PER DR. B.C. GUPTA, MEMBER

        This revision petition has been filed under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 26.05.2008, passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 940 of 2008, “State Bank of India Vs. Vishnu Prasad & Ors.”, vide which, while dismissing appeal, the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Udupi on 04.4.2008, allowing the consumer complaint No. 81 of 2007, was upheld.

2.     The facts of this case are that the complainant / Respondent No.1 filed consumer complaint No. 81 of 2007 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection, 1986 before the District Forum Udupi, stating that he was the holder of a SBI Card bearing No. 5264685315331882, issued by the State Bank of India.  He received a letter on 24.02.2007 from opposite party No.3, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., stating that the complainant had given his telephonic consent for being enrolled in ‘Medisafe Insurance Policy’ with premium at Rs.4,331/-.  According to the complainant, he never gave any consent for availing the said policy, neither he gave any application for insurance coverage.  The petitioner/OP-2 debited various sums from time to time for the said insurance.  The complainant took up the matter with the opposite parties, requesting them to return the amounts so deducted and also pay him compensation for mental harassment on this score.  The complainant sought the following reliefs through this complaint:

        “Reliefs Claimed:

        Hon’ble Forum may kindly pass an order:

a.  Directing the opposite parties to return Rs.133.52, Rs. 4331/- and Rs.780/- to the complainant;

b.   Directing the opposite parties to pay an interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the above said 133.52/- Rs.4331/- and Rs.780/- from the date of debit made from the account of the complainant;

c.   Directing the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as damages to the complainant towards mental agony and harassment undergone by the complainant”.

3.     In their reply before the District Forum, the petitioner State Bank of India/OP-2 submitted that the credit card in question was issued by OP-1/Respondent No.2, which is a separate company, called “SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Ltd.”.  As such, there was no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party No.2.  There was no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party No.2.

4.     The District Forum, after taking into account the evidence of the parties, allowed the complaint vide their order dated 04.4.2008 and directed the following reliefs to the complainant:-

        “The complaint is allowed.  Opposite Party No.1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.133.52, Rs.4331/-, Rs.780/- with 12% interest from 02.03.2007 till payment.  The opposite party No.1, Opposite Party No.2 and Opposite Party No.3 are jointly and severally directed to pay to the complainant Rs.50,000/- towards punity compensation along with Rs.3500 being the cost of the proceedings and advocates fee.  The opposite Party No.1, opposite party No.2 and opposite party No.3 shall pay the amounts within one month from the date of receipt of this order”.

5.     It is clear from the above order that the District Forum held the petitioner/opposite party No.2-State Bank of India and Opposite Party No.1-SBI Cards & Payment Services Private Limited, jointly and severally liable for payment of amounts mentioned in their order, along with the Insurance Company, OP No.3.  Against this order of the District Forum, as per record, two appeals were filed before the State Commission.  Appeal No. 940 of 2008 was filed by the present petitioner-State Bank of India, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.5.2008.  Another appeal  944 of 2008 was filed by Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.-Opposite Party No.3, which was decided vide order dated 19.08.2008 of the State Commission and the direction to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation was set aside.  Further, the cost of Rs.3500/- imposed upon the OPs was reduced to Rs.1000/-, but made payable by OP-1 and OP-2 only.  The operative part of the order is as follows:

        “OP Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to refund Rs.133.52/-, Rs.4,331/-, Rs.780/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 02.03.2007 till realization.

        OP Nos. 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- as costs to the complainant”.

6.     The present petition has been filed by Opposite Party No.2-State Bank of India only, seeking reversal of the impugned order dated 26.5.2008.

7.     The complainant/Respondent No.1-Vishnu Prasad did not appear despite service of the notice upon him.  During hearing of the petition on 15.4.2014, the learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the credit card in question had not been issued by them and hence, they had no liability in the matter.  The State Commission had taken an erroneous view in dismissing appeal No. 940 of 2008 filed by them and hence, the said order should be set aside and the petitioner should be absolved of their liability to pay any amount to the complainant.  The learned counsel for the respondent No.2-SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., submitted on that day, that there was no outstanding amount against the complainant on the card.  On putting a query as to whether the order dated 19.8.2008, passed by the State Commission in Appeal No. 944 of 2008, vide which OP No.1 & 2 had been directed to pay certain amounts to the complainant, had been complied with or not, the learned counsel stated that they will check up the position in that regard.

8.     On the date of final hearing i.e. 13.5.2014, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 that in compliance of order dated 19.08.2008, passed by the State Commission, they had already sent a demand draft bearing No.700264 dated 07.5.2014 for a sum of Rs.10,760/- towards the refund of amounts, along with interest and costs as stated in the order passed by the State Commission.  It was stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the order dated 19.08.2008 stood complied with, they should be discharged from their liability of making any payment to the complainant.

9.     We have examined the entire material on record and given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced before us.  The facts on record as admitted by the parties present, indicate that the credit card in question was issued to the complainant by SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd.-OP-1.  The version of the complainant that he had never given his consent for obtaining the ‘Medisafe Insurance Policy’ has not been controverted anywhere.  The District Forum directed joint liability upon the OPs for making the required payment to the complainant, along with compensation.  The appeal filed by the petitioner/OP-2 against that order was dismissed vide order date 26.5.2008, but in the appeal filed by the insurance company, it was directed that the amount should be returned to the complainant by OP-1 & 2 only along with interest and Rs.1000/- as litigation cost.  At the present stage, when compliance of order dated 19.08.2008 has been made by Respondent No.2/OP No.1-SBI Cards & Payment Services Pvt. Ltd., it is clear that no liability is left on the petitioner to fulfil.  The stand of the petitioner that they had no privity of contract with the complainant also seems to be correct.

10.   In view of the position described above, the present revision petition is allowed, the impugned order dated 24.5.2008 is modified and the petitioner stands absolved of his liability to make any payment to the complainant since the order dated 19.08.2008 passed by the State Commission stands implemented.  It is made clear that nothing more requires to be done in the settlement of the consumer complaint in question.