PRESENT: Sh.S.K.Rishi, Adv. for the Complainant.

         Sh.Gagandeep Toni, Adv. for OPs.

PER ASHOK RAJ BHANDARI, MEMBER

        Concisely put, the Complainant, who is a Teacher by profession, was lured by the OP Bank and had been thrusted a credit card No. 517719401856007 of the OPs, valid from Feb., 2004 to Feb.,2007, which he never used, as evident from ‘Unsigned’ Amortization Schedule (Annexure C-1), supplied by the OPs. During the last week of Dec., 2004, one Ms. Sangeeta informed him on telephone that he was very lucky to have a lottery of Rs.25,500/- from amongst the Credit Card Holders of the OP Bank under a Scheme, which would reach him soon and the lottery amount was without any kind of charges. The said lottery amount of Rs.25,500/- stood credited to his account on 23.12.2004, vide Cheque No. 725253, which was evident from Bank Statement Annexure C-2 & C-3 respectively. To his utter dismay, when he received the unsigned copy of the Amortization Schedule in the month of Jan., 2005, the said lottery was shown as EMI Amount and Principal Amount with interest with effect from 17.12.2004. He approached the OPs and told them that he never applied for any loan or entered into any agreement and neither withdrew the cash, but all in vain and he was told that he had to return the said amount through installments as shown in the Amortization Schedule. Having no option left, he started repaying the same with effect from 11.04.2005, sometimes through cheques and sometimes in cash (Annexure C-4/4A). It was alleged that to add insult to his injuries, the OPs served him a legal notice dated 16.4.2007 (Annexure C-5), informing him that  his credit card payments were inconsistent and irregular, hence legal proceeding could be taken against him as an amount of Rs.46,766.44/- was outstanding against him on the said date. Still inspite of all this, the Complainant kept on paying the installments till 20.6.2007 and had paid Rs.59,325/- till then, but the OP Bank never issued complete accounts statement regularly. There was further big shock in store for the Complainant when he received another notice dated 16.10.2007 (Annexure C-6) from the Law Firm ‘JUS JURIS’, showing the Complainant as intentional defaulter and for recovery of amount, large heartedness of the OPs was shown to settle the dispute through Conciliation. A threat was also given to the Complainant to initiate criminal and civil proceedings against him. Hence, this complaint, alleging that the aforesaid acts of the OPs amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. In the end, the Complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to refund Rs.59,325/- paid by the Complainant and Rs.54,743.49/- demanded by the OPs, along with interest @18% p.a., besides damages for harassment & defamation. Further, the Complainant prayed that the OPs be burdened with Rs.12,500/- towards costs of litigation. 

2]      Notice of the complaint was sent to OPs seeking their version of the case. 

3]      OPs in their joint written statement, while admitting the factual matrix of the case, pleaded that the card in question was issued to the Complainant on his request. It was denied that the Complainant was not aware of the loan of Rs.25,500/- given to him by the OPs. In fact, he himself agreed to the pre-approved loan sanctioned to him and gave his account number for transfer of funds. He was provided the Amortization Schedule for repayment of loan taken by him, but he did not pay as per Schedule and was a regular defaulter. He was never conveyed that funds transferred to him was a lottery money and that he need not repay the same. It was asserted that after taking the loan, the Complainant started paying the amount taken by him, though irregularly, which makes it clear that it was in his knowledge that he owed the said amount to the Bank. He had been regularly using the card as per his need, but did not return the money as per Schedule and Statements provided to him. OPs exercised their legal rights to recover their money by sending him reminders and legal notice. He was also invited to attend the conciliation camp organized by the OPs to reconcile the matter, but despite of all that he did not pay the amount, he owed to the Bank. All other material contentions of the Complainant were controverted. Pleading that there was no deficiency in service on their part, a prayer has been made for dismissal of the complaint with exemplary costs.

4]      Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

5]      We have carefully gone through the entire case thoroughly, including the complaint and the relevant documents tendered by the complainant / OPs. We also heard the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the Complainant and OP No. 1, 2 & 3. As a result of the detailed analysis of the entire case, the following points/issues have clearly emerged and certain conclusions/arrived at, accordingly:-

i]  The basic facts of the case in respect of the Complainant holding a Credit Card No.517719401856007 of OPs, valid from Feb. 2004 to Feb. 2007 and that the OPs sent him a sum of Rs.25,500/-, in December, 2004, which he utilized and for which he also paid EMIs, starting with Jan., 2005, for a period of two years, have all been established. The Complainant was to pay EMIs @ Rs.1221.88P for a period of 24 months from 17.01.2005 to 17.12.2006. As per the Complainant, the entire amount of Rs.25,500/-, along with interest @8% p.a. has already been paid by him to the OPs and as such, the amount paid by the OPs has been repaid by him in toto and now, nothing remains due towards OPs.

ii] The disputed points between the parties have been, (i) that the Complainant claims that he was informed by one Ms. Sangeeta of the OPs that he had won a lottery prize of Rs.25,500/- from amongst the Credit Card Holders of the OP Bank under some Scheme and as such, the said amount was not repayable by him. On the contrary, the OPs have contested the contention of the Complainant by saying that the said amount was a loan and not a lottery prize. It has attached the Amortization Schedule (Annexure C-1) in support of its contention by saying that not only the Complainant had applied for the loan, but he had also given his Savings Bank Account number, where the said amount was duly credited by the OPs on 17.12.2004, vide Cheque No. 726253, the said amount was duly received by the Complainant, he also got the Amortization Schedule and started paying the EMIS. Therefore, as per the OPs, there was no question of the Complainant saying that it was only a lottery prize and not the loan. In our opinion, this question, as of now, has become totally irrelevant, on account of the fact that the Complainant had duly received the said amount in his account, utilized the same for his personal use and also started repaying the EMIS and thereby, fully acknowledging the receipt of the said amount, as well as confirming its utilization/ repayment with interest. (ii) Another point of contention between the parties is that whereas, the Complainant says that he had hardly used the Credit Card for making transactions/ purchases, but the OPs say that the Complainant has been regularly using the Credit Card. In support of its contention, the OPs have annexed the Statements of Accounts, showing certain transactions amounting to Rs.32,426/- (approx.), on different dates, but no details of the Vouchers or Bills have been annexed, in support of their contention. Even accepting for a moment, that the Complainant did make these purchases, he has already paid a total sum of Rs.59,325/-, as on 20^th June, 2007, which covers not only the loan amount of Rs.25,500/- + interest with the total repayable amount of Rs.29,328/-, but also for the alleged transactions made by him against the said Credit Card.

iii] A detailed study of all the Statements of Accounts submitted by the OPs shows that the main dispute between the Complainant and the OPs is not the repayments made by the Complainant or the use of Credit Card by him, but the contentious amount only relate to interest charges, service tax, late payment charges and annual fee etc,, due to which the OPs claimed that the Complainant still owes to them Rs.54,743.49/- as on 16.10.2007. The said amount further rose to Rs.57,961.64/- as on 20.10.2007. While going through the Statement of Accounts submitted by the OPs, it is found that they have not taken into account all the amounts paid by the Complainant between 31.3.2006 and 20.6.2007, amounting to Rs.32,740/-, for which the Complainant has attached the receipts, issued by the OPs/ their Agents, for having received the said amount. These amounts were paid either in cash or through Cheque/DD by the Complainant to the OPs. The receipts are at Annexure C-19 to C-26 respectively. It appears that the OPs have not taken into account the said sum of Rs.32,740/-, while demanding the outstanding amount of Rs.54,743.49/- from the Complainant. As already stated, the OPs have further not submitted the detailed Vouchers and Bills in support of their claims of certain amounts payable by the Complainant to them for the transactions said to have been made by the Complainant.

6]      Keeping in view the above stated detailed analysis of the case, it is quite clear that the amount demanded by the OPs from the Complainant i.e. a sum of Rs.54,743.49/- as on 16.10.2007 and Rs.57,961.64/-, as on 20.10.2007, is wholly illegal and hence, untenable. The Complainant has not only liquidated the entire loan amount, along with agreed rate of interest (total Rs.29,328/-), in the shape of EMIs from time to time, but has also paid an additional about Rs.30,000/- against certain transactions said to have been made by him against the said Credit Card. Therefore, nothing remains due and payable by him to the OPs and, as such, any further claims made by the OPs against the Complainant cannot be accepted on the grounds cited by the OPs.

7]      Keeping in view the foregoings, it is our considered view that the present complaint has a lot of weight, substance and merit. We, therefore, decide the complaint accordingly. There is apparently gross deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and also indulgence in unfair trade practice on their part in claiming the wholly illegal and untenable huge amounts from the Complainant. However, the prayer of the Complainant for the refund of Rs.59,325/- paid by him to the OPs cannot be accepted on the ground that he had himself accepted the loan from the OPs, utilized the same for his personal use and also paid back the EMIs on his own. As a matter of fact, if he was not interested to take the said amount, he could have returned the entire loan amount to the OPs on the day he received the amount from them. Therefore, his prayer for OPs refunding the sum of Rs.59,325/- is not tenable. Keeping the above stated facts and circumstances in view, we decide the complaint in favour of the Complainant and against the OPs and pass the following orders:-

(i) The OPs shall waive in full all the claims raised by them against the Complainant, against the Credit Card No.517719401856007 issued by them in the name of                     the Complainant, especially the sum               of Rs.54,743.49P as on 16.10.2007/ Rs.57,961.64P as on 20.10.2007, and accordingly, issue a “No Due Certificate” to the Complainant, specifically stating that they have no claims, whatsoever against the Complainant. However, in case, the Credit Card is still alive and the Complainant has utilized the Credit Card further i.e. After 20.10.2007, he is liable to pay to the OPs the relevant amounts, against the purchases or other transactions made by him on supply of statements of Accounts, as well as related Vouchers/Bills to that effect. 

(ii) The OPs shall pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing physical harassment, mental agony and pain to the Complainant on account of making wholly untenable and illegal claims and demands of heavy amounts on the Complainant.

(iii) The OPs shall pay litigation costs of Rs.5,000/- to the Complainant. 

8]      The aforesaid order be complied with by the OPs within a period of 06 weeks from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, they shall pay the sum of Rs.15,000/- along with interest @18% per annum from the date of the filing of this complaint i.e. 17.02.2008, till the date of realization, besides paying the cost of litigation at Rs.5,000/- and also complying with the order as at (i) in the foregoings.

9]     Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file