The main legal point established is that demanding payment of outstanding dues after settlement constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides in FA No. 4 of 2017 and FA No. 583 of 2016 on VC.

2. Both the appeals arise out of common impugned order passed by the learned District Forum, Cuttack in CC No. 139 of 2014. Therefore, both the appeals are heard together. This common order shall govern the result of both the appeals.

3. These appeals are filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. C.D.Appeal No. 04 of 2017 has been filed by OP Nos.2 to 5 whereas C.D.Appeal No. 583 of 2016 has been filed by the complainant.

4. The factual matrix leading to the case of the complainant is that complainant was issued a SBI Credit card by OP Nos. 2 to 5 during the year 2007. Complainant alleged inter alia that he has used it for two years and paid all the amount as per the bills asked by OP Nos. 2 to 5. Since the inflated bills came, the complainant asked to stop transaction and intended to surrender the credit card. Then on 26.5.2007 complainant got a letter from the OPs to pay Rs.60,000/- as one time settlement towards dues outstanding before closing of the credit card facility. Complaint paid Rs.60,000/- on different dates between 29.5.2007 to 30.7.2007. In spite of clearing of the outstanding dues, the complainant got a notice on 12.5.2012 issued on behalf of OP Nos. 2 to 5 asking him to pay Rs.2,42,453.01 to which complainant replied that he has paid all the bills. Thereafter, complainant alleged that he has been harassed by legal notice and SMS sent by OP Nos. 2 to 5 for payment of Rs.2,42,453.01 which is not at all due against him. It is also stated in the complaint that OP Nos. 2 to 5 have not issued No Dues Certificate in spite of settlement of the account. So the complaint was filed by the complainant showing unfair trade practice on the part of OP Nos. 2 to 5.

5. OP No.1 filed written version stating that OP Nos. 2 to 5 are not part of the Bank. The Credit Card related to these OPs but not OP No.1. So he submitted to exempt OP No.1 from the liability.

6. OP Nos. 2 to 5 filed written version stating that the complainant has already settled the account by payment of Rs.60,000/- in 2007 but the account was not zeroised. After OP Nos. 2 to 5 came to know through the complaint case, they have investigated into the matter and found that due to mistake of customer centric approach first notice was issued. So the mistake as pointed out is neither intentional one nor deliberate. They prayed to exempt them from liability.

7. Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order:-

'xxx xxx xxx

The OPs ( 2 to 5) will pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only to the complainant as compensation towards mental agony and harassment. The OPs ( 2 to 5) will also pay a sum of Rs.5000/- to the complainant towards cost of litigation. The prayer of the complainant to pay compensation and other expenses worth Rs.3,50,300/- are not sustainable in the present case. The above payments shall be made within a period of 45 days, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take shelter of this Court under C.P.Act, 1986.'

8. Learned counsel for the appellants in FA No. 583 of 2016 submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not allowing compensation inadequately as per the claim of the appellant/complainant made in the complaint for Rs.3,50,300/-. According to him, the learned District Forum ought to have gone through the documents filed by the complainant showing the harassment for two years up to 2014 by sending repeated messages to him to pay the amount which was admitted by OP Nos. 2 to 5 to be the Customer Centric messages. He submitted that the learned District Forum should have paid adequate compensation as per the documents already filed by the complainant. He submitted that there is no yardstick for computing the me