A consumer forum is not obliged to restrict its award of compensation to the amount sought by a complainant, the State Consumer Commission has said while dismissing ICICI bank’s appeals challenging a district forum’s orders on a complaint by a Delhi resident.
“It is not incumbent upon a forum to restrict an award to the amount claimed by the complainant, particularly when it is found that under law or in accordance with the prescribed practice, he is entitled to more,” the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission said.
The ICICI Bank had filed three separate appeals in the State Commission challenging the total compensation awarded by the district forum in the separate complaints filed by Ramesh Sharma, saying he had sought only Rs 1,00,000 as damages but the forum had granted him Rs 1.64 lakh on the basis of RBI guidelines.
“We need not therefore reduce the amount of compensation because the said amount is in accordance with the directions of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI),” the bench presided by Justice Barkat Ali Zaidi said.
Sharma in his three complaints before the district forum had alleged that he had never applied to the bank for credit cards, yet it had issued him three cards and then harassed him to try recover a total of Rs 60,113 as dues.
Allowing his complaints, the district forum had also imposed cost of Rs 10,000 on each complaint, and had asked the bank to pay Sharma double the amount it had been trying to recover from him.
The State Commission, upholding the district forum’s orders, also said, “The appellant Bank has resorted to illegal and forcible methods for recovery of an amount which was just not due. The complainant (Sharma) therefore needs to be adequately compensated for the harassment he has undergone at the hands of the appellant Bank.”
The bench also imposed costs of Rs 10,000 per appeal on the Bank.
Sharma in each of his three complaints had alleged that he had never applied for the credit cards and they were never delivered to him, adding that since December 11, 2008 the bank has been utilising its muscle-men to recover the amounts in question from him.
The bank in its written statement had contended that the cards were issued to him and were received by his secretary and that he had used the cards since their issue and in order to avoid paying the dues he is denying having received them.
The ICICI Bank had also denied the allegations that it had made threatening calls, used abusive language and employed muscle-men to recover the dues from Sharma.
The district forum had held that it was a case of unsolicited issue of credit card and had observed that the bank had resorted to the practice of supplying credit cards, without being demanded.
The forum had also found prima facie variation in the alleged signatures of Sharma on the application forms for issuance of credit cards, and his signatures on the complaints made by him.
The forum which by three separate orders had allowed the complaints of Sharma had directed the bank to stop operation of the credit cards, to reverse the dues and to pay double the penalty of the amount due.
It had also ordered the bank to pay compensation of Rs 90,000, Rs 20,000 and Rs 50,000 in complaints no 590, 591 and 592, respectively, of 2009 and Rs 10,000 as costs in each complaint.
“It becomes clear that the credit cards were supplied without asking for promotion of business by the appellant bank and the appellant bank also resorted to the practice of threats and bullying for recovery of the amount which was not only based on a false claim, but also otherwise unwarranted, unjustified and impermissible under the law,” the Delhi State Consumer Commission said referring to the district forum’s findings.
