AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This revision is directed against the order of the State Commission, West Bengal dated 14.02.2017 in Appeal No.A/1236/2014 arising out of the order of the District Forum Kolkata-I ( North) in CC No. 136 of 2012.
Briefly put, the facts relevant for the disposal of the revision petition are that respondent Pulak Sinha filed consumer complaint in the concerned District Forum alleging that he is a credit card holder of the opposite party / bank ( petitioner). The complainant defaulted in payment of some transactions, regarding which he arrived at one time settlement with the petitioner / opposite party in the year 2007. As per the terms of one time settlement, complainant was required to pay to the petitioner Rs.12,000/- in three instalments in full and final settlement of his dues against the credit account. The said amount was required to be paid in three instalments. According to the complainant, though the opposite party has received the settlement amount of Rs.12,000/-, they are harassing him by not issuing no objection certificate. The complainant, therefore, filed consumer complaint in the District forum with following prayer:
"a. Directing the opposite party to pay the damage amount for a sum of Rs.75,000/- together with Rs.15,000/- being damages for the harassment and mental pain caused to the complainant and Rs.5000/- from the opposite party;
b. a direction be given to issue NOC by the opposite party ;
c. to pass such order or orders as you honour may think fit and proper otherwise the complainant will suffer irreparable loss and injury."
The petitioner / opposite party in its written statement admitted that it had arrived at one time settlement. According to the opposite party, one time settlement amount of Rs.12,000/- was to be paid by the complainant in three instalments but the complainant failed to adhere to the condition. Therefore, opposite party cannot be termed as deficient in service.
The District Forum on consideration of the pleadings and evidence allowed the complaint and ordered thus:
"That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the OP. OP is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- only as compensation and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.7000/- only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.e. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization."
The petitioner being aggrieved of the order of the District Forum approached the State Commission in appeal. The State Commission West Bengal on re-appreciation of evidence concurred with the finding of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal. This has led to the filing of the revision petition.
Notice of the revision petition was served on the respondent / complainant. The complainant, however, instead of putting in appearance has sent brief note of his arguments and requested for disposal of revision petition after considering the written submissions.
Counsel for the petitioner has contended that orders of the Fora below are not sustainable for the reason that both the Fora below have ignored the fact that terms and conditions of one time settlement were not adhered to by the complainant. Therefore, failure of the opposite party to issue NOC cannot be termed as deficiency in service.
I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, written note of arguments sent by the respondent / complainant and material on record.
It is not disputed that petitioner Bank had given one time settlement offer to the respondent / complainant and as per the offer, the respondent / complainant was supposed to pay Rs.12,000/- in three instalments in full and final settlement of his dues against the credit card. The details of the payment made by the complainants are reproduced as under:
23.08.2017
Receipt No.9009059
Rs.2000
23.08.2017
Receipt No.9009097
Rs.1000
31.10.2007
Receipt no. 9579952
Rs. 875
23.11.2007
Receipt no.9627121
Rs.1010
02.11.2007
Receipt no.9519938
Rs.125
18.12.2007
Receipt no.10047272
Rs.1100
08.01.2008
Receipt no.10047291
Rs.500
19.01.2008
Receipt no.10047299
Rs.600
28.02.2008
Receipt no.10545234
Rs.1210
31.03.2008
Receipt no.11016429
Rs.3100
28.04.2008
Receipt no.11189182
Rs.630
Total
Rs.12,150/-
On perusal of the aforesaid details, it is clear that respondent / complainant did not comply with the terms and conditions of the one-time offer settlement and he actually made payment of Rs.12,000/- in 11 instalments, which obviously is not in accordance with the offer given by the bank which was subject to strict adherence to the payment schedule.
Thus, it is clear that complainant himself is a defaulter as he has not complied with the terms and conditions of the offer of one time settlement. Under these circumstances, the Fora below were not justified in awarding highly disproportionate compensation of Rs.50,000/-.
In view of the discussion above, I partly allow the revision petition and modify the order of the Fora below by reducing compensation for harassment and mental agony to Rs.5000/- from Rs.50,000/-. Remaining order is maintained as it is.