BAISAKH SINGH PUNDHIRN vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

-ON the face of it the impugned order dated 5. 2. 2008, is unreasoned, laconic and have not dealt with the allegations of the appellant, whereby the complaint of the appellant seeking refund of the amount of Rs. 12,000 as well as compensation was dismissed.

ALLEGATION of the appellant leading to the impugned order in brief were that the appellant has two Credit Card Nos. 4129-0483-08616-7008 and 5543-7883-8610-1300 since 1995. In 2002, appellant realised that respondent has exploited appellant by way of debiting late charges, pick up charges, in the statement of account of both credit cards. Respondent also cheated the appellant in every possible manner. Respondent asked the appellant to deposit Rs. 12,000 as pre-condition for issuing statement of account since 1995. Accordingly appellant deposited Rs. 12,000 with the respondent. In spite of deposit of Rs. 12,000 the respondent did not furnish the statement of account since 1995. The appellant termed the action of the respondent i. e. non-supply of statement of account since 1995 in respect of both credit cards as deficiency in service on the part of the respondent. In their defence respondent took the plea that different charges are payable by the consumer and denied unjustified debit entry. The aforesaid allegation and the defence has been dealt by the District Forum in the following manner: there is no evidence on the record that OP charged over and above the due amount. No directions can be issued to the OP to supply copy of the statement of account since 1995. 13 years have already been lapsed. The jurisdiction of the Forum cannot be exercised to create evidence.

Allegation of the appellant was that on deposit of Rs. 12,000, respondent did not furnish statement of account since 1995. If such deposits are payable by a consumer, it is not understandable as to for what purpose such payment was made by the appellant and received by the respondent. This payment was made for furnishing the statement of account since 1995, if it was not possible for the respondent to furnish the statement of account, the aforesaid amount would not have been debited.

THE District Forum has dealt with the complaint in highly cryptic and sketchy manner without providing any reasons. There is no discussion of the plea raised by the respondent for not furnishing statement of account in spite of having received huge amount of Rs. 12,000 from the appellant. On the face of it the impugned order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the matter is sent back to the District Forum for deciding it afresh on merit after dealing with each and every allegation of the appellant and the plea raised by the respondent in their defence.

THE appellant shall appear before District Forum on 9. 5. 2008 for the aforesaid purpose. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and also to the concerned District Forum and thereafter the file be consigned to Record Room. Appeal allowed.