Dated : 28 Feb 2023

MRS. MANJUSRI SARKAR CHOWDHURY     MEMBER

FACTS

Complainant filed this complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties. Complainant was a SBI Credit Card holder being No.5264685315775203 and it was blocked on 15/03/2007.

            According to Complainant, he had filed a Complainant Case being No. 242 of 2009 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Unit- I and the case was disposed of on 28/05/2012 and he got an award of compensation etc. which was duly complied with by the OPs.

            Thereafter, on 06/09/2020 Opposite Parties started harassment by sending demand bills through SMS amounting of Rs.83,983/- and their recovery agents started to call the complainant and came to the complainant’s home and started harassment. The complainant tried to communicate to the Opposite Parties by orally and also wrote to issue ‘No dues certificate’ but Opposite Parties failed to do so and no steps have been taken by them.

            So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the acts of the Opposite Parties, complainant filed his case before this Commission.

            Complainant, in this case, prayed for compensation for mental harassment and agony, a direction upon the Opposite Parties to issue no dues certificate and also cost of litigation.

            However, Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 contested this case by filing a written version and also adducing evidence. In their written version, the allegation of deficiency in service was denied. Opposite Party Nos. 3 and 4 did not contest this case. So, the case was heard ex parte against them.

            Both parties have filed their evidence, relevant documents and also exchanged questionnaires and replies thereto.

POINT FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          FINDINGS

We have carefully perused the complaint petition along with annexures and the written version and the documents subsequently, thereafter.

Admittedly, Complainant had earlier taken one SBI Card and OPs had raised some bill amount for which the Complainant had ventilated his grievance earlier in District Commission, Kolkata, Unit – I, and the said case no.CC/242/2009 was disposed on 28.05.2012 with directions as mentioned below: -

          “That the petition of complaint is allowed on contest against OP No.1 with cost and ex parte as against OP Nos.3 and 4 with cost. OPs are jointly and/or severally directed to withdraw the fictitious bill and are further directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) Only for his harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.”

OPs in their written version stated that the matter had been settled earlier, and the same is also admitted by the Complainant.

But, it is found that the new situation arose as even after settlement, the OPs started harassing the Complainant by way of sending/demanding bills from 06.09.2020 amounting to Rs.83,989/-, followed by visits of the recovery agents of the OPs to the Complainant’s home.

On perusal of the complaint petition, it is noticed, that the Complainant has not claimed any money which was settled earlier but only prayed for a direction upon the OPs to issue a “No Dues Certificate” to which found in the written version there is no whisper in this regard.

Moreover, in the written version, we found that the OPs have admitted that due to lock down from the covid – 19 pandemic, the processing of account settlement was delayed from their technical processing unit, since 2019. It is very surprising that OPs are taking the plea of Covid – 19 which shook the whole world from 2020 onwards and this matter was already adjudicated in other District Commission with a separate relief on 28.05.2012.

Therefore, OPs cannot take the plea of Covid – 19 pandemic and res judicata as Complainant approached this Commission only for a direction upon the OPs to issue “No Due Certificate” along with compensation and litigation cost for his harassment.

So, keeping in view of the above-said discussion, we opined since the OPs have harassed the Complainant, even after settlement from which the Complainant had to seek for “No Dues Certificate” by knocking the door of this Commission. Therefore, we opined there was certainly a deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

In our view, if a direction be given upon the OPs to issue “No Dues Certificate” only on the earlier settlement related to the said card being no.5264685315775203 which was blocked on 15.03.2007 along with payment of compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5,000/-, it would be just and appropriate.

In the end, Complainant has succeeded in proving his case.

         Hence it is

                                                                                 ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed on contest against OP No.1 & 2 and ex parte against OP No.3 & 4.

OP No.1 to 3 are directed to issue “No Dues Certificate” to the Complainant against the SBI Card being no. 5264685315775203 which was blocked on 15.03.2007.

OP No.1 to 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) along with litigation cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand Only) to the Complainant within 30 days from the date of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry simple interest @9% p.a. from the date of default.

If the above order is not complied with by the OPs during the aforesaid period, the Complainant is at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

Dictated and corrected by me

​            Member