AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C.Viswanath, J
The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in F.A. No. 633/2013 dated 29.01.2015.
It is the case of the Respondent/Complainant that he had secured a personal loan of Rs.58,443.11/- against Credit Card bearing No. 43467710 0126 3897 and repayment of the said amount was being made directly to the Petitioners/Opposite Party through Savings Bank Account No. 01062000004378. When the outstanding amount of loan grew higher, the Petitioners agreed with the Respondent for one time settlement of loan at Rs.19,500/-, on the condition that Rs.2840/- was to be repaid by cash on 27.06.2008; Rs.5554/- on 23.07.2008, Rs.5553/- on 22.08.2008 and Rs.5553/- on 22.09.2008 by post dated cheques, vide Petitioner's Bank letter No. S 0237747 dated 27.06.2008. After the said settlement, the Respondent tendered post-dated cheques bearing No. 631901 dated 22.07.2008 for Rs.5554/-, 631902 dated 22.08.08 for Rs.5553/- and 631903 dated 22.09.2008 for Rs.5553/- drawn on Vijaya Bank, Gora Bazar Branch as per receipts dated 27.06.2008 and 05.07.2008. After the repayment of the entire amount of one time settlement loan also, the Petitioners continued raising further demand in respect of the said Credit Card. The Respondent requested the Petitioners several times to resolve the dispute, but the Petitioners threatened the Respondent with dire consequences. Hence, Complaint was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioners alleging deficiency in service.
The Complaint was contested by the Petitioners in the Written Statement in which they contended that on 27.06.2008 a settlement letter was issued to the Respondent with a direction to pay Rs.19,500/- by four EMIs commencing from 27.06.2008 i.e. between June 2008 to September 2008, but the Respondent only paid Rs.9614/- out of the total settlement amount. Hence, as per terms and conditions of the settlement letter, the said settlement became null and void. Thereafter, the Petitioner sent a letter to the Respondent to pay outstanding dues as calculated on 19.07.2010, but the Respondent failed to clear it. The Respondent was a habitual defaulter, so his bonafide right as customer was lost and the Bank had a legal right to realize its dues as per the contract. The Petitioners denied all other allegations and prayed for dismissal of the said Complaint.
The District Forum, vide order dated 22.03.2013 allowed the Complaint on the ground that evidence available on record showed that the settlement amount, in connection with two cards of the Respondent, was paid by the Respondent by the specified date.Petitioners were directed to close the two credit accounts of the Respondent treating them as finally settled and Petitioners were not entitled to demand any amount with regard to the two cards and to cancel all demand notices. Petitioners were further directed to pay Rs.25,000/- as punitive damages for adopting unfair trade practice of demanding excess amount from the Credit Card holder, even after realizing the entire settlement amount and the said amount should be paid to State Consumer Welfare Fund and Rs.10,000/- to the Respondent for mental pain and agony caused by the Petitioners. The Petitioners were further directed to comply with the order of the Forum, strictly within one month from the date of the order, failing which for disobedience of Forums Order for each day's delay they would have to pay Rs.100/- till full satisfaction of the final order and if the said amount was collected it should be paid to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
The Petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, filed Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission, vide order dated 29.01.2015, dismissed the Appeal with a cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid by the Petitioners to the Respondent within 30 days from the date of the order. The order passed by the District Forum was affirmed.
Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the Petitioners filed the present Revision Petition before this Commission on the following grounds:
The State Commission passed the impugned order without appreciating the entire set of pleadings, evidences and exhibits, which had been put forth and relied upon by the parties.
It was evident from the face of record that merely post-dated cheques specifically cheque No. 631902 and 631903 were received by the Petitioners, which got subsequently bounced on their presentation, resulting in breach of terms and conditions of the Settlement Agreement. Thus, the State Commission erred by comparing the receipts of cheques as receipt of settlement amount.
The State Commission had prima facie committed a grave error, apparent on record as the settlement agreement was breached by the Respondent and the settlement amount was not received in time by the Petitioners as agreed.Hence, the impugned order was against the principle of law of contract.
Heard the Learned Counsel for Petitioners.None was present for the Respondent.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that as per settlement agreement dated 27.06.2008, the Respondent agreed to pay consolidated amount of Rs.19,500/- against an outstanding amount of Rs.29,864.72 by way of instalment of Rs.2840/- on 27.06.2008 by cash and Rs.16,660/- by post-dated cheques bearing no. 631901 dated 22.07.2008, 631902 dated 22.08.2008 and 631903 dated 22.09.2008 for Rs.5554, Rs.5553 and Rs.5553 respectively.Cheque No. 631902 and 631903 for Rs.5553/- each were dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and hence timely payments could not be made as per settlement agreement.After the breach of the settlement, the Respondent made irregular payments against his original outstanding as follows:-
S. No.
Date
Amount Paid
1.
10.09.2008
Rs.1220/-
2.
15.12.2008
Rs.2750/-
3.
27.01.2009
Rs.1500/-
4.
16.02.2009
Rs.1650/-
5.
24.03.2009
Rs.1600/-
On 19.07.2010, the Petitioner Bank marked a lien of Rs.20,000/- 'hold of funds' against outstanding amount of Rs.58,443.11. As he deliberately omitted the notice sent by them, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was deducted on 03.08.2010 from the account of the Respondent.
We have carefully gone through the orders passed by the State Commission as well as by the District Forum and perused the record.
The Respondent took a credit card from the Petitioner Bank and made various transactions on it. However, he was not regular in repayment and defaulted in paying his dues.The Petitioner Bank entered into a settlement with the Respondent, against an outstanding amount, for payment of instalments by way of cash and cheques as per a time schedule.The Respondent paid cash instalment and another instalment by way of cheque. The other two post-dated cheques got dishonoured due to insufficient funds. He, thus, failed to make payments on schedule, as per the settlement agreement. As per the settlement agreement, if the repayment schedule was not adhered and any cheque/cheques were dishonoured, the settlement offer would be rendered null and void and he would be required to pay the entire outstanding amount, apart from legal action by the Bank.The Petitioner Bank was well within its right to mark lien in his savings bank account "hold on funds" against the outstanding amount and insist on clearing Respondent's dues. The Respondent had defaulted in making timely payments of his dues. The Petitioner Bank had entered into a settlement agreement, which too was dishonoured by not adhering to the time schedule. Having got a concession from the Petitioner Bank in terms of a settlement, the Respondent was duty bound to adhere to the same. The tendency among borrowers to default, and later seek concessions in terms of a settlement and then not adhere to them, needs to be curbed. We, therefore, are unable to concur with the orders of the Fora below which have penalised the Petitioner.
In view of the above, the Revision Petition is allowed and the orders of the State Commission and District Forum are set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.