 and postal receipts dt. 19.11.08 and account statement dt.7.1.08 and 20.6.12. In order to disprove the case opposite party examined DW1. The complainant contended that he had used the credit card only once. As per Ext.X1, it is seen that he had used the credit card on  20.3.08 for Bhima Jewelers, Calicut for an amount of  `9640 and as per the statement on  7.12.08 it is seen that  `441 was credited on 11.11.08 by way of cheque. According to the complainant he had issued Ext.A1 letter to discontinue the credit card facility to opposite party on 19.11.08 and Ext.A7 postal receipt substantiates that he had issued the letter to opposite party on  19.11.08. As per Ext.A8 he had paid `441 on 8.11.08 to opposite party and  according to complainant he has paid this for closing the credit facility and the same was informed to opposite party through Ext.A1 letter. According to opposite party the complainant has paid premium towards insurance policy and he deposed before the Forum that “ 46amks¯ statement 22 XhW D]tbmKn¨XmbnImWmT. 22.12.07\mWv BZyambn D]tbmKn¨Xp lumbard General InsuranceØm]\¯nte¡v insurance monthly premium AS¨XmWv. sam¯T 19 XhW ImÀUp]tbmKn¨v {]oanbT AS¨p.. But complainant denied the same and opposite party has not produced any documents including proposal etc. More over the complainant contended that he has not made any instruction to opposite party to transfer money from his Savings Bank Account to any other account. The opposite party deposed before the Forum that “insurance premium electronic modeBbn transfer sNbvXXmWv  AXn\p ]cmXn¡mcsâ instruction BhiyamWv”. But the opposite party has not produced any such written instructions made by the complainant before the Forum. More over there was no pleadings in the version that the amount was adjusted towards the premium. Yet another statement of the opposite party is that he has paid `441 towards insurance premium. So from the above discussion it is clear that the opposite parties have put forward one case and were changing it from time to time only to escape from the negligence and unfair practice done by the opposite parties. While perusing Ext.X1 it is very clear that opposite party has  adjusted the amount without any reason and hence we are of the opinion that there is grave deficiency of service on the part of opposite party in dealings with the credit card account of the complainant without closing the same. The complaint contended that the opposite party has adjusted `6841 from the complainant’s S B account unlawfully and the opposite parties are liable to refund the same to the complainant. More over opposite parties are also bound to close the credit card account of the complainant having NO.4477466631891008 and also liable to pay `5000 as compensation and `1000 as cost of this litigation to the complaint and the complainant is entitled to receive the same and order passed accordingly.

                    In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund `6841 (Rupees Six Thousand Eight Hundred and forty one only)to the complaint along with `5,000 (Rupees Five thousand   only) as compensation and `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost and to close the credit card account having No.4477466631891008 of the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant can execute the order as per the provisions of consumer protection act.

                           Sd/-                        Sd/-

                     President                Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the complainant

A1. Copy of the letter dt.19.11.2008 sent to OP

A2 & A3. Copies of the letter dt.10.3.11 and 24.3.11 issued by

            OP

A4. Copy of the lawyer notice sent to Ops

A5. Postal receipts

A6. Postal AD cards

A7.Postal receipt

A8. Pay-in-slip

 Exhibits for the opposite parties:

X1.Credit card statement

X2. Account statement of savings bank account.

Witness examined for the complainant

PW1.Complainant

Witness examined for the opposite parties

DW1.Baby Sreejith

                                                       /forwarded by order/

                                                          Senior Superintendent

Consumer disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur.