Sreejith Sreedharan vs STANDARD CHARTERED BANK

PARTIES in this Order are referred to according to their ranking in the complaint before the District Forum.

THIS appeal is by the complainant challenging the order of the District Forum dismissing his complaint. The facts in this case are as follows: The complainant is the holder of Credit Card bearing No. 4129 0370 80016744 issued by the opposite party (for short, ''O.P.''). Since the said Credit Card was lost, the complainant made a request to the O.P. to issue a fresh Credit Card. Accordingly the O.P. issued a fresh Credit Card being No. 4129 0380 0510 8327. According to the O.P., the new Credit Card was issued on 11.3.2002 along with a letter. In the said letter it was stated that a new PIN would be communicated within two weeks from the date of the said letter. The grievance of the complainant is that no new PIN was given to him and, therefore, he had to face several problems when he had been to Nepal.

NO doubt the complainant has produced certain material to show that he had been to Nepal in the month of August, 2002. But it is not known whether the complainant has faced any problem in Nepal for want of money. According to the complainant, even though the O.P. had promised to send a new PIN the same was not sent to him.

THE defence of the O.P. is that they have issued the new Credit Card on 11.3.2002 along with a letter and thereafter on 19.3.2002 a new PIN was communicated to the complainant. In order to show that the complainant was communicated with a new PIN pursuant to the new Credit Card, the O.P. has not produced any evidence before the District Forum. The District Forum has dismissed the complaint only on the ground that the complainant has kept quiet for a period of five months after receipt of new Credit Card without ascertaining a new PIN in respect of the new card. This reason, in our view, is no reason at all. Whenever a Credit Card is issued by the O.P. it is the bounden duty of the O.P. to communicate a PIN to the card holder in order to enable the card holder to withdraw money whenever he requires the same, whether in India or abroad. In the instant case, the O.P. has not produced any evidence, as stated earlier, to show that a new PIN was communicated to the complainant. The O.P. has not produced any Receipt issued either by the Postal Department or courier service for having sent a new PIN to the complainant. This, in our view, is a ''Deficiency in Service''.

SO far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, since the complainant has not established with sufficient material to show what was the inconvenience caused to him, we are of the view that awarding a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation in favour of the complainant would meet the ends of justice.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) The appeal is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. (2) The complaint filed by the complainant is allowed in part with a direction to the O.P. to pay Rs. 10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint filed before the District Forum till the date of realization. (3) Parties to bear this own costs. Appeal allowed.