IMPORTANT POINT
Credit Card Provider has to justify its demand by proper merchant bills.

K. Satyanand, Member—This is an appeal filed by the unsuccessful complainant before the District Forum assailing the order of the District Forum that dismissed her complaint.

2. The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

The complainant, a government employee, being attracted by the advertisement of opposite parties obtained one credit card and submitted that she was regular in paying the bills even as per the bills issued by opposite parties. She contended that in the month of September, 2006 opposite parties sent a statement requesting the complainant to pay huge amount towards arrears and the complainant submitted that she paid more than the amount demanded towards full and final settlement. But the opposite parties demanded her to pay the amount though there were no dues. Hence she addressed a letter dated 4-1- 2006 and requested the opposite parties to close the account but there was no response.

Thereafter also the opposite parties without reversal of the wrong debts and wrong bills continued to impose penalties and finance charges and demanded the complainant to pay the sums though she was not liable to pay any amount and therefore she again addressed a letter dated 22.7.2006 protesting the demands and even then she received a statement of account requesting to pay Rs. 53,825.42 and issued a legal notice dated 10.11.2006 to her. Since she was not liable to pay any amount she got issued a reply but the reply was returned unserved and she received a reply given to the said reply notice. Hence the complaint for a direction, to the opposite parties to close the credit card and withdraw the subsequent statement of accounts and give reversal to all the penalties imposed together with compensation of Rs. 20,000 and costs of Rs. 10,000.

3. Opposite parties though entered appearance by one Mr. J. Susheel, Advocate did not choose to file counter and contest the case, hence they were set ex parte.

4. In support of her case, the complainant filed her affidavit and relied upon documents marked as Exs. A1 to All. On the other hand the opposite parties remained ex parte.

5. On a consideration of the material available on record, the District Forum came to the conclusion that the complainant failed to establish any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and accordingly dismissed the complaint.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the complainant preferred this appeal contending inter alia that the District Forum ought to have inferred that the contents of the complaint were true since the opposite party failed to file any counter denying the contents of the complaint. The District Forum ought to have seen that though the complainant paid Rs. 45,000 as against the total utilization that worked out to Rs. 40,524, the opposite party illegally showed the arrears as being Rs. 53,825.42. The opposite party failed to show the basis for the amount outstanding due obviously erroneously. The District Forum failed to see that the payment of Rs. 45,000 was acknowledged in the account statement. The District Forum failed to consider the said records and gave a finding in a hurry that the complainant failed to produce any evidence. It failed to see that the opposite party failed to contradict Ex.A4 in which the factum of payment of Rs. 45,000 was mentioned. Likewise, the opposite party failed to give response to Ex. A2 to A4 letters The District Forum failed to see that the demand of Rs. 53,825.42 was made for the first time in the reply dated 1.12.2006 of the opposite party to the legal notice issued by the complainant and marked as Ex. A7 dated 23.11.2006. It clearly answers the description of an after thought. The District Forum failed to see that the bills showing the debts were not backed by any charge slips or merchant bills to justify the demand.

7. Though notice was issued in this appeal, the respondents remained absent. In fact while R1 remained absent though duly served, the notice of R2 returned with a cryptic endorseme